August1991

The poll was taken between 12-22 February. Sample 1003. (Please note these details in the future.) (The poll's main purpose was to determine the popularity of the Charest government. Result? Fast and direct south. What does this mean for ROC? God knows.) Look, English Quebec (including so-called allophones) will vote for the "Federalist Candidate Most Likely to Win". By common consent, this is the Liberal candidate. That's 20 or so of the 38. (These people do not park their votes in polls. The matter is too serious.) More interesting is the NDP. For the non-Liberal federalist vote (anglo/franco/allo), it seems to choose the NDP 2:1 to the CPC. If there's a Liberal tipping point, would they go NDP? I

How many ridings are we talking about here? 2? Or will the BQ go full tilt boogie and let the CPC run alone in 3? The CPC can present candidates in all Quebec ridings but this is irrelevant. None will get any votes. It's as if the candidates were not running. Let me try to explain again. When Baldwin and Lafontaine formed a "joint" government in Canada East and Canada West, French Canadians were not exactly free to choose. [Many Albertans are still resentful of the NEP. Imagine the federal government had occupied Alberta and abolished the provincial government, arresting anybody who disagreed. Then, they find someone in Alberta who will agree to do a deal. (Quisling or Petain would be extreme examples. After all, this is the federal government.) I'm sorry but this is the history of Quebec from 1759 to 1837.] In the 1900s, this "Lafontaine position" evolved into the role of "Quebec Lieutenant". Trudeau rightly wanted to do away with the whole idea, given his premise that, bygones be bygones, Quebec was indeed part of Canada. (Having seen WW II, Trudeau also had ideas about nationalism and perfecting society.) Nowadays - early 2000s - French Quebec realizes Canada will not be maintained by force of arms and they are free to choose. Those that choose to put their lot in with English Canada tend to be the Ouellets and the Pelletiers of this world. I don't know if Mario would want to be considered as such. Last point: I don't know if Preston meant, as you suggested, that he was looking for an honest equal on the French Quebec side. That's why I asked for context. Thank you for the source. I'll look it up. I think it's too late for your man. He has lost forever the votes he needed to form a majority. I think he's in the process of losing the votes he needs to do better than Turner in 1984. I don't live in PM PM's riding but my local neighbourhood paper covers his riding. There was a column this week with interviews with constituents. It's sad to pathetic. They have to say that they believe he's honest. "He was here on my doorstep, I am sure he's an honest man", said the 67 year-old pensioner of Lasalle. When politicians get to this, they are in deep, deep trouble.

I don't know whether the people you quote believe that PM PM is honest and sincere. Take Mark Steyn for example... He seems so fed up with current Canada that the Devil knows what he believes. As for what I believe (does it really matter)? Was PM PM prepared to lie to become PM? I have no doubt, yes. Is he sincere? Not always in what he says. Is he honest (in the sense of not stealing money)? Here, I'd say that he is honest. Paul Desmarais has ensured that he and his children will not have to worry. PM PM will not steal from the public trough for his personal expenses. (You made the same point.) "Accept" money for party expenses? Yes, he would. (Tory John A famously sent a telegram requesting more money. Chretien may have put an end to this, with no help from pre-PM, PM.) IOW, are you asking me whether PM PM is an honest, sincere, good Canadian? Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (and National Security is the first basis of a brief).

The whole point! I have no objection to people who want to be winners. Heck, nothing would ever happen if some people were not ambitious. I don't criticise Liberals for wanting to govern. My question is: WHY IS PAUL MARTIN BEING A COMPLETE DORK AND THROWING AWAY THE POWER HE COULD HAVE HAD? Is that clear enough?

It's not a question of forming a coalition. The coalition exists in fact now. At least, coalition in the sense of agreeing not to put forward candidates in ridings where they'll compete. For the CPC and the BQ, this is the case. BQ wants this to be known. The CPC not. Baldwin? Lafontaine? That was 100 years ago or more. Pre Confederation. Sorry, but that world no longer exists. Then, French Canada was part of BNA by force of arms. At the time, the idea of anything other was absolutely out of the question. Canada, you should know, did not come about by free association. There are no Lafontaines available now. Well, they exist but most are called Ouellet or Pelletier or Chretien. Different kettle of fish. Why? Because the original Lafontaines are free to choose. There will be no more force of arms. (Thank God, and the true lesson Canada has to offer the world.) Mario? Have you ever heard of the Allard report? (Imagine Quebec passports financed by equalization payments.) Look, the French forums have their whimsy and so do the English forums. This either makes Canada a fascinating country or schizophrenic. As an Easterner, Manning (son, not father) has always impressed me as someone with an original, intelligent, sensible take on this story. (Diversity is not as easy as some pretend. To my Eastern mind, Manning was agreeably diverse.) I have never seen this quote before. I'd like to see it in context. IMV, many people in Ontario will vote for any party that they perceive as being the National Party; that is, the party that seems to have support in Quebec. The fear of Quebec separation is greatest in Ontario. Without Quebec, many voters in Ontario believe Canada will not exist and then Ontario will be, well, Michigan. To say they hate "uncertainty and risk" is misplaced. I disagree. This scandal is like the Air Traffic Controllers strike in 1976. In fact, it's worse. Money's on the table. All that's missing is sex. (Imagine some ad agency paid for company for an anglophone Cabinet minister during a lonely night in Quebec City?) Martin want one term? The guy is getting his OAP and he wants to be PM too. Sorry. His view is bigger.

