August1991

The French forum I watch has gone humourously bananas about this latest installment of the ongoing saga. (Political Rule Number One: Don't let the helium out of the balloon slowly and sound like a complete fool in every sentence you utter.) The comments concern who got what, who should have got what and comparisons about how the PQ and federal Liberals punish their own. (Quebec Federal Liberals are in a league of their own...) But there's an ongoing discussion about a 'strange' question: What chances are there for a BQ-CPC coalition? The BQ will obviously not put forward candidates outside Quebec. The CPC will run candidates everywhere including Quebec. But the CPC Quebec candidates pose no opposition to BQ candidates. In practical terms, the two parties are not opponents. Now, post election, what chance is there for a tacit coalition? An explicit coalition? What chance of a pre-election nod? The only French coverage of the CPC candidates' debate put front and centre Harper's statement that he had spoken to Duceppe on occasion. Is this fantasyland stuff? French posters understand the BQ is the kiss-of-death to any anglo party. And they consider Reformers as "non-progressive". Any comments?

Well, he had two when he died and that's the start of the story. He was a human, and a lonely one I suspect. I have spoken to too many of his generation in Quebec. Have you ever heard of the Frere Untel? Or Georges-Henri Levesque? Good men, in their way. But missionaries. And somehow lonely, but less I suspect than Trudeau.

Wonderful link. Thank you. Was I wrong to notice how she wanted to make herself clear? "Let me make myself clear..." And she seemed to say "I" often. Why not "we"? Or even better, she could have returned the question to the interlocuters using a question to answer a question... She would have seemed smart then. I consider myself left-wing and I strongly disagree with people like P. J. O'Rourke. But check out this article about PM PM by some guy named Mark Steyn : Link

Our PM PM is doing everything against Liberal principles. Does he have a death wish? Spring election? Bad idea. (In a few months everyone will forget.) Take on Copps? Lose-lose. (Italian or UN Ambassador?) Let the A-G give a press conference? Dumb. Spread this crisis out by making a big deal and then of course, a week later, firing a bunch of guys. What? Is this guy Nixon? Will people have web sites in a few years about how his Quebec advisors were closet separatists who planned it all? Maybe I'm wrong but I think the best thing for the Tories is to choose Harper and have Clement and Stronach run as candidates in Ontario. (Harper should let them know in private they're in the cabinet - both are young, after all. In public, Harper should say - and they should say - we can get along. If there is a cabinet to be formed, our leader will do it with the people Canadians will elect. IOW, populist humble pie.)

Agreed. At first I disagreed then I came to dislike him. (To be honest though, I believe we should live and let live) But why dislike? I met his comrade in arms Jacques Hebert who, holding a scotch in his hand, totally ignored me - indeed went out of his way to do it. This happened in Montreal's Ritz-Carlton, he was a Senator and I had just before joked about whether I should greet him as a Newfoundlander or a Torontonian. I went with Toronto and got the brush-off, as predicted. Trudeau, like Hebert, was an inverted snob. He believed in the perfectibility of humans. I suspect Trudeau was very lonely as a human. Canada is an interesting country because it has two languages and as a result, we have wound up with strange leaders.

Thanks for the links. Paul Wells is the best of the lot. This scandal is a Quebec federalist scandal. If Martin (Lapierre)goes into Ouellet and Pelletier, it will be a mess. Pelletier was mayor of Quebec - a straight guy (political but straight). He balanced the whole deal well. (Les deux sens de balancer...) Then, he went to Ottawa. English Canada has to deal with guys like him if Canada will exist as a country. He and Ouellet are federalists for gawdsakes. If PM PM kisses these guys off, then he can kiss off the loyalty/support of X others. What's a political party? (Ask John Crosbie...) Now then. Is Martin is trying to pull a Mulroney? That is: Does he want to get Quebec on side with honour. There are many federalists in Quebec who would accept such and in an ideal world, it would be possible. Unfortunately, few of them are Quebec Liberals and more unfortunately, as Mulroney learned, I don't think English-Canada will accept it - in 1965, maybe - but not now. The country once again hangs in the balance - like all those compromises leading up to Lincoln.

I liked theWatcher's comment. I too have watched politicians in debate and wondered whether I would want to watch them day after day. Are these people interesting? Do they have something original to say? Ralph Klein is an example. As were Pierre Trudeau and Rene Levesque. In a press conference, they have/\had something original to say. In meetings with their staff, I'm sure it's the same. As much as I disliked/disagreed with Trudeau, I always wanted to listen to his thoughts. That's what CTV/Goldie mean I think. Harper is not original. Or he's too quiet. I'm an Easterner and I know only too well that Canada is boring. (Nothing to be ashamed about if it's clear what "boring" really means.) I'm willing now to listen to a quiet, honest, straight Canadian. We'll see if he's really boring. In eastern speak, I think the country needs a reality check.

