August1991

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.