Liberal Fraud

[August1991]

I was surprised to see a Kinsella 26 May 2005 cite a Steyn.

Kinsella quotes Steyn:

"...Paul Martin could be captured on DVD giving a Quebec advertising agency $20 million to supply him with coke and rent-boys and there would be a political earthquake in Ontario resulting in the shock poll result: Liberals 37.5 per cent, Conservatives 34.5 per cent."

Huh? Go back, and read the links above.

Then return to my two points, and a broad idea about this country (which in fact I care about because it is the only country I have - I have tried living elsewhere but this is my place.)

Point One: Steyn argues that Canada is the end result of a "social welfare state". (Think Newfoundland, or the Soviet Union. Most people wait for their cheque. Some were astonished when the truck with the roubles didn't show up.)

Point Two: Kinsella argues that Canadian Conservatives are boring, clueless, white men who hate life, navel rings, sunlight. (Think Anglo-Catholic minority family in a Protestant neighbourhood. Kinsella feels; neighbours don't.)

Idea: Non-American, not-USian, English-speaking-language Canada needs a discussion about what this northern part of North America should be.

So, what does English Canada want?

[Guest eureka]

During the Charlottetown fiasco at a meeting where five MPs, MLAs, and a union leader tried to convince the audience that they should vote for the accord, I got in a number of home truths.

The MP who led the evening furiously said at the close; "You don't speak for English Canada, Mr......

He was right and I didn't, but it seems that I convinced more than he did of what was better for Canada.

So, August, I can't answer your question. I can only tell you some of the things that I think we should have. I would also remind you that my English Canada includes Quebec.

More later.

[August1991]

During the Charlottetown fiasco at a meeting where five MPs, MLAs, and a union leader tried to convince the audience that they should vote for the accord, I got in a number of home truths.

Explain.

So, August, I can't answer your question. I can only tell you some of the things that I think we should have. I would also remind you that my English Canada includes Quebec.

My place in the world is northern North America. I have tried to live elsewhere but this is what I know, and where I am at peace.

Two late night anecdotes:

1. Years ago. Flight into Mirabel. Get on the bus. Driver talks on the micro. The accent tells me I'm home.

2. Years ago. Taxi on Yonge Street. Argument whether to turn at Eglington, or Lawrence. I understand this driver.

My country is Canada because it is the only one I have.

[What the hell am I getting into by these stories... ]

[Riverwind]

Idea: Non-American, not-USian, English-speaking-language Canada needs a discussion about what this northern part of North America should be.

So, what does English Canada want?

A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people. The debate comes down to what is necessary to achieve those goals.

Right-wing types feel that a government that must ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens and enable the individual to succeed or fail on their own hard work.

Left-wing types feel that a government must ensure equality of outcome for all citizens and protect individuals from the excesses of capitalism.

The vast majority of Canadians want a gov't that balances both.

All Canadians want an inclusive society where people from many different cultural and religious backgrounds and participate in the civil society that is united by a core set of values. For the most part there is no debate about what these values are. Abortion and gay marriage are signficant in the sense that they are very irrelevant when it comes to building a civil society.

For the most part Canadians have succeeded. However, our political culture has been poisoned by extremists who have forgotten that civil society requires compromise and most importantly: not always getting what you want.

I may currently be a Liberal supporter but it bothers me when I see people like Kinsella talk about the Conservatives in that way. Unfortunately, Steyn is no better. I would like to see a return to civil discourse.

[bigdude]

Kinsella is a take no prisoner type of guy when it comes to politics.

And in politics unfortunately if you don't fight fire with fire you will perish.

We have a wonderful country however I could live enjoyably in many different parts of the world, but perhaps that is because I know I could always return to Canada if need be.

I have some real issues with overbearing nationalism whether it is Quebecois, American or Canadian as it always leads to excesses and ends up denegrating others in society.

I believe tolerance is crucial for today's multicultural urban living and believe that everyone should be forced to go to public schools to learn tolerance of those with other languages, cultures, abilities, sexuality, and religions.

Where Canada is indeed most fortunate is the amount of land mass we have in comparison to our population. This is especially important for those of us that enjoy the great outdoors. People come from all over the planet to hike and ski in our mountains, and to fish in our pristine lakes. and rivers.

Canada though has one major challenge and that is our Southern neighbour. Although we have had a relatively peaceful relationship with the US, if they continue to elect these war mongers and religious nuts for leaders, Canada and the US will continue to drift further and further apart. the more we can divesify our trade with outher countries the better off we will be.

