The Canadian Election

Great Debates
121

I belong to no party. I intend to vote Conservative because

A) They and the Liberals are closer to my personal opinions than the other parties, and

B) I believe the Liberals’ being in power has resulted in them becoming extremely corrupt, and it’s beneficial to kick the bums out now and then.

The Liberals’ leader, Paul Martin, is, IMHO, a wildly overrated leader, maybe the most overrated in recent history; he strikes me as being of limited intellect, questionable ethics, and seems short of ideas. The Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, is a bright and honest man. I don’t agree with Harper on any more issues than I do with Martin, but if it’s a toss up on issues I’ll take the smarter guy with fewer thieves in his party.

122

No offence taken. I’ve said a lot of things in this thread, and welcome debate. Also, a lot of what I’ve said that you respond to is by its nature impressionistic, not empiricist, and arguably could fit just as well in IMHO.

I must confess, I was thinking more of the founding myths, as you comment later on - I wasn’t comparing the state of government involvement in both countries right at Confederation, because I don’t see those as parallell. I don’t think you can compare government involvement during a total war situation with the economic situation in a neighbour that is not at war.

Point taken, and the building of the CPR occurred in a similar fashion. However, the building of the CPR was driven entirely by politics - the federal government promised British Columbia that it would build a transcontinental railway as an inducement to B.C. entering Confederation (see British Columbia Terms of Union, para. 11). As well, the financing came largely from Britain, because the entrepreneurs of Canada didn’t have the capital, and a lot of the skills to build it came from executives imported from the U.S., like Van Horne. Although the CPR ended up in possession, it was very much a government job. I didn’t think that was the case with the Union Pacific, but I’m open to correction. Obviously, a link to California was important to the national development of the U.S., but was the UP instigated and fostered largely by the federal government?

True enough - this sort of government involvement is quite common in Canada as well. But tell me - do you have a state that:

a) owns the electrical utility, and has a monopoly on all sales of electricity to the public, both consumers and industry?

b) owns the natural gas utility, and has a monopoly on all sales of natural gas to the public, both consumers and industry?

c) owns the telephone company and until very recently, had a monopoly on telephone services to the public, both consumers and industry?

d) owns the bus line within the province?

e) until recently owned all uranium mines?

And acquired most of these assets by nationalising them?

And att the national level, had a federal government that until recently:

a) owned the single major airline in the country?

b) owned one of the two major railroads?

c) owned a nation-wide chain of gas stations, selling directly to the public?

d) has implemented wage & price controls in peace-time?

e) took control over the marketing and pricing of petroleum produced in the country?

And, do your federal and state governments together run a public health care system from tax dollars, from which private enterprise is largely excluded?

Those are the sorts of things I mean by direct government intervention in the economy. If you can point to similar examples at either the state or federal level in the U.S., I’d be willing to reconsider my position.

My point here is that when there’s a discussion about government involvement in the economy, military spending is not normally considered exceptional, since the military is one of the functions that is almost universally considered a government function (except by some nuts in Michigan and Montana :rolleyes: ). Yes, our levels of military spending are quite different, but I’m not sure that’s all that relevant to a discussion of a country’s approach to the government’s role in the economy generally.

Well, can you tell me of books, t.v. programs, and folk songs dedicated to celebrating the U.S. government’s role in building the infrastructure of the U.S.?

True, but politicians on both sides of the border keep referring back to the creation myths for inspiration. Much of what President Bush says about overthrowing Saddam and building democracy in Iraq, in my opinion, is an echo of the U.S. revolutionary myths. Those myths may have deep resonance with Americans, but they don’t register with Canadians in the same way. As long as politicians keep referring to the creation myths, they’re still relevant, in my opinion.

I would answer that this way: having lived in the U.S., and visited Australia, I felt more at home in Australia. The political institutions and the regional dynamic just seemed more natural to me.

Not at all - you make good points.

123

Really? I thought your party system was actually very firmly entrenched in the electoral laws of the states.

For example, your primaries. Those are subject to state electoral laws, right? And in most states you have to register as a voter under state law to be able to participate? That’s not the case in Canada. To vote for the nomination of a particular candidate by your party, you just take out a membership in the local riding association of that party, which is treated as a private, contractual association. Your voting rights in the nomination process depend entirely on the internal party constitution, just as if you’d joined the Rotary or the Lions. And the votes are conducted entirely by the party officials, not by state officials.

And don’t most states distinguish between the process for nominating presidential candidates? I was under the impression that the state laws make it pretty easy for the Republicans and Democrats to nominate their guys under the state laws, while third party candidates (e.g. - Nader) have to jump through a lot more hoops to get on the ballot. That’s not the case in Canada - the electoral laws set out how a person gets on the ballot for the general election, and they’re the same rules whether you’re the incumbent Prime Minister or Lord Such of the Raving Monster Looney Party.

