No, that’s a lot worse reference – not close enough.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I do want to thank Hypnagogic Jerk for his well-thought-out and informative post.
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.
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.