Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:44 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,254

(Yawn! Canadian politics) Scheer resigns


This was only a matter of time. Conservatives saw Trudeau as especially vulnerable and Scheer is the scapegoat for losing the election. The Conservatives gained twenty seats but precious little influence.

Strategists believe the key to Conservative victory involves continuing support in the West (and the oil patch in particular), Quebec nationalists and Main Street Ontario. The oil patch is unlikely to change its allegiance. Scheer was not very popular in Quebec, which is blamed on his mediocre French, but has other causes. The pugnacious approach favoured by Doug Ford did not help Scheer in Ontario, and especially in the GTA.

Scheer is not a natural at looking at the camera and making tough statements. Likeable enough, but unable to reconcile personal views with political realities.

The Conservatives should probably pick someone from Quebec with moderate environmental views and with Harper’s pragmatism. This can easily be done in a way consistent with Conservative values. Of course, instead they will possibly pick some Trumpian blowhard unwilling to compromise on climate concerns or social issues. Or Peter McKay, who has some positives but faces some difficult decisions.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #2  
Old 12-12-2019, 02:11 PM
Hypnagogic Jerk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rouyn-Noranda, Québec
Posts: 3,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
Strategists believe the key to Conservative victory involves continuing support in the West (and the oil patch in particular), Quebec nationalists and Main Street Ontario.
That was Mulroney's coalition, but it evaporated in the early 1990s and Harper didn't really manage to recreate it. Is there a way it could happen again?

Quote:
The Conservatives should probably pick someone from Quebec with moderate environmental views and with Harper’s pragmatism. This can easily be done in a way consistent with Conservative values.
I've heard Alain Rayes being suggested, which from what I know of him would probably satisfy these criteria. Would he be accepted by other parts of the Conservative coalition, Western Canada in particular?
__________________
The Liberal Party has brought us on the edge of a precipice.
With the Social Credit, we shall step forward.
  #3  
Old 12-12-2019, 02:39 PM
Rysto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,217
https://globalnews.ca/news/6288286/a...r-resignation/

Global News is saying that the real reason why Scheer has resigned is that it came out that party funds were being used to cover tuition at private schools for his children.
  #4  
Old 12-12-2019, 02:50 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,319
Jeez. Scheer's the official opposition in a minority government and he can't hold the jackals at bay? He must be an extremely weak leader; there's more to the story; or the Tories could be more fragmented and cutthroat then I ever imagined the Liberals were.
  #5  
Old 12-12-2019, 02:52 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rysto's link
His resignation comes as a direct result of new revelations that he was using Conservative Party money to pay for his children’s private schooling, according to Conservative sources who spoke with Global News.

Senior Conservatives say the expenditures were made without the knowledge or approval of the Conservative fund board, including the chair of the board.
...or maybe all three?
  #6  
Old 12-12-2019, 03:41 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,254
Didn't know about the use of private funds. But it is very hard to believe no one else knew about this. It’s certainly a good reason to move on, since he would struggle to win a national election.

Don’t know much about alternatives, and it will be interesting to see who is interested. The party seems very fragmented, but will eventually regain power when the pendulum sees fit.

Harper was very wise to deem Quebec “a nation within Canada” and was quite popular, initially, in Ontario. I don’t believe the Laurentians are the only path to power but it is hard to see broad enthusiasm in BC or the Maritimes for conservatism in its current form. They should put away the cudgels and evolve.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #7  
Old 12-12-2019, 08:04 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,460
CBC is reporting that the party was paying the cost differential between private school tuition in Regina and Ottawa. Basically paying for the increased living costs of moving to Ottawa. This is a lot more reasonable than outright paying for private school tuition, but still a really bad look.

