Misconceptions about LPC in the West

BC_chick · October 2, 2008

I was discussing the federal election with a friend the other day and I was surprised to see a prevailing misconception about Dion, and by extension, the LPC, out here in BC. My friend was saying how the Liberal Party is only about appeasing Quebec separatists and that they don't care about the West.

When I told him that the reason Dion is so hated in Quebec is because of the Clarity Act, he seemed surprised. I went on to remind him that while the Clarity Act makes it harder for Quebec to just unilaterally separate from Canada, it was Harper who recognised the Nation within a Nation status for Quebec. Furthermore, even though he didn't deliver, Harper is the one who promised Quebec a seat in UNESCO, and increased funding to Quebec a couple of years ago to the point many Albertans were enraged.

His answer? "REALLY?!?" He really didn't know.

While Liberals since Trudeau have taken a hard-line stance toward quebec regarding giving the province any special status, Conservative governments are the ones that seem keen on giving Quebec the foundation for separation by recognising its "distinct" status (personally, I take offense to that term - I mean really, all provinces are distinct in their own way).

I feel sorry for Dion. His federalist vision of Quebec makes him dispised in Quebec, yet many people in the ROC seems to believe the exact opposite about him.

Wild Bill · October 2, 2008

I was discussing the federal election with a friend the other day and I was surprised to see a prevailing misconception about Dion, and by extension, the LPC, out here in BC. My friend was saying how the Liberal Party is only about appeasing Quebec separatists and that they don't care about the West.
When I told him that the reason Dion is so hated in Quebec is because of the Clarity Act, he seemed surprised. I went on to remind him that while the Clarity Act makes it harder for Quebec to just unilaterally separate from Canada, it was Harper who recognised the Nation within a Nation status for Quebec. Furthermore, even though he didn't deliver, Harper is the one who promised Quebec a seat in UNESCO, and increased funding to Quebec a couple of years ago to the point many Albertans were enraged.

His answer? "REALLY?!?" He really didn't know.

While Liberals since Trudeau have taken a hard-line stance toward quebec regarding giving the province any special status, Conservative governments are the ones that seem keen on giving Quebec the foundation for separation by recognising its "distinct" status (personally, I take offense to that term - I mean really, all provinces are distinct in their own way).

I feel sorry for Dion. His federalist vision of Quebec makes him dispised in Quebec, yet many people in the ROC seems to believe the exact opposite about him.

Good points perhaps but still, the West will never forget how the Liberals took them for granted for decades. Either they ignored them completely, like with British Columbia, or they actually bled them for brownie points in the East, with the National Energy Policy.

Those old enough to remember the NEP saw people losing their jobs in droves! Commercial real estate in Calgary went from being scarce to a 30% vacancy rate almost overnight. Many folks couldn't carry their mortgage and lost their homes.

Generations are going to have to grow old and die before negative feelings fade away towards the Liberal party in the West. Can't blame them, either.

eyeball · October 2, 2008

Good points perhaps but still, the West will never forget how the Liberals took them for granted for decades.

It seems odd there is so much lingering animosity over this given the numbers of easterners who have moved out west.

As for the NEP, its unfortunate it was so badly managed by the Liberals but I think that says more about the Liberals than the idea itself. Judging by the success of nationalized oil companies such as Norway's it can be a good one in the right hands.

I fear the same thing will now happen with regards to tax-shifting.

White Doors · October 2, 2008

I was discussing the federal election with a friend the other day and I was surprised to see a prevailing misconception about Dion, and by extension, the LPC, out here in BC. My friend was saying how the Liberal Party is only about appeasing Quebec separatists and that they don't care about the West.
When I told him that the reason Dion is so hated in Quebec is because of the Clarity Act, he seemed surprised. I went on to remind him that while the Clarity Act makes it harder for Quebec to just unilaterally separate from Canada, it was Harper who recognised the Nation within a Nation status for Quebec. Furthermore, even though he didn't deliver, Harper is the one who promised Quebec a seat in UNESCO, and increased funding to Quebec a couple of years ago to the point many Albertans were enraged.

His answer? "REALLY?!?" He really didn't know.

While Liberals since Trudeau have taken a hard-line stance toward quebec regarding giving the province any special status, Conservative governments are the ones that seem keen on giving Quebec the foundation for separation by recognising its "distinct" status (personally, I take offense to that term - I mean really, all provinces are distinct in their own way).

I feel sorry for Dion. His federalist vision of Quebec makes him dispised in Quebec, yet many people in the ROC seems to believe the exact opposite about him.

I see. Did you also tell him that Harper was the original author of the clarity act? Oh, did you also tell him that Quebec's appetite for seperation is at it's lowest in decades?