124

I’ll answer this first because it’s shorter:

The states run the primaries as a courtesy to the parties. The parties have no obligation to use that approach; candidates can be and sometimes are selected only at party conventions or even in “smoke-filled rooms”. You do have to register in order to vote, but you do *not * have to declare a party affiliation. None is required to vote in the general election, and you do not have to choose only between the major parties’ candidates, either. Depending on the state, you may or may not have to declare a party affiliation to vote in a primary, although you may only select one party’s ballot if you do. Even at that, party affiliation can generally be changed on the spot. For state and local issues in which the final question is decided at that time, no party affiliation need be declared then, either. The candidates listed on the general election ballot are those who have met each state’s requirements, and those generally can be met either by having a large enough party or by getting enough petition signatures. Even there, you can write in anyone’s name if you don’t like any of the printed ones. When you vote, you are always voting for a person, not a party.

But your registration, recorded only at the municipal level, is the only formal way in which party registration exists here at all.

125

Well, the point I was lamely trying to make is that the government control of the economy during the war made the country aware of the possibilities if the same approach were used in peacetime. Again, I’m thinking primarily of the transcontinental railroad, which was a pipe dream before the war and a reality soon afterward - right about the time the Dominion was formed.

The economic advantages were clear, too, weren’t they? As I understand, the CP was routed close to the border to keep too much shipping business from flowing south.

I’d have to say so, yes. The Union Pacific and the Central Pacific (they started at opposite ends and met at the middle) could never have done the job themselves. The full story is complex, of course - I’d refer you to Steven Ambrose’s *Nothing Like It In The World * for a great read on the subject.

Etc. Not all those things at once, but publicly-owned local utilities are still a pretty common feature, although far less so than in your experience.

To your national list: The national government does not own airlines, but does own the few major airports that state and local governments don’t. It does effectively own passenger-rail service, and, until recently, freight rail in the Northeast. No gas stations, but wholesale-level and indirect subsidies to Big Oil are well-known. Nixon did implement wage and price controls.

No, Medicare and Medicaid are funding systems, with retail-level services provided privately. There are, however, quite a few government-owned hospitals.

Sure, but I meant that it doesn’t much matter whether such involvement is direct or indirect.

Isn’t the reason for the size of Canada’s military fundamentally an economic one, though?

None where the government itself is the subject. There are plenty that celebrate the work itself and the people who did it.

I completely agree. The Iraq war’s rationale could have been, and to some extent actually is, echos of a communitarian-spirited mythos, in which we have to help them because they’re our neighbors.

Thanks for an informative discussion.

126

I’m getting very, very close to this position myself.

The difficulty is that I worry that the Conservatives will loot Ontario to please their Western constituents, and I worry that I won’t like many if not most of the Conservative positions on a host of social issues.

I’m considering voting for them, however, purely based on the corruption and general hopelessness of the current Liberal leadership. In other words, I’m a traditional Liberal voter who wants to throw them out to teach 'em to be honest and stop treating Canada as a personal fiefdom, but who is afraid that this will encorage the hardcore old Alliance constituents to go hog-wild.

Voting against rather than for is very uncomfortable … convince me that I’m wrong in this analysis, please.

127

What exactly would those wacky western constituents want to “loot” from Ontario? Are you expecting massive amounts of tax payer money to suddenly sluice away from vote rich Southern Ontario?

If the Conservatives want to achieve power they need Ontario. If they want to keep power they need Ontario. Hell, ideally by addressing Ontario issues they’ll erode their own support and the Liberals can pick up some seats out west. That would be fundamentally healthier for our democracy than many other proposals.

Oh and matt, I missed your post on the Senate. I can’t see anyway that a PR style Senate could work given Quebec fears of assimilation. At the very best the electoral system would need a series of “tweaks” to ensure satisfactory representation for Quebec. At the very worst, the provincial government would scuttle the idea of a second Quebec voice on the federal scene (the first being the Provincial gov’t itself.)

128

Why not? Everyone else does it.

Toronto isn’t exactly a popular city with the vast majority of the core of the old Alliance party - when talking with people who fit that discription, one gets the sense that they view Toronto (and southern Ontario generally) as “the enemy”. My worry is that they will continue to do so, should they be elected - in spite of the fact that this may well harm their chances of re-election.

129

Malthus, not to burst your balloon or anything but the lareg tracts of Canada hate Toronto. Ok, hate is a strong word. How about loath? :slight_smile: Good lord man, the Ottawa press goes on about how Toronto gets special treatment for everything from arts taxation and public transit funding to hockey commentary. Montreal used to sneer at the social life of Toronto. Don’t forget that Alberta is a “have province” like Ontario. They too have seen their money flow to all sorts of strange places.