My dream is that we all will become trilingual some day, French, English, and Cree, and that the federal government take over education and shove these other languages down our throats. I also would like to see the feds take over apprenticeship training as the provinces especially BC, has seriously botched the job.

[The Terrible Sweal]

So, what does English Canada want?

A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people. The debate comes down to what is necessary to achieve those goals.

Wonderful. Clear, succinct, correct.

Right-wing types feel that a government that must ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens and enable the individual to succeed or fail on their own hard work.

Left-wing types feel that a government must ensure equality of outcome for all citizens and protect individuals from the excesses of capitalism.

The vast majority of Canadians want a gov't that balances both.

This loses something from simplification, I think. I think many people are a bit frustrated with the right/left (and other) dichotomies our politics seems to force upon us. The structure of dichotomies invites the use of imperfect metaphors like 'balancing both' which suggest that we can be satisfied with a dichotomy if only each of its two sides were taken in equal measure. However, I think many voters feel that what is necessary to achieve maximum quality for life for the largest number of people is a selective analysis rather than acceptance of a dichotomy.

[Guest eureka]

A functioning civil society is indeed what English Canadians want. However, the debate is not jut about how to achieve those goals but is also about what makes up a functioning civil society.

In the Canadian context that is more difficult than in many others. That is why my reference was to the Charlottetown Accord and, by implication, to Meech. Both of those had - more specifically, Charlottetown, as an aim the identification or establishment, of the core values that would make such a society.

Unfortunately, both emphasised the process for English Canada outside Quebec while accepting for Quebec its "traditional demands", though not completely, as contained in the Allaire report. That meant that a civil society for Quebec was not a possibility and Canada would be doomed in perpetuity to an ineffectual central government since there would be many constraints on the government in relation to the provinces.

What would be the core values that a civil society should hold to? Are the core values of Canadians such that Canada could not continue as a nation? Charlottetown and Meech failed over these issues, happily so in my opinion.

[August1991]

To be perfectly honest, I was worried when I started this thread because I didn't know where it would lead. I'm a little relieved that it didn't drive off the cliff.

I'll start with eureka:

The MP who led the evening furiously said at the close; "You don't speak for English Canada, Mr......

He was right and I didn't, but it seems that I convinced more than he did of what was better for Canada.

So, August, I can't answer your question. I can only tell you some of the things that I think we should have. I would also remind you that my English Canada includes Quebec.

It seems to me that no one really speaks for "English Canada" or ROC or whathever it is. In a way, I'm happy that the NDP has Layton. He's an articulate English-Canadian.

A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people.

And if I stopped the average Muscovite on Tverskaya Street, she or he would probably say the same. The debate, as you point out, is how to do that - or what the ideal even means.

Wonderful. Clear, succinct, correct.

And pure kitsch. There, I've insulted two MLF posters and all average Muscovites who walk on a major street.

What would be the core values that a civil society should hold to? Are the core values of Canadians such that Canada could not continue as a nation? Charlottetown and Meech failed over these issues, happily so in my opinion.

eureka, Canada is about to embark on another such collective discussion. And this time, I think it will be English Canada, the nine provinces, figuring out what they want. This is not the end of Canada. Our country, northern North America, has gone through several changes in the past four or five centuries, if not more. [The pyramids are 4,000 years old. How many people know that Canada was entirely covered by about 3000m of ice about 15,000 years ago?]

My dream is that we all will become trilingual some day, French, English, and Cree, and that the federal government take over education and shove these other languages down our throats. I also would like to see the feds take over apprenticeship training as the provinces especially BC, has seriously botched the job.

Bigdude, I'll pass on all that.

We have a wonderful country however I could live enjoyably in many different parts of the world, but perhaps that is because I know I could always return to Canada if need be.

Bigdude, I'll agree with you there.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It seems to me that no one really speaks for "English Canada" or ROC or whathever it is. 

No one 'speaks for' it because what it is is simply a projection of Quebec's fixation on a national duality.

[fellowtraveller]

A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people. The debate comes down to what is necessary to achieve those goals.

Well before that debate occurs, we are going to have to resolve the major issue of the significant minority of Canadians who are now convinced that our federation does not work and cannot be made to work. Like it or not, the unrest extends far beyond Quebec.

For the first time in my life, I see this as being much more than a French vs. English issue. For the first time, I'm starting to wonder: why bother? For the first time, I'm starting to feel strongly alienated from my fellow citizens.

And I know I'm far from alone in my wonderings.

[August1991]

It seems to me that no one really speaks for "English Canada" or ROC or whathever it is. 