I'm a bit curious if the schools in question are hoity toity private schools or evolution is bunkem religious private schools. Guessing the latter. In either case if public schools aren't good enough for your kids you shouldn't expect anyone except maybe the grandparents to chip in.
  #8  
Old 12-12-2019, 08:16 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,442
His kids are pretty young. The only private school I can think of for that age is the Regina Christian School, which goes pre-K to Gr. 12.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #9  
Old 12-12-2019, 08:31 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
His kids are pretty young. The only private school I can think of for that age is the Regina Christian School, which goes pre-K to Gr. 12.
You're saying there is only one private religious grade school in all of Regina?
  #10  
Old 12-12-2019, 09:59 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,442
Only one I can think of, offhand. There may be others.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #11  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Well, do you live in or visit Regina much? I'm not a parent so I would be damned hard pressed to actually name a particular religious grade school in my town off the top of my head, though I know they exist.
  #12  
Old 12-13-2019, 09:15 AM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,845
I mean Regina has about 250,000 people in it. There can't be too many schools overall let alone private religious ones.

https://topprivateschools.ca/schools...e=Saskatchewan lists 4:
Luther College High School
Morning Star Christian Academy
Queen City Collegiate
Western Christian College and High School

Now the Leader of the Opposition makes ~250,000 and in Ottawa you would think that would be plenty to send your kids to a private school.

Honestly it feels like an excuse by both sides.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey

Last edited by Grey; 12-13-2019 at 09:16 AM.
  #13  
Old 12-13-2019, 10:17 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
Jeez. Scheer's the official opposition in a minority government and he can't hold the jackals at bay? He must be an extremely weak leader; there's more to the story; or the Tories could be more fragmented and cutthroat then I ever imagined the Liberals were.


How did you not come to this conclusion after the last leadership race? They eventually split almost exactly 50-50 between Scheer and Bernier, who are completely different, and support almost completely different policies, and it took them 13 rounds of voting to get there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
Honestly it feels like an excuse by both sides.

It's absolutely an excuse. Does anyone really think he'd be out as leader right now if they'd won the election? Kids&Money be damned, if he was PM, they'd find an excuse to ignore all this.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #14  
Old 12-13-2019, 10:44 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,690
If the CPC plans to run another election on the main platform of "We hate Trudeau and so should you.", then they needed to dump Scheer.

How could the next election go?

"Trudeau is not a good Canadian, unlike Scheer, who is an American citizen."

"Trudeau is an elite, out of touch with regular people, unlike Scheer, who sends his kids to private school"

"Trudeau has no real business experience, and was only a teacher. Unlike Scheer, who spent a year in an insurance store, and nearly became a broker"

"Trudeau has no ethics, unlike Scheer, who used party money in a secret arrangement to send his kids to private school."


They'll need to find someone else if they want to run another election bashing Trudeau.
Alternatively, they could run an election by having a platform that shows that they have better policies and plans for the country.
  #15  
Old 12-13-2019, 02:36 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Alternatively, they could run an election by having a platform that shows that they have better policies and plans for the country.


Hey, now, no need for going all crazy-talk on us!
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #16  
Old 12-13-2019, 04:33 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,845
I'll be interested in what happens now. The last Conservative leadership contest was a parade of horrors, aside from Lisa Raitt & Michael Chong (who will never win). I mean just having candidates like Chris Alexander, Kevin O'Leary and Kellie Leitch was bad enough.

But it raises an interesting point. The Conservatives put up a leader apathetic to dealing with carbon that was a social conservative vowing to never take action on those beliefs. So...what will they focus on the message or the messenger as the reason they lost. I mean in conservative circles is the loss being attributed to a leader just not "conservative" enough or the conservative message?
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #17  
Old 12-13-2019, 08:19 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,690
I am not joking when I say that in many places, I am reading that Conservatives feel that they did not hate Trudeau passionately enough, and that is why they lost.

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 12-13-2019 at 08:19 PM.
  #18  
Old 12-13-2019, 08:22 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,442
Links?
  #19  
Old 12-13-2019, 08:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Don't bother. It's going to be people they knew in high school posting on Facebook.
  #20  
Old 12-14-2019, 01:07 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Don't bother. It's going to be people they knew in high school posting on Facebook.
Close enough; Comments site on the National Post. It's becoming the Fox News of Canadian media.
  #21  
Old 12-14-2019, 01:40 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
No, that's a lot worse reference -- not close enough.
  #22  
Old 12-14-2019, 10:04 AM
Rysto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,217
I'm seeing a fair number of commentators focus on Scheer being a social conservative who couldn't articulate a coherent message on social issues. That was certainly a big issue, but by focusing on that being the main issue they're side stepping the fact that the other big issue was that the Conservatives didn't have a plausible plan on climate change. If they continue to stick their heads in the ground on the issue they're going to have an even tougher time in the next election, as support for policies that fight climate change aren't likely to go any lower over the next 2-4 years.
  #23  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:13 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,450
As far as I recall, the main conservative message was they were going to abolish the carbon tax. I have the impression that their main message on climate change was to pump as much oil as possible as fast as possible. I guess that got them all the seats in Alberta and all but one in Saskatchewan, but that's not enough to win an election. But why should I or any voter care if the party pays his kids' religious school tuition?