I hate to add a post to my own post but can you imagine the number of Liberal Party backbenchers who now realize they made a BIG mistake supporting PM PM? They could have had Chretien, won re-election and had Bob as an Uncle. Instead, they've got THIS. As Dave Barry would say, they are in SHOCK.

Chretien kill the principles? Chretien was the epitome of Liberal principles. He would have stayed in power forever. In private, Chretien accurately said "I'm at 60 in the polls. I must be doing something right. I don't care what the complainers say." If you're a Liberal, let me show you this same idea a different way. One of Trudeau's son was recently quoted as saying that his father told him not to get into politics because of all the distasteful things that a politician must do. IOW, a cursory examination of Canadian history (post 1896) will show that the federal Liberal Party exists for one sole purpose: to have power. Are you on drugs? Do you really believe PM PM is honest and sincere? (He wants to be King of the Castle. Full Stop.) But here's the question: If he wants to be King, why is he doing what he's doing? That is, why is he shooting himself in the foot? Is he a Nixon? "I gave them a sword..." or "I fouled up in the one thing I was supposed to be really good at: politics." Well, to be honest, I don't think PM PM is as interesting as Nixon. For starters, the stakes are not as high. But in addition, the case of PM PM can easily be explained with one word: hubris.

Discussing a minority government at this point is hypothetical in the extreme, nevertheless it seems possible. Moreover, the next Parliament risks being a four way split in which choosing the government may not be obvious. Liberals could govern in a stable manner with NDP support if the combined numbers are sufficient. The question, in a sense, is whether the CPC could govern with BQ support ? This is what French posters were considering - but I think it's wishful thinking on their part. They simply want to believe that the Liberals will be excluded from power. More realistically, I see a Liberal rump playing off the three others as necessary to get a majority on critical issues. The tradition in Canada has been for the party with a plurality of seats to form a government. But this need not be the case. It would be as if the Liberals had remained in power in 1979 (as some Liberals wanted). The final fact is that the CPC will go nowhere in French Quebec. (I recall the 1984 election when they crossed over to Mulroney. For many, it was a leap of faith. Such conditions simply don't exist now. French Quebec will simply vote BQ.) As a result, there is a de facto coalition between the CPC and the BQ. They do not compete at the riding level. Admitting the existence of this situation is advantageous to the BQ because it makes them credible in the eyes of French Quebec voters. For the CPC however, this idea only provokes negatives in the eyes of English Canada voters. It's a fact no CPC leader can publicly hint. (I thought Harper was courageously honest to say what he said about Duceppe.) Politics makes strange bedfellows. With that truism, your suggestion of a Manning/Dumont coalition made me laugh. But in fact, there is some sense to it. But I always thought that Manning had weight. Dumont is too much of a dilettante. The similarity however is that Ontario voters view Manning the way French Quebec voters view Dumont. Possible, but not for real.

On second thought, your last comment is critically wise. How did this all start? Did the Liberals have no control over what the A-G did or said? In their mind, they had complete control over the A-G. (Think: This is Liberal Ottawa.) Nevertheless, you have a point. I have a suspicion that PM PM has such an ego that he told the A-G "Tell the truth." But in his mind, he thought, "I'm so good, I'm better than all the others. l'll manage even when the truth is told." Result? Ego. Greek Tragedy.

Well, exactly. Professionals would have waited. Nixon did. Duh. Why didn't Martin wait? Well, Chretien wanted a February hand off but Martin wanted something earlier. Martin won and the Fraser press conference happened once Chretien was a has-been... Why? Martin couldn't wait. Now, this matters if you believe in the way the rules work... Do you believe the LPC cares about what the CA/PC do (does)? Well, they might soon but it will be a strange experience for them.

Good timing? Get scandal stuff out of the way? CPC preoccupied? I don't think you understand the gravity of this scandal. This is the 1976 Air Traffic Controller strike combined with tax payer money, Latin face and Quebec aspirations. IOW, this affects English Canada and French Canada. This is TERRIBLE timing. PM PM chose a short-term cabinet in preparation of an election. He is now pedalling every which way to put it all back together because he can't keep his cabinet together until October. He HAS to call an election soon. In naive, pre-renaissance Canada, we think (believe) the Liberals are like the CPSU or the Pope. They are perfectly competent and knowledgeable about everything. THEY'RE NOT. They are NOT infallible. The LPC are human and bungle. We are all watching this happen in real time. These guys have no plan! They are making this up as they go along. Evidence? Apart from what you can see on your own, this scandal critically concerns the relations of French and English Canada. (I'm not French by origin, rather a Newf in fact, but Canada's history is, well, Canada-East and Canada-West. Westerner? Sorry, but kinda true.) How these relations are managed matters. Today's "firings" are opening salvos. PM PM humiliated Ouellet but allowed full pay. (Martin is no franco. Trudeau would have fired the guy outright.) End of story? Are these guys taking a dive? More likely, an opening salvo. Gawd, whadda mess.

What a sterile, boring debate you have fallen into... Is Greed Human? Are Humans Good? Is Greed Bad? Do we need religion to keep us in check fromn our evil impulses? Is that what it's all about ultimately? Laws and an internal referee of moral fairness, otherwise we lose the thin veneer of civilisation? Please, someone, start a new topic with the title "Competition vs. Cooperation" or some such.

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...