August1991

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.