But this is the same Conservative party that chose a creationist as Minister of Science. How could any person of reason support such a travesty?
  #24  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:26 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,437
The Conservatives in Canada have the same problem as the Democrats in the US. Their 'base' is completely at odds with the populations in the areas they need to win.

Picking a leader from Quebec would certainly help regain votes down east. But it would be a total non-starter in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Picking a western, pro-oil leader would make Alberta and Saskatchewan happy, but result in a repeat of the last election.

Like the Democrats in the U.S., the Conservatives simply have to hope that the current incumbent screws up so badly that the next election is a referendum on him. Luckily for them and unluckily for Canada, Trudeau is perfectly capable of screwing up that badly.
  #25  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
That's a rather insulting analysis to everyone involved. Why would Alberta automatically reject a Quebcer? You're really just that prejudiced? Would an English Quebecer pass muster?

This isn't like the Democrats' problems at all. At a time when climate change is becoming a major voting issue, the Conservatives have embraced being the oil patch party. So now you're stuck with that being the only constituency that feels loyal to you.
  #26  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:39 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,437
The issues are different, but the effect is the same - a party split on geographic and urban/rural lines, needing to appeal to both sides to win, but having each side opposed to the needs of the other.

Maybe Albertans would go for a Quebec politician who supported what Alberta wants, but I don't believe that person could be elected in Quebec and make it to the leadership. It's not about being a Quebec native particularly, but the fact that the demands of the west are in direct opposition to the demands of Quebec.

For example, Albertans want equalization modified. Alberta is the largest contributor to equalization, and Quebec the largest beneficiary. How do you reconcile that?

Alberta is an oil and gas province. Quebec is not. Quebec has the natural advantage of huge hydro resources, and gets 40% of its power from hydro. People from Quebec are generally further to the left and demand more government services and accept higher taxes than the people out west.

All of this means that the needs and incentives of the people of Quebec are very different than those of the people out in the western prairies, so it's hard to imagine a politician who can get elected in Quebec while saying and doing the things that would appeal to western voters.

So maybe put the prejudice card back in the deck. It has nothing to do with that, but just with the difficulty in aligning the interests of Quebec with the interests of Western Canada.
  #27  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Like, what demands of Alberta and Quebec opposites on? Other than equalization, which I guess is a given out your way. Every province is less in love with oil and gas than Alberta is. Ontario is not an oil&gas province either, will Albertans accept an Ontario PM? BC just fucked with your pipeline, will you accept a BC leader?

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-14-2019 at 05:48 PM.
  #28  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:56 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Like, what demands of Alberta and Quebec opposites on? Other than equalization, which I guess is a given out your way. Every province is less in love with oil and gas than Alberta is. Ontario is not an oil&gas province either, will Albertans accept an Ontario PM? BC just fucked with your pipeline, will you accept a BC leader?
If BC elects a leader that promises to build pipelines to Alberta, Albertans would support that leader. The question is whether such a leader could get elected in BC. I think that it's more likely than a pro-Alberta politician coming out of Quebec, if for no other reason than that BC is more closely aligned with Alberta and has a significant population (outside of the coast) that are more like Albertans in temperament and incentives. And on many issues BC and Alberta would be aligned. For example, BC could easily accept a reformulation of equalization in a way that Quebec never would, simply because BC is not a recipient of equalization funds.

But if the only way a BC politician could be elected was to oppose pipelines, support even higher carbon taxes and promise to leave equalization untouched, then I'd say the same thing - Alberta would never accept a BC politician as Conservative Leader.
  #29  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:59 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Like, what demands of Alberta and Quebec opposites on? Other than equalization, which I guess is a given out your way. Every province is less in love with oil and gas than Alberta is. Ontario is not an oil&gas province either, will Albertans accept an Ontario PM? BC just fucked with your pipeline, will you accept a BC leader?
Ontario can still elect leaders like Doug Ford, and outside the GTA there are a lot of people broadly sympathetic with Alberta and who still want lower taxes, lower energy prices and smaller government.