I never met Kim Campbell (although I heard first hand stories). Belinda Stronach is completely foreign to me. For Campbell, I like John Crosbie's description of her in his book "No Holds Barred" (the best book about Canadian politics written since Dafoe or so...) My point is that the Tories once before chose an unknown quantity with the idea that it would seduce Canadian voters and sink the Liberals. Stronach is the same story. Well, I've seen that video. The ending is silly.

1. Diefenbaker's last "limo", a silver Olds I think, is in a museum. What nonsense is this? 2. Diefenbaker should have resigned and moved on. Or stayed as MP to heckle. Dalton Camp was right to do what he did but what a mess for the Tories. 3. I find humourous (in fact, I really dislike) your use of the term "DP" and then a reference to Peter Newman in the same post.

Goldie, you are missing the point. Maple Syrup, thanks for the reference to Coyne. I bought the National Post and read the column. (I stopped buying the NP a few months ago for obvious reasons.) Andrew Coyne, like Mark Steyn, is a smart guy. Both are smarter than me. But... I think this scandal is going to open federalist Quebec wide because of the way our PM PM has handled it. He should have stone-walled. It was the only way. (There's still time and his advisors might get the better of him.) But. Jean Lapierre is now talking about getting to the truth. Hein? In the eyes of Andre Ouellet et al, Lapierre is a BQ/Bouchard federalist. Imagine that! The worst thing is for the Liberals to get into a finger pointing match about who's the real "Canadian/Quebecois". Worse. There are no federalists in French Quebec as you know them in the west. In Quebec, there are the Trudeau intellectuals, the Charest genuines and the Chretien "I've made my bed and I don't care". And then there are the Levesque/Bouchard insurance policy types and their latest version Lapierre - "I'll rent a room with a bed just in case". Jean Lapierre is a Brian Tobin. Watch if he's unleashed! Back to PM PM. There is no way there can be an open enquiry. PM PM is ambitious, egotistical, not too smart, but he's no fool. This is Nixon promising the largest, widest FBI investigation in US history to get to the bottom of a third-rate burglary involving a handful of zealots with a screw loose or two. Right. Within hours, Nixon called the dogs off. He survived an election and got sucked in on tapes and a ridiculous argument about executive privilege. His weakness was conniving inferiority. The weakness of our PM PM? Ego. A Greek Drama!

I listened to Cross Canada during a long drive in to Montreal. Ugh. Anne Medina? American journalist, deep throat hack? What's with all the experts? About ten "ordinary" Canadians got through and two or three seemed to be gold/monetary/social credit nutbars. Is this the best the CBC editor/filterers could do? "The Chief Political Correspondent in Ottawa of the Toronto Star has so graciously agreed to stay during the WHOLE programme to help us out and explain the technical details we don't understand..." Canada, how pathetic. We hold a political scandal and nobody comes - or at least, only if the wine and cheese tab is picked up by the taxpayer. I'm sorry. In France, a mistress writes a book about such scandals. In Russia, people run abroad or get arrested. In the US, they hold Senate hearings on TV and a president talks about his Mom before resigning. In Canada? We appoint a public enquiry and then people phone radio shows about the gold standard. Go figure.

NOTE: I did not see this debate but I heard excerpts on the radio. 1. These people sounded serious. Did they agree beforehand not to whine? 2. Stronach sounded intelligent. (Bush strategy: Lower expectations and you win for sure.) 3. The last time the Tories picked a "pig in a poke" or a "dark horse" (whatever happened to these journalistic cliches); that is, when the Tories picked Kim Campbell, it was an utter disaster. Once burned , twice shy. I don't thin k it'll happen again. 4. They may be on the front benches, together. Canadians are Rodney Kings: We love when everyone just gets along. Maybe it's time for a Mondale Westerner to get along visibly with Ontario flashes.

I saw Trudeau in Camrose Alta and at the Inn on the Park in Toronto Ont. In his impish way, he attracted attention. (The actor Jean-Marie Lemieux sucked the air out of the room, as actors do.) I worked around Chretien and Mulroney. Chretien was "on" in a crowd. Mulroney was uncomfortable in crowds but was great one-on-one. Incidentally, they were both tall with big heads. Chretien inspired, Mulroney seemed sleazy somehow. I never met Diefenbaker but I saw his "limo" in that ridiculous museum in Saskatchewan. The point? The physical presence of a leader is one thing, their presence on television another and their ability as a leader a third. "Keep your head when all about you..." Diefenbaker was a disaster for the Conservative Party (Canada's opposition party). Canada has suffered as a result. Dalton Camp, Deux Nations, Trudeau, the 72 cliffhanger, Margaret and all the rest. If Diefenbaker had accepted his lot, put away his ego, Canada would be a better place today. Well, these things happen. (RB Bennet could blame the depression.) One wonders whether leaders matter. But to glorify Diefenbaker is naive, simple - as my father would say, touched...