While we are at it, did you also ask him if he noticed that all provinces have suddenly stopped whining about the 'fiscal imbalance'? It's not even on the radar anymore.

Did you mention these things? I mean, afterall, you were only opening his eyes to reality correct? You weren't being partisan or anything?

guyser · October 2, 2008

Either they ignored them completely, like with British Columbia, or they actually bled them for brownie points in the East, with the National Energy Policy.

Except they were not bleeding them for brownie points but trying to get prices in the east as the same in the west. With the overthrow of the Shah regime,and the boycott of Arab produced oil, the price of oil that eastern canada was importing had skyrocketed. All they were attempting was to stablize the price . Yes for easterners.

Those old enough to remember the NEP saw people losing their jobs in droves! Commercial real estate in Calgary went from being scarce to a 30% vacancy rate almost overnight. Many folks couldn't carry their mortgage and lost their homes.

Except the NEP did not cause that .

It was also Ray Hnatyshyn (sp?) Energy Minister for the PC's who wanted more of the pie.To that end, they agreed to peg the price to OPEC, and prices rose...everyone in the west was making money hand over fist.

But the price of oil dropped from somewhere around $45 a BL (1980) to $18 a BL 8 years later. The govt was funding the oil co's exploration (80%) with money it was not recieving.

Generations are going to have to grow old and die before negative feelings fade away towards the Liberal party in the West. Can't blame them, either.

And that is true. It aint right, but those are the optics that continue today.

Edit to add: We were one of many nations that were doing the very same thing.

The US had separate pricing too, "old gold" it was called.

Edited October 2, 2008 by guyser

Argus · October 2, 2008

I was discussing the federal election with a friend the other day and I was surprised to see a prevailing misconception about Dion, and by extension, the LPC, out here in BC. My friend was saying how the Liberal Party is only about appeasing Quebec separatists and that they don't care about the West.
When I told him that the reason Dion is so hated in Quebec is because of the Clarity Act, he seemed surprised. I went on to remind him that while the Clarity Act makes it harder for Quebec to just unilaterally separate from Canada, it was Harper who recognised the Nation within a Nation status for Quebec. Furthermore, even though he didn't deliver, Harper is the one who promised Quebec a seat in UNESCO, and increased funding to Quebec a couple of years ago to the point many Albertans were enraged.

His answer? "REALLY?!?" He really didn't know.

While Liberals since Trudeau have taken a hard-line stance toward quebec regarding giving the province any special status, Conservative governments are the ones that seem keen on giving Quebec the foundation for separation by recognising its "distinct" status (personally, I take offense to that term - I mean really, all provinces are distinct in their own way).

I feel sorry for Dion. His federalist vision of Quebec makes him dispised in Quebec, yet many people in the ROC seems to believe the exact opposite about him.

The reason the Liberals hae fought against "special status" is because prior to the BQ Quebec was their fiefdom and they wanted to protect the main source of their seats. On the other hand, they heavily favoured Quebec in almost everything, pouring money into the province in order to assure their continued re-election, and it is that which so angered the rest of the country. Special status? Quebec Leaders have ruled Canada for almost the entire last forty years. How much more special do you want to get?

BC_chick · October 2, 2008

I see. Did you also tell him that Harper was the original author of the clarity act?

No, because I don't tell lies.

Oh, did you also tell him that Quebec's appetite for seperation is at it's lowest in decades?

Remember, my friend was the one arguing that Liberals are the party looking out for Quebec. Thanks for proving my point.

While we are at it, did you also ask him if he noticed that all provinces have suddenly stopped whining about the 'fiscal imbalance'? It's not even on the radar anymore.

Again, you're only proving me right that Western provinces are incorrect in thinking Liberals appease Quebec more than Conservatives do. :rolleyes:

Did you mention these things? I mean, afterall, you were only opening his eyes to reality correct? You weren't being partisan or anything?

I'm totally anti-conservative, I don't deny it. But that doesn't change the fact that many BC people are mistaken in thinking LPC looks out for Quebec more than CPC does.

White Doors · October 3, 2008

No, because I don't tell lies.
Remember, my friend was the one arguing that Liberals are the party looking out for Quebec. Thanks for proving my point.

Again, you're only proving me right that Western provinces are incorrect in thinking Liberals appease Quebec more than Conservatives do.

I'm totally anti-conservative, I don't deny it. But that doesn't change the fact that many BC people are mistaken in thinking LPC looks out for Quebec more than CPC does.

Nah, What it does is cheapen your credibility.

ALL provinces have stopped whining about the fiscal imbalance, not just Quebec.

But, whatever, you have obviously never been interested in facts.

Bryan · October 3, 2008

No, because I don't tell lies.