But if Conservatives in Ontario could only be elected by promising to shut down western oil and gas, they'd be unacceptable too.
  #30  
Old 12-14-2019, 06:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Oh, Alberta wants low energy prices, do they? Interesting.

If Albertans want lower electricity costs for Albertans, build some nukes or some kind of long term investment that'll help. Don't expect Ottawa to fix the oil industry. Don't expect them to back off on climate change.
  #31  
Old 12-14-2019, 07:03 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,254
Conservative values can include freedom from government, personal responsibility, market freedom, traditional religious and social values.

A Quebecker with these is a non-starter our West? Maybe. But the alternative is to vote Liberal, for the most part. Everyone knows equalization is a dog’s breakfast, and the will to open up this can of worms is not yet as large as the won’t. Regardless of where the leader is from.

Conservatives need a more popular immigration and climate policy. Period. They should do this by cracking down on illegal immigration, more strongly encouraging legal immigration, stressing the economic, free market and community benefits to taking strong action on climate change, and emphasize personal responsibility and freedom from government with regards to social issues. This makes them electable, and in no way is a retreat from principle.

This won’t happen.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #32  
Old 12-14-2019, 07:24 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Yeah, it seems unlikely. The Conservatives have dug their heels in and demand an oil friendly government. I don't want to shut down the industry but it's time to get serious about getting Alberta ready for the inevitable changes acoming. Sweet lord, we banned asbestos in Canada and for decades still propped up the industry. There's political room here.
  #33  
Old 12-14-2019, 09:35 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Like, what demands of Alberta and Quebec opposites on? Other than equalization, which I guess is a given out your way. Every province is less in love with oil and gas than Alberta is. Ontario is not an oil&gas province either, will Albertans accept an Ontario PM? BC just fucked with your pipeline, will you accept a BC leader?
Alberta is generally the most conservative province, while Quebec is generally the most liberal province. Obviously there are exceptions: Maxime Bernier, former Quebec MP, is extremely conservative, and prior to this election was able to win his seat in Quebec.

Voters in most Canadian provinces support the pipeline between Alberta and BC, which is controversial (environmental damage, but economic benefits to Alberta). Even the residents of BC supported the pipeline (the BC government was very opposed to this, however). The only province that did not support the pipeline was... Quebec.

A Quebec MP who supports the pipeline would have a hard time winning in Quebec, and a Quebec MP who did not support the pipeline would have a hard time winning the Conservative leadership. That's just one issue. A socially conservative MP would see benefits in Alberta and penalties in Quebec... and most Conservative party members are from the West (Alberta and Saskatchewan). I suspect Mr. Bernier had done so well in the last Conservative leadership contest because he was able to get the support of many social conservative party members.
  #34  
Old 12-14-2019, 09:49 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
How much of a shit do people in Quebec really give about the pipeline? Yes, polls can show they don't favor it but I bet it's low on their voting priorities.
  #35  
Old 12-14-2019, 11:30 PM
Hypnagogic Jerk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rouyn-Noranda, Québec
Posts: 3,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
How much of a shit do people in Quebec really give about the pipeline? Yes, polls can show they don't favor it but I bet it's low on their voting priorities.
Let me explain a few things, which I don't believe were really mentioned in English Canadian media (and especially in Alberta). I'll try to make it as short as possible, but it does require an explanation of some length.

Let's go back to... say 2014, when the proposed Energy East pipeline was in the news, and polls showed that about 50% of Quebec residents favoured its construction. Yes, really. What were the concerns of those opposed? The proposed path of the pipeline would follow close to the Saint Lawrence River, which meant that a possible leak would cause serious damages to agriculture in the Saint Lawrence valley, and possibly to the water supply of several cities. Nevertheless, the feel was mostly ambivalence, and this despite the fact that this pipeline -- which is intended to allow Alberta to disenclave its oil production by sending oil to be transformed in Eastern Canada -- would not have any real positive effects for Quebec. People were essentially saying, make your case.

So at this point, what groups in Quebec were asking was for TransCanada to revise the pipeline's path in order to reduce risks, and subject the project to a provincial environmental review. However, TransCanada completely rejected these requests, probably surmising that pipelines are a federal responsibility, so what Quebecers or the Quebec government thought was irrelevant: the federal would decide. I remember that it was reported at the time that documents about the project weren't even available in French.