The thing is they need Ontario votes. They also need to keep them. What value is there, should the Conservatives win, to alienate a province making up 40% of the population and 35% of the seats in Parliament? None. In fact Ontario votes are so important that the cabinet would likely feature urban Ontario members in key positions. Why? To cement power.

130

Heck, it’s not my balloon, but my fear. I want to be convinced this is the case, so I can more easily vote Conservative without self-loathing. :slight_smile:

Not much I can do about their social positions, though.

My dillemma (which I suspect is shared by many): I want the Liberals out, for their corruption; they seem without any ideas or ideals. On the other hand, the Conservatives (who would likely replace them) seem to be admirably non-corrupt - for the moment. Also, idealistic. However, I don’t think much of their ideals; I don’t share them.

I’d prefer to have the old Conservative party back.

I distrust the NDP and son’t want to waste my vote on a fringe party like the Greens.

Who to vote for? :confused: Should I hold my nose and vote Liberal - thus rewarding them for their unscrupulous corruption, and watch while they loot the country for their cronies for another term? Or should I hold my nose and vote Conservative - and watch while they enact social policies on topics like abortion, drugs, gay marriage, immigration, etc., that are the direct opposite of what I believe in?

This election is gonna be difficult.

131

Well look at it this way, say the Conservatives win nothing but 50% of the old PC seats (6), keep all of their old seats (66) and scrap a slim majority by winning 83 of the 106 Ontario seats. That’s a 1 seat majority. Also note the make up of the Conservative party, 83 seats in “moderate” Ontario :rolleyes: and 72 seats in the rest of the socially backwards areas of the nation. That’s a majority of caucus and a massive amount of influence when setting policy.

Feel better? :slight_smile:

132

So did you vote for the Liberals under Trudeau when they were looting the West through the National Energy Program to benefit central Canada? :eek:

133

I’m in exactly this same position, to the letter. Thanks for bringing it up, Malthus, because I’m a bit lost right now. Unfortunately, it probably won’t matter which way I go because Ed Broadbent is running in my area and is likely to win :rolleyes: , but I would still prefer to pick someone from a positive angle than a negative one.

134

I’m not old enough to have voted for the Liberals under Trudeau.

135

About the “looting Ontario” thing, I may well be mistaken and my concern misplaced.

About the “different ideals” thing, I think I am right. I don’t see that particular question as region-specific; judging by your rolleyes, I take it you don’t, either.

In other words, the party need for representation from Ontario may well prevent them from bashing Ontario too much; but I don’t think it will prevent them from enacting social legislation I don’t approve of.

136

I suspect that there are many of us in the same boat.

Further, I suspect that whoever can convince us, one way or the other, is going to win this election. For better or for worse.

137

I’m not sure what you mean about privatizing student loans.

The federal student loan program began in 1965, IIRC. Prior to 1995, student loans were all issued by the major banks, with the government defining the criteria and subsidizing and guaranteeing the loans. The behind-the-scenes details of the government’s deal with the banks changed in 1995 under the Liberals (based on negotiations begun under the previous PC government), but the loans were still bank-issued.

In 2000, after failing to get the banks to agree to additional changes, the government took back the loan program and began issuing government loans directly to students. Admittedly, the administration of the loans has been contracted out, as the government was unwilling to expand staff and infrastructure to take over the day-to-day work previously done by the banks, but I would see this as a major net de-privatization of student loans.

(Note that this may differ from your experience in Quebec, where the student loans are entirely provincially run, and does not cover provincially issued student loans in other provinces, although at least three provinces have since merged their loan programs into the federal loan administration system.)

138

:confused:
I’m a Quebec resident and I owe thousands to CIBC. The provincial government guarantees the loans, true, and occasionally pays the interest for a short period of time when a student is in dire financial straits. But the loans are given by, and paid back to, private financial institutions.

139

It was solicited earlier on, and other have done it, so I’ll give my reasoning on who I’ll vote for.

Basically, unless I find a stellar independent candidate (unlikely), my vote will be for the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, or some minor party. Most of the minor parties are pretty flaky, in my eye, some of them downright silly , one or two just scary. the most important of them, the Greens, haven’t won my confidence yet. Their pre-election website was full of bizarre, vaguely philosophical rhetoric (and some policies I liked to varying extents).