Actually, he did. He wrote it in 1996, calling it at the time the Quebec Contingency Act. The Liberals made some changes to it and reintroduced it as the Clarity Act.

jdobbin · October 3, 2008

ALL provinces have stopped whining about the fiscal imbalance, not just Quebec.

Have they now?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

If squaring that circle is hard, consider Mr. Harper's refusal so far to meet Mr. Charest's demand that Quebec be allowed to recoup - without condition - its share of any money that the federal government spends on initiatives in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the most prominent being health care, social services and postsecondary education.

Quebec is basically saying it wants more money and all of the the control on spending it.

McGuinty talks about the fiscal imbalance every day.

Edited October 3, 2008 by jdobbin

BC_chick · October 3, 2008

Have they now?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

Quebec is basically saying it wants more money and all of the the control on spending it.

McGuinty talks about the fiscal imbalance every day.

Thanks JD... I know, I can't believe anyone would actually suggest any prime minister of any stripe is ever going to bring this country to the point where the provinces and the feds are linking arms and singing kumbaya together....

White Doors · October 3, 2008

Thanks JD... I know, I can't believe anyone would actually suggest any prime minister of any stripe is ever going to bring this country to the point where the provinces and the feds are linking arms and singing kumbaya together....

Who said that?

They have stopped whining about the 'fiscal imbalance' largely since Harper took office. He massively increased transfer payments. Think that is a coincidence? There are stll mutterings of course, but not the near riots of 3 years ago and there is a reason for it.

I think the cities still need more funding for infrastructure however (over and above the 2cents/litre) they are getting now. I think Infrastructure is critical and like that part of the liberal platform.

BC_chick · October 3, 2008

Who said that?
They have stopped whining about the 'fiscal imbalance' largely since Harper took office. He massively increased transfer payments. Think that is a coincidence? There are stll mutterings of course, but not the near riots of 3 years ago and there is a reason for it.

I think the cities still need more funding for infrastructure however (over and above the 2cents/litre) they are getting now. I think Infrastructure is critical and like that part of the liberal platform.

I'm not disputing that Harper has appeased Quebec more than Liberals, that's my whole point!

Look at the bolded sentence above, you admit it, Harper has been better to Quebec than the Liberals.

Now read my first post in the thread - I'm trying to say that there is a MISCONCEPTION in BC that Liberal leaders are the a bunch of Frenchies who who keep looking out for Quebec when in fact the Conservatives have bribed them given way more.

Edited October 3, 2008 by BC_chick

White Doors · October 4, 2008

I'm not disputing that Harper has appeased Quebec more than Liberals, that's my whole point!
Look at the bolded sentence above, you admit it, Harper has been better to Quebec than the Liberals.

Now read my first post in the thread - I'm trying to say that there is a MISCONCEPTION in BC that Liberal leaders are the a bunch of Frenchies who who keep looking out for Quebec when in fact the Conservatives have bribed them given way more.

The simple fact that you refuse to admit is that he increased transfers to ALL provinces.

Are you THICK or blinded by ideaology?

The readers will decide

independent · October 4, 2008

Actually, he did. He wrote it in 1996, calling it at the time the Quebec Contingency Act. The Liberals made some changes to it and reintroduced it as the Clarity Act.

Do't tell Quebec that they are blaming Dion. If they realize it was Harper he will lose support.

BC_chick · October 4, 2008

The simple fact that you refuse to admit is that he increased transfers to ALL provinces.

First off, I named off a few appeasements that Harper has offered Quebec which no Liberal leader did - recognising the Nation within a Nation (which was not very welcome in ROC), the undelivered promise of a seat in UNESCO (which again recognises Quebec's international status, and in extension, autonomy from Canada) along with the increased payments.

You want to keep cherry-picking one thing out of the bunch while ignoring that the rest even exist, that's fine. But at least get it right.

Are you telling me Danny Williams and Dalton McGuinty are pleased with the transfer payments?!?

One thing you're right about though is that the reader will decide. Especially one that reads the news.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/497170

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

Edited October 4, 2008 by BC_chick

kimmy · October 4, 2008

First off, I named off a few appeasements Harper has offered Quebec which no Liberal leader did - recognising the Nation within a Nation (which not very welcome in ROC), the undelivered promise of a seat in UNESCO (which again recognises Quebec's international status, and in extension, autonomy from Canada) along with the increased payments.

I think you're missing a significant part of the debate.

It is not a matter of "BOOO! He is sucking up to Quebec!" vs "YAY! Somebody needs to tell Quebec to get bent!"