Then, what happened was that TransCanada tried to flood Quebec with a public relations/astroturfing campaign, which obviously was reported in the media and didn't really impress people. Essentially, this big multinational company wants to build a pipeline, but instead of working with the people who'll potentially be affected by it to negotiate a project that's acceptable to all sides, they'll force their way through and get people's support with their propaganda. So unsurprisingly, support for the project plummeted.

And then, TransCanada announces that they're cancelling the project, citing that it would not be profitable in the current economic climate, but cannot stop themselves from sending barbs Quebec's way in their announcement. And since then, everybody in Alberta blames Quebec for cancelling a project that the promoter cancelled themselves citing economic concerns. Part of me cannot help but wonder if Energy East was so marginally profitable that the only way it could have made money was for it to be forced through, with the originally proposed path, no environmental review, and not even translating the documents in French. So any objection by anybody in Quebec that they'd have to take into account would make it unprofitable and lead to its cancellation. What, was it also intended to be made of plastic straws held together with chewing gum?!

So at this point, what do I personally think about it? First, let me say that I am sympathetic to the concerns of Albertans. I understand that their economy is largely based on the oil industry, and that right now they have trouble selling this oil at reasonable prices because of their being enclaved within Canada. Albertans are clearly aware that we are moving towards an economy less dependent on oil, and they want to have some money in order to manage this economic transition.

However, at this point, Albertans are so angry and have made this whole issue so much into a zero-sum game that there's no way I can imagine myself supporting a pipeline. I'm not an environmental extremist; while I believe we need to address climate change, I realize that we're not about to completely stop our dependence on oil, and even though Alberta's oil objectively is more polluting than other sources, it is an important part of Canada's economy. But now some Albertans, who appear to have made what are essentially the concerns of private companies into their national concerns, and to have adopted the rhetoric of these companies as their own talking points, just want to punish Quebec for what we've done, which from my standpoint is essentially simply raise questions about a project before approving it. At this point I'm not sure if the concern even is to find markets for Alberta's hydrocarbons in order to finance its energy transition any longer, or rather to get a pipeline, any pipeline, built, in order to punish Quebec. See these Wexit supporters (who I realize are loons and not representative of Albertans in general) chanting "build the pipeline and make Quebec pay for it!", and Jason Kenney (who I actually think is a very good and very bright politician), saying in response to Quebec having a shortage of propane due to the strike at Canadian National, "build a pipeline!" I'm sure there were YouTube videos titled "Alberta Premier Kenney DESTROYS Quebec!" made in response to this, but come on: even if the Energy East pipeline had been built, there's no way we can use a pipeline made to transport crude oil to the Maritimes to send propane gas to Quebec, right?

So why should I support such a project? If they do get their pipeline, to them it'll mean that they are strong and we are weak, so what will they demand next? At this point, it's no longer even about the environment to me, it's about not being trampled upon.

And of course, there's this whole equalization thing, which I don't really want to talk about because I think it's irrelevant. First, nobody seems to understand how this program even works; listening to some Albertans, you'd believe that there's a line in their province's budget saying "Paying for Quebec's daycare centres -- $12 billion" which is ridiculous for many reasons, but most importantly, these are two completely different issues. There is nothing in the Canadian constitution requiring citizens of provinces receiving equalization payments to abandon their political opinions and adopt Alberta's government's or oil companies'. Some Albertans may have decided that they are Canada's economic engine and that this wouldn't be a first world country if it weren't for them, and that as such they should get to decide everything for the country, but that's not how it works.
  #36  
Old 12-14-2019, 11:36 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,845
It’s amazing really. No one seems able to define the Conservative party without oil and pipelines, though I’ll admit to only skimming the latest replies. Seems like a fundamental failure for a federal party, but not for a smaller regional party. That’s worrisome.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #37  
Old 12-15-2019, 01:00 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,254
I agree the pipeline complicates the issues regarding choosing a candidate considerably. But if they can’t reach a compromise, they will struggle nationally. They need to make a better case to Quebec, and (alas) jobs may be a good starting point. A Western candidate needs to win some votes in the GTA and Maritimes, if not Quebec. And the party is both divided, and some members see reasonable compromises as “abandoning Conservative principles”.