The Conservatives: Harper doesn’t strike me as genuine, or honest. He strikes me as a very socially-conservatice economist pretending to be socially moderate to get votes in the East. He was the chief policy architect for Preston Manning’s Reform Party, leader of the Canadian Alliance, and president of the National Citizens Coalition (a right-wing lobby group). He’s the guy who decided his party needed a “family values critic” in response to a nonexistent government portfolio, then promoted Larry “Jail the Fags” Spencer to that position. He’s an economist, too. This isn’t necessarily bad, but with the way he talks about taxes, I wonder if he figures that the role of government is to serve the economy and the corporations that drive it, rather than the people. (This last is food for a full debate on its own, I’m sure.) I don’t know where he’s going to get the money for some of the expenditures he’s promising, while cutting taxes big-time. And his habit of ending speeches with “God Bless Canada” in the Texan style is just creepy to me. Their recently-released plan for the military isn’t too bad.

The Liberals: Policies are vague. Action is limited. Corruption… exists to a significant extent. So does inefficiency. Martin’s ppolitically clever, but autocratic, in a disguised, grassroots-rebellion, parachute-my-own-candidates-into-ridings-with-popular-local-runners way. And he hasn’t doen much, hasn’t taken many stands… though he’s given out a lot of moeny in the election run-up. Are they different Liberals than the ones that brought the scandals? Well, half-and-half. Chretien’s cronies are out, but a lot of the old crew remain. Will they do anything of substance? Beats me.

The NDP: Policies are surprisingly specific on some issues… cities, environment, health, etc. They don’t address some other issues (like the military) but their pre-election site covered all sorts of things. I really like the Green Transportation Strategy, and I want a real deal for cities. Cutting taxes for the poor is good, raising them for the rich… maybe. I figure a small increase, especially if it’s for things like inheritance over a million dollars, won’t be too bad. Taxing corporations more is economically questionable, but I’m all for it if it’s done in a Green-Partyesque “Tax bads, not goods” way. (Well, actually, a mix of that and the current is probably best.) Jack Layton is a walking ad machine. He was, however, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and a university professor, and a city councillor for a couple of decades.

Pierre Trudeau once said that we shouldn’t pay attention to what the leaders promise, because some unforseen crisis may derail their agenda. Rather, we should look at their charaters, and how they respond to crises.

In Stephen Harper, I think I see a deceitful man who’s trying to take power by pretending to be moderate when he’s very conservative. I see a weasel in a nice-guy costume waiting to be PM so he can implement social policies I’m afraid of, and economic policies that I’m not sure of just yet. In Paul Martin, I see a wishy-washy businessman, who’s good with money but short on vision. In Jack Layton, I see a man who knows how to get attention (for good or for bad) as leader of an almost-forgotten party , and who actually has experience in government, despite the stigma the NDP has long had. While I’m not completely confident he’s totally who I want in the PMO, I’m way more comfortable with him than Harper. And I like his resume a lot better.

Gay marriage isn’t, for me, the most important issue. ( The courts have mroe or less dealt with it anyway, though it should really be cleaned up. ) But I use it as sort of a yardstick. How do leaders react to it?

Stephen Harper railed about how the Liberals had changed their mind between that old motion defending hte traditional definition, and their decision a year ago not to appeal the court decisions favouring gay marriage. He gave no argument, though, against the idea of gay marriage itself. Similarly, his party website tries to be vague, and says they support the idea that parliament should decide.

Paul Martin waffled before deciding he’d go along with it, then amended the submission Chretien’s cabinet had sent to the supreme court, basically asking if he’d found a way out of it. He confessed his reasons: that he was a devout Catholic with strong beliefs, but that he felt a duty to follow the Charter.

Jack Layton marched in a gay pride parade, and his party says they’d introduce equal-marriage legislation. The reasoning given: “Gay Rights are Human Rights”.
My conclusions: With Martin you get waffly indecision and attempts to please both sides, with Harper you get social conservatism disguised as defence of institutions (parliament and marriage), without any reasoning, and with Layton you get equality for all, popular or not. Agreed, this isn’t a complete sample of how the leaders work, but the way they react to this particular “crisis” issue, which is highly controversial for at least some part of the population (gays and some religious groups), I think gives one an idea what we can expect from the leaders.
So, while I’m not a card-carrying member of any party, and find myself agreeing with some policies of all the parties mentioned, it’s likely I’ll vote NDP, though I’m not certain yet. I don’t like Harper and didn’t like the Alliance (which forms the bulk of the shadily-assembled Conservative party), I’m not too keen on the Liberals, and I find the NDP to be pretty good, with some potential gaps on some issues I think are important. In the past, I’ve voted Liberal, but considered voting PC or NDP.

140

That was always usually the case, though.

And how is owing the money to CIBC any worse, anyway? Either way, you’re in debt. Actually, owing the moeny to a bank has some advantages over owing it to the government.