The problem is different visions of Federalism. There is the strong central authority vision which has been favored by Trudeau, Chretien, and Dion (Paul Martin Jr, if I recall, was less interested in this sort of view, although I could be wrong as it's hard to recall any of PMPM's positions on any subject, or if he even had any positions on any subject.)

The opposing view has higher regard for provincial jurisdiction. This was the Mulroney position, it's been the Reform position, and the Conservative position under Harper. It has also been the central position of the BQ. It is why during the debate you saw Duceppe talk about provincial jurisdiction during his discussions on healthcare and environment. This view of respect for provincial autonomy is what has allowed the Conservatives to gain traction in Quebec.

Western Canadians have long had that in common with Quebecers. The historical roots are different (in Quebec, it is "maitres chez nous", while in the west it is more along the lines of mistrust) but the underlying belief is the same: we're happier when we get to decide our own policies and set our own priorities and administer our own budgets. This is why the CPC and BQ view of a more decentralized federalism has much more appeal in those regions.

The strong central federalism view-- the Liberal party vision-- is fundamentally different. Strong national programs that level the playing field for every Canadian, etc. But Quebecers feel that these programs threaten their sense of individuality, and westerners feel that these programs are formulated in the Windsor-Montreal corridor with little consideration of views from the rest of the country.

During the 1990s the Liberal party made a concerted effort to sell Quebec on their more centralized view of federalism. It involved lots of pork, and left the other regions wondering "hey, if pork is the benefit of confederation, where's ours?" The idea that you could fight separatism through pork and spending and slapping the Government of Canada logo on everything was ultimately a failure. It wasn't even what Quebecers wanted. Pushing central programs and central spending did not make Quebecers happier, it made them angry, and it made everybody else angry in the process.

The reason Quebec separatism (and Western alienation, for that matter) have fallen from the political radar is not that Harper has delivered pork to the regions. It's because he has withdrawn the federal nose from peoples' business.

-k

Kitch · October 4, 2008

I see. Did you also tell him that Harper was the original author of the clarity act? Oh, did you also tell him that Quebec's appetite for seperation is at it's lowest in decades?
While we are at it, did you also ask him if he noticed that all provinces have suddenly stopped whining about the 'fiscal imbalance'? It's not even on the radar anymore.

Did you mention these things? I mean, afterall, you were only opening his eyes to reality correct? You weren't being partisan or anything?

Maybe some things aren't "on the radar" anymore. Or, maybe the impotence of the CRTC and deregulation of the media industry leading to the concentration of the ability to disperse information has allowed certain people/organizations to censor the "news".

Just a thought

Pliny · October 4, 2008

I think you're missing a significant part of the debate.
-------

The reason Quebec separatism (and Western alienation, for that matter) have fallen from the political radar is not that Harper has delivered pork to the regions. It's because he has withdrawn the federal nose from peoples' business.

-k

Good Post, kimmy! It needs acknowledging.

People like eyeball and Dr. Greenthumb need to view the Conservatives from that point of view rather than their narrow special interests and socialists like BC Chick need to realize the conservatives are about decentralizing federal powers. The narrower interests can be addressed better at a later date by the provinces when the strong centralist federal government has turned over some of it's arrogated responsibilities to the provinces. It will be very difficult to turn over control of the federal government's mandate to act as a collection agency for "national" health care and education though. Quebec may help lead us to that.

Pliny · October 4, 2008

Maybe some things aren't "on the radar" anymore. Or, maybe the impotence of the CRTC and deregulation of the media industry leading to the concentration of the ability to disperse information has allowed certain people/organizations to censor the "news".
Just a thought

Yes, just a thought.

Kitch · October 4, 2008

Yes, just a thought.

Ya, it would be ridiculous to think that conservatives would censor or promote censorship.

blueblood · October 4, 2008

Ya, it would be ridiculous to think that conservatives would censor or promote censorship.

how are cuts censorship?

Kitch · October 4, 2008

how are cuts censorship?

Maybe I missed something in some earlier post... but I never referred to cuts. Unless you mean cuts to the CRTC's ability to regulate the business of media and prevent concentration.

Pliny · October 4, 2008

Maybe I missed something in some earlier post... but I never referred to cuts. Unless you mean cuts to the CRTC's ability to regulate the business of media and prevent concentration.

The CRTC's existence is concentration.

BC_chick · October 4, 2008

The reason Quebec separatism (and Western alienation, for that matter) have fallen from the political radar is not that Harper has delivered pork to the regions. It's because he has withdrawn the federal nose from peoples' business.
-k

Whatever the underlying reason may be for Quebec warming up to federalism, it doesn't change the fact that there is a misconception in BC that Liberals give more to Quebec than Conservatives do.

This has been my point all along and nobody has yet acknowledged it but Wild Bill.

Edited October 4, 2008 by BC_chick