Quebecois aren’t wrong to care about environmental issues. I see pipelines as necessary infrastructure, but routes need to be intelligently chosen, crisis mitigation should exist and groups should be consulted (to a reasonable degree). Quebec needs oil, but Alberta has sometimes lacked diplomacy. I certainly understand their frustration - if reasonable Notley couldn’t do it with Trudeau, I don’t know who could.

That being said, I do think preventing tankers everywhere on the West Coast is unrealistic. The transition away from oil will take much longer than many people would want.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #38  
Old 12-15-2019, 02:15 AM
Spoons is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 19,830
I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I do want to thank Hypnagogic Jerk for his well-thought-out and informative post.
  #39  
Old 12-15-2019, 12:31 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Like the Democrats in the U.S., the Conservatives simply have to hope that the current incumbent screws up so badly that the next election is a referendum on him. Luckily for them and unluckily for Canada, Trudeau is perfectly capable of screwing up that badly.
I'm not a great fan of Trudeau, and he certainly has had his share of screw-ups.

However, if the Conservative Party's plan is to simply *hope* that the electorate comes to hate the man as much as they do.... Well that's a pretty poor platform.

As others have stated so well, it would appear that many Canadians vote on the platforms, and did not like the "cancel the carbon tax and replace it with pumping more oil" ideas that they heard last election.

Pipelines are no-win for any party, not just the CPC. There is no good solution here that will please every region of the country. Heck, there is no good solution that will not anger portions of the country. No party is immune to this problem. The CPC has merely chosen one solid path - that of the oil corporations. And as we've seen, when the world price of oil goes down, and projects are no longer economically feasible - the reaction from the oil patch is often the same; Blame the federal government.
  #40  
Old 12-15-2019, 12:52 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,254
I thank Hypnagogic Jerk for his summation of the pipeline problem.

Too much of Canadian politics, including Quebec, involve “the concerns of private companies”. Many industries are cozy duopolies not looking for competition to challenge (de facto) monopoly profits.

Not all Quebecois loudly support SNC or Bombardier, but they understand the importance of jobs, even if subsidized. If Albertans equate employment with the ability to export product, it is understandable they attach (too much?) concern to private companies that do this. Harper was willing to take the American government to task over this; though his zeal was possibly counterproductive in retrospect. A company was threatened due to initial indifference to local opinion and later the prospect of endless legal wrangling. But the failure benefits no one - not a government that wasted $4B, nor the damping effect on foreign investment, nor the government or national business reputation, nor the provinces which ultimately do need oil. Canada is a country of regions. But a rising tide lifts all boats. Being a country of boiling lobsters pulling others back into the water doesn’t help us in the long term.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 12-15-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #41  
Old 12-16-2019, 10:17 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
It’s amazing really. No one seems able to define the Conservative party without oil and pipelines, though I’ll admit to only skimming the latest replies. Seems like a fundamental failure for a federal party, but not for a smaller regional party. That’s worrisome.

That's the essential problem right there - the modern CPC is essentially a regional party. Don't forget the history of where the modern party came from. The old PC party was a federal party, that stood a decent chance of winning in every region, partly because they managed to find a compromise between the various types of conservative voters.

But then, some of the western members of that compromise coalition decided they were unhappy with the compromises needed to win as the PCs, and formed the Reform Party, which pretty much killed the chances for a Conservative government, because of vote splitting. After losing out to the Liberals for a decade or so, they tried to "re-unify" the old coalition of the old PC party, but in reality, all this was was the remaining PC party surrendering to the Reform faction, and letting that regional party take over the federal party machinery. They won for a few elections under Harper, because a lot of the PC voters were willing to give the new party a shot, and still weren't ready to vote Liberal or NDP, but since they keep pushing the old Reform platform, they've lost a lot of those old PC voters who didn't want Reform back in the 90s.