First, thanks for the breakdown. I hadn't seen that before. The poll shows the Liberals up 8 to 28 in Alberta and up 5 to 46 in Ontario. I think that's the tip off that this is the poll in 20 on the ++ of the +/- 3% side. (The provincial results work within margins much greater of course.) Nevertheless, the flow seems to have been staunched. Hardcore Liberal support is likely around 30% or so. These are the die-hard Liberals in the Maritimes, die-hard federalists in Quebec and the Canadian Nationalists in Ontario. Admittedly, a big chunk of the country. They'll accept any Liberal shenanigans. There are three key questions in my view: 1) Will some of the non die-hard Liberals migrate back in the next while? 2) Will some of the die hard Federalists in Quebec vote NDP or Tory? 3) Will the Canadian Nationalists leave the Liberals if they perceive it as no longer national? Canadian politics (and Quebec politics) have been paralyzed for the past 30 years or so by the Quebec National Question. This scandal is a direct outgrowth of that paralysis. Something to watch in my opinion, is the way the Liberals in Quebec handle this. Does anyone in western Canada know who Jean Lapierre is and what he is saying now?

Goldie, I'm saying that Paul Martin has bungled big time. He has managed to insult many federalist Quebecers. As a result, many will vote BQ. With lousy Liberal poll results, many Ontario voters feel uncomfortable and don't know who is the "national" party. They will park their choice with the NDP until they decide. (Moreover, I suspect Paul Martin seems "wrong" to Ontario voters. To them, he's a bad Mulroney or Turner.) We are all watching a Canadian drama. I don't know what the end conclusion will be. Let's see how this story unfolds. [i lived in Edmonton for some time. I liked westerners and IMO, I thought many westerners would prefer to live in a straightforward world of honesty. The world, and Canada, is not such. IMO, Preston Manning seems to understand the wonderful drama of Canada.]

Sorry, I'll add this. Watch carefully and trust Jean Charest's take on this story. It really matters. (Do you know what Landry is saying now?) (BTW, for many in the Liberal crowd and Chretien, the cards were placed like in poker - partisan. For Trudeau, it was intellectual. But for Charest, it's family. He's Canadian beyond Elliot.) (Again. Maybe I'm wrong. Watch and listen. Do you remember 1976 and the language of air traffic? Preston Manning is amongst the few Westerners that can appreciate this drama.)

Agreed, politics is strange, maybe I'm wrong and Canada is civilized weird. But honest, do Ontarians like this guy? (Bum pat? Should he have gone skiing?) More critical, so-so federalist Liberal Quebecers don't want a phoney right-wing Bush. They certainly don't want a disloyal sob. Recently, people were upset about rising house prices in Montreal. Do you know what the latest stories are?

I consider myself left wing. In other words, I am prepared to work to build someone else's home. (I enjoy doing it because I would choose to be born into a world where I know I have a home.) But a fundamental point: I understand that ordinary people choose to give money to Microsoft or McDonald's. On the other hand, ordinary people have no choice when they give money to the government. Sorry for the political philosophy. But... For the past 30 years, we in Canada have been involved in a messy discussion. (There are many people in Ottawa who would prefer to avoid this discussion.) I don't think Canadians are "left wing" as I described myself above. Rather, I think Canadians are maybe polite, eh? Survivors? Civilised? Abroad, I have said we Canadians fight our civil wars in newspapers. Are we peacable? (Thanks to Quebecers, we Canadians have never had military service, the worst form of State Tax.) The past few days (remember the air traffic strike, the Charter, Meech, the 1995 referendum) are adding to our collective history. Let's see what happens.

Live in today's world? Post modernist? (ie. too many diplomas but no math?) Jack Layton is conservative? Quebecers astute voters? You mean black is white, up is down, and since God plays with dice, there is no certainty? We live in a new paradigm? Puhleeeze. Jack Layton is a share the wealth, Robin Hood, protect the weak, do-gooder socialist. I don't care who his father was. Quebecers do not vote astutely. They vote as a miniscule Icelandic minority in an Atlantic Ocean of American Mickey Mice. There are a few Daffy Ducks on the continent and Quebecers occasionally vote with them. Quebecers are not astute. Their situation varies between critical and life-support. Like Newfoundlanders, but unlike Margaret Atwood/CBC/CanCons, they are stubborn, peaceable survivors.