To be a true Federal Party in Canada, you need to be able to compromise, because of the real regional differences in Canada. But "compromise" has become anathema to the modern Conservative party. Until that changes, they'll likely stay stuck as a western regional party.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #42  
Old 12-16-2019, 11:54 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I do want to thank Hypnagogic Jerk for his well-thought-out and informative post.
Agreed.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #43  
Old 12-16-2019, 12:05 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
Alberta is generally the most conservative province, while Quebec is generally the most liberal province. Obviously there are exceptions: Maxime Bernier, former Quebec MP, is extremely conservative, and prior to this election was able to win his seat in Quebec.
I wouldn’t agree that hat Quebec is the most liberal-leftist province. It may appear that way because of the prominence of the PQ, which had a strong social-democratic component, but for the past 40 years, the dominant issue has been sovereignty, not a traditional left-right split. The PQ was a sovereignist party that had ancillary social democratic positions.

But that type of sovereigntist party wasn’t guaranteed. There has always been a strong conservative element in Quebec, such as the Union Nationale. If Daniel Johnson père hadn’t died suddenly, I could see an alternative party structure where the UN became increasingly sovereigntist, but from a conservative perspective. The sovereignty debate likely would have played out in much the same way, but with a conservative sovereigntist party leading the fight.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #44  
Old 12-16-2019, 08:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
I should remind you that the Bloc Quebecois was initially formed with more former Prog, Conservatives than Liberals. Afaik, the sovereignty movement has always been a mixed bag as far as nailing down a left-right position.

Quebec in general appreciates social programs. I guess some Americans would say that's because they are so darn homogeneous. Except for money and the ethnic vote.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-16-2019 at 08:17 PM.
  #45  
Old 12-17-2019, 10:07 PM
Hypnagogic Jerk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rouyn-Noranda, Québec
Posts: 3,215
Thank you Spoons, Dr_Paprika and Northern Piper for your kind words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
If Albertans equate employment with the ability to export product, it is understandable they attach (too much?) concern to private companies that do this.
I understand this. Obviously the economic health of Alberta (or any other place) can be measured by the financial health of companies doing business there, and this has an impact on people residing there. However, we need to remember that what companies are telling us (and the same is true for our governments, by the way) is propaganda aimed at gaining our support.

From my standpoint, TransCanada cancelled a proposed oil pipeline that was supposed to go from Alberta to the Maritimes, citing that this pipeline would not be profitable in the current economic climate -- which I accept as the likely reason -- but still managed to blame "Quebec" in their announcement. I guess this was a way to find a scapegoat for their decision, which was no doubt a disappointment for many Albertans, but it's not necessarily the truth. The vibe I get from Alberta is that many people are repeating propaganda claims that follow a tempting narrative, but are actually untrue and easily disproved. The claim that the Energy East pipeline was intended to allow Quebec to buy ethical Albertan instead of bloody Saudi oil is one of these. (Quebec doesn't import oil from Saudi Arabia, it used to import a lot from Algeria but now most oil used in Quebec is from Canada and therefore probably from Alberta, and Energy East was intended to give Albertan companies a better access to the export market via the Maritimes, not to the Quebec market.)
  #46  
Old 12-19-2019, 12:24 AM
Hypnagogic Jerk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rouyn-Noranda, Québec
Posts: 3,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I wouldn’t agree that hat Quebec is the most liberal-leftist province. It may appear that way because of the prominence of the PQ, which had a strong social-democratic component, but for the past 40 years, the dominant issue has been sovereignty, not a traditional left-right split. The PQ was a sovereignist party that had ancillary social democratic positions.
I also disagree that we can identify a "most liberal" or "most conservative" province in Canada, at least in the way these terms are used today. I feel that these labels are ill-defined to begin with, and describe a wide range of political ideas. Maxime Bernier, for example, is not "extremely conservative": he's more of a libertarian (and even more of a screw-up ) and was repeatedly elected because the region where he lives, the Beauce, tends to hold small-town free enterprise values. The fact that his father was a former respected MP didn't cause him any harm either. If he's perceived as extremely conservative by some Canadians, it's because his People's Party of Canada attracted some right-wing conspiracy-minded people, but I feel that's more of an unfortunate consequence of how political coalitions are set up today.

What I will say, though, is that I feel that English Canada is a nation founded on conservative principles, in the late 18th to 19th century meaning of the term. After all, Loyalists played an important role in the settlement of Canada by English speakers, and there are many monuments in their honour especially in Southern Ontario, which always confuses visiting Americans. English Canada, essentially, saw its birth in the rejection of the liberal values that drove the Founding Fathers of the United States. This may seem strange today, since Canadians typically feel they are "more liberal" than Americans, but that's another example of these terms being ill-defined. But I do sense that much of what distinguishes English Canada today finds its origin in these 19th century conservative values. Quebec, on the other hand, while being a North American nation, has also been influenced by French republican values, which are definitely "liberal" in the 18th to 19th century sense. And we do see this influence when we compare Quebec politics with the politics of the rest of Canada. So I would agree that Quebec is "more liberal" than other Canadian provinces -- Ontario and the Maritimes at least -- but not in the way these terms are used today or Kimera757 meant them.
  #47  
Old 12-19-2019, 09:00 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Jerk View Post
What I will say, though, is that I feel that English Canada is a nation founded on conservative principles, in the late 18th to 19th century meaning of the term. After all, Loyalists played an important role in the settlement of Canada by English speakers, and there are many monuments in their honour especially in Southern Ontario, which always confuses visiting Americans.
This isn't a thing that regularly happens. If ever. Loyalist monuments are not common sights. I live in a city of 200,000 people and cannot tell you where our Loyalist monuments are or if we have any. Hell, I used to live in KINGSTON, and offhand cannot remember where the loyalist monuments are, and that's in a city with a high school called "Loyalist." Maybe that counts as a monument.

Anyway, the other thing about blanket-assigning "liberal" and "conservative" appellations to provinces is that within provinces there's no consistency. The voting patterns between Toronto Danforth, Hamilton Mountain and Barrie-Innisfil, or between Lac-Saint-Louis, Megantic-L'Erable and Sherbrooke are wildly different.

No federal political party adjusts their message to a province, especially not the big ones; they message by AREA, often down to the riding level. The Conservatives in the last election failed to win in part because they failed in their message, specifically, to Toronto and the immediate surrounding area, thus shanking many, many winnable seats. Their message did fine in other parts of Ontario, but other parts of Ontario aren't like Toronto or Mississauga any more than they're like Quebec or Nova Scotia. Richmond Hill and Thunder Bay are futher apart than New York City and Knoxville, and as culturally different.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 12-19-2019 at 09:06 AM.
  #48  
Old 12-19-2019, 11:17 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,254
There was a news item yesterday which implied Scheer’s office received $900,000 from the party; whereby the usual amount was about $200,000. I’ve no reason to disbelieve rumours the money was spent on support staff, and the party is not providing details. But it is another point that will displease supporters and justify Scheer’s departure.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #49  
Old 12-19-2019, 07:07 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,119
It's hard to exaggerate how odd it is that Scheer is getting dumped. This isn't normal.

Recently we did have the odd case of the Liberals turfing both Stephane Dion and Michael (ha ha ha ha ha) Ignatieff after one loss, but historically, leaders keep their jobs for at least one go-around. What's especially odd here is that Trudeau was up for first re-election - and as I've said before, in Canada, a party given a fresh mandate will always always get re-elected at least once; the very, very few examples to the contrary were cases were the previous PM stayed on and re-won the job (John A. MacDonald bookended Alexandr MAckenzie, Trudeau 1.0 bookended Joe Clark, and King bookended Bennett. King also bookended Meighen, but Meighen didn't take power in an election.) The fact Scheer won the popular vote and reduced ol' Justin Jolson to a minority is, by Canadian standards, actually a pretty decent performance for a first election. And Scheer is only 40 so it's not like he's past the point of learning.

So part of it is, I guess, the fact he seems a little too self-generous with party dough, but I suspect maybe it's just really obviously apparent that he was a terrible choice. Jag Singh didn't exactly lead the NDP to glory, but he also doesn't seem like a stumbling doofus, so the Dipper appear happy to just let him grow in the job.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #50  
Old 12-19-2019, 08:14 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
There was a news item yesterday which implied Scheer’s office received $900,000 from the party; whereby the usual amount was about $200,000. I’ve no reason to disbelieve rumours the money was spent on support staff, and the party is not providing details. But it is another point that will displease supporters and justify Scheer’s departure.
And there is now a wall of silence around the $900,000

Quote:
Global News also asked whether Scheer’s salary top-up as leader or any cost of living differentials were part of the expenses but the party would not answer.

Scheer’s office also declined to comment on the rise in expenses, saying this was a matter for the party.

The party has not answered questions on who signed off on the $900,000 expenditure.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017