Gimme a break. Ontario voters are parking their votes in a poll with +/- 3%. Don't expect a Bob Rae anytime soon. The poll is surprising though because it puts the Liberals at 36%. Is this the + of the +/-? There is a tectonic shift going on in Canada right now and it concerns the feelings of central Canadians (Ontario/Quebec) about Paul Martin. He's not the guy. A bean counter? Not right. Too loud, no panache. Many Quebecers will vote BQ. But Ontarios voters are in a quandary. For them, there's no "national" party (meaning no federalist party with apparent support in French Quebec). What to do? The shift? An outgrowth of the 1995 referendum, and Meech Lake. Preston Manning has been one to say that the Canadian federation has been living through interesting times in the past 30 years or so. As Canadians, let's see how we deal with this. One to watch.

Goldie, I wrote my reply and then later saw your post. (I"m new and slow to this type of discussion.) I agree with your comment and was boringly making the same point. A minor addition: You describe Paul Martin as a good businessman. At the risk of sounding anti-Martin (I'm not), Paul Desmarais "gave" Paul Martin his CSL business. For Martin, it was a no lose situation. Desmarais, wealthy enough by previous Liberal governments (Pearson but in particular Trudeau) knew where to invest. (Chretien's daughter, I believe, is married to Desmarais's son. Well, you know, Nixon's daughter married Eisenhower's grandson. Young people hang out and the next thing is...) Another: I too believed that Martin would be the successful anglophone in the Liberal alternance. But think. King and Pearson (sort of) were the past successful ones. Do the math.

Am I missing something here? You guys are going on blah, blah about the anti-West bias of Ontario voters blah, blah right wing yahoos blah, blah... Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we are witnessing a fascinating meltdown of Kim Campbell, Stockwell Day, John Turner proportions. Many, many people in the East have decided that they don't like Paul Martin. Their opinion is not going to change. Heck, in my ultra-Liberal riding in Quebec people think Paul Martin is a shady huckster. Why? Not because he does it. But because he has the gall to pretend that he doesn't. "Il nous prend pour les caves." Where is the Latin wink? In Quebec, they are going to vote BQ. I don't know what these people in Ontario will do. One constant of Ontario voters is that a large group just want everyone to get along (meaning get along with Quebec). They will vote for the perceived "national" party. Now, what do they do when there isn't one? Chretien made it look so easy. It's not. Paul Martin is proof. And underneath it all, after 10 years or so of Clinton and Chretien, Canadians never had it so good. The Blair/Clinton middle left works better than the Bush phoney right.

Critically, let me show in English a French perspective to this scandal. This Liberal scandal is not new but Martin has made it weird. He's a "bad" Liberal. For federalists, spending money in Québec to "save" Canada is OK. That's what Chrétien -and Trudeau- did. Never deny. Even Mulroney did this. The perception among federalists and separatists in Québec is that this is normal. It's only a problem if everyone else thinks it's wrong. (Martin is making a big deal of this... Chrétien is skiiing. Truly, Chrétien is right. Canada is bigger than this scandal.) Result of Martin`s reaction? The Liberals are "zero" in Québec, and then lose seats in Ontario because they are not the true Canadian, bilingual party. The Tories under Stronach (Kim Campbell), Clement (?), Harper (Mondale). The BQ wins.

This 'scandal' is genuinely interesting. Let's see how it plays out because at this point, it's as unpredictable as a 'roll of the die'. Some various and conflicting thoughts: Paul Martin doesn't have the deft Liberal touch. Compare what happened to Rock and Copps. Copps is a partisan Liberal's Liberal. Chretien always said 'I must be doing something right because I'm at 60 in the polls'. The guy had it - more than Trudeau even. Paul Martin doesn't. I don't know what 'it' is. Liberals are ambitious and slick and a majority of Canadians accept this. The Tories and NDP are amateurs. There's something about Paul Martin that's not right. He wears his ambition and slickness wrong. There's no alternative. In 1984, Mulroney was an unknown but an alternative. He really played hard in Quebec and as a result, got Ontario on board as a National Leader. What gives with the Quebec angle on this scandal? Heck, it's like Diefenbaker, Sevigny or something. Tainted meat. In PC Canada, everyone seems to tiptoe around this. Am I the only one to get the impression Paul Martin is doing the Nixon "Operation Candor", "widest FBI investigation in history", "get to the bottom of this", "punish the guilty" etc. Are we going into the "what did he know and when did he know it" mode? Is there not something pathetic about a country that requires a government bureaucrat to create a political scandal through a press conference about an audit? (Most boring headline: "Canada Proposes Policy") I mean this is not 'news'. The G+M has followed it. But nobody seemed to pay attention. Then, scandal and response? Our PM PM goes on State Radio like Putin. In other words, this whole thing also reads like an Ottawa bureaucratic memo war. It could blow over but it has potential to do something. Liberal Arrogance and so on. Mackay got it right in the House in my opinion. But most Canadians will accept a lot from Liberals before saying enough is enough.