No one 'speaks for' it because what it is is simply a projection of Quebec's fixation on a national duality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WTF is that supposed to mean? People in Canada are a figment of the imagination of people in Quebec?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It seems to me that no one really speaks for "English Canada" or ROC or whathever it is. 

No one 'speaks for' it because what it is is simply a projection of Quebec's fixation on a national duality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WTF is that supposed to mean? People in Canada are a figment of the imagination of people in Quebec?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Y'know, August, you were a lot les obtuse before you decided it was time to press for sovereignty again.

I mean, obviously, that the concept of a single "ROC" that can be 'spoken for' by asingle individual is a figment.

[August1991]

I mean, obviously, that the concept of a single "ROC" that can be 'spoken for' by asingle individual is a figment.

Uh, so ROC, or Canada, or whatever does not have any shared values?

I return to the question: What does Canada want? I was given the answer "A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people" which you described as "Wonderful. Clear, succinct, correct."

That's it? eureka goes on about Canada being ungovernable because it is too decentralized. That strikes me as one starting point. There are others. Argus, for example, once made the point that removing Quebec from the equation, a clear majority of Canadians are opposed to same-sex marriage (but a majority would favour civil unions).

At the start of this thread, Steyn argues that Canada has become a derelict welfare state where individuals are like Soviet citizens - dependant on the State to solve their problems. Kinsella argues that too many Canadians are basically angry white men who hate life. Neither of those descriptions make any sense in Quebec, so I'm assuming they are a start on describing what, for a better word, I'll call ROC, or whatever.

To be honest, I'm inclined to think that many apparently vexing political problems could be easily dealt with if Canada managed these problems without Quebec. IOW, I think there is some kind of commonality in English-speaking Canada.

Y'know, August, you were a lot les obtuse before you decided it was time to press for sovereignty again.

I have no hard feelings either way. I have said elsewhere that people in Ontario use the word "Canada" when in fact what they mean is "Ontario". Other Canadians have a different sense of the word "Canada". When I bother to think about it, I would prefer to see Quebec become an autonomous State within a united Canada.

The issue seems germaine not because of my particular beliefs but because of the current political situation in Quebec. This is hardly news. For forty some odd years, there has been a movement to create a sovereign Quebec. The events of the past few weeks and months have bolstered once again that movement.

Lastly, the federal Liberal Party - to use a technical term - has some serious issues. So does Canada. But I sense that many people in Ontario are like an ostrich that puts its head in the sand. They don't want an election, they don't want to hear Harper's jabberings and they don't want to know about Liberal corruption. Why face reality when there's valium?

[Riverwind]

To be honest, I'm inclined to think that many apparently vexing political problems could be easily dealt with if Canada managed these problems without Quebec.  IOW, I think there is some kind of commonality in English-speaking Canada.

You make too much of the divisions within ROC. Every healthy democratic society has a debate and that is what is going on in Canada. Furthermore, there are complex debates going on simulateously across different axes: free enterprise vs. socialism; securalism vs. religion; regionalism vs. centralism. These debates will not disappear if Quebec seperates.

I think the sovereignty debate has poisoned the politics of Quebec because it is quite literally impossible to talk about any other issue without relating it to the sovereignty debate. That is probably why when Quebequers look at the ROC they think there is a major crisis going on when there isn't.

Unlike some other Liberals on this board, I do believe that it is necessary to address the 'fiscal imbalance' and give some taxing power back to the provinces since they are responsible for the programs that consume most of the tax dollars.

Lastly, I think that Quebec separation is a social and economic pandora's box that should never be opened. I think that people who believe it could accomplished painlessly are being naive largely because both sides have completely different definitions of what is 'fair' and no amount of 'good-faith' negotions can resolve them. If ROC and Quebec cannot agree on a constitution then there is zero chance of them agreeing on terms of separation.

[Guest eureka]

Those terms do not make sense for Canada, either, August. Indeed, they may more appropriately be applied to Quebec.

Quebec has progressed farther in welfarism than most of the other provinces. It also is governed by "angry, white men." That should not need explaining.

[Guest eureka]

Sparhawk, could you explain this "fiscal imbamane to me? I think I have asserted a number of times that there is no fiscal imbalance but there is a jurisdictional imbalance.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I mean, obviously, that the concept of a single "ROC" that can be 'spoken for' by asingle individual is a figment.

Uh, so ROC, or Canada, or whatever does not have any shared values?

Did you rent your fingers to Hugo today? That's such a strawman, imputed leap of logic I can't believe you bothered.

I return to the question: What does Canada want?  I was given the answer "A functioning civil society that provides the maximum quality of life to the largest number of people" which you described as "Wonderful. Clear, succinct, correct."

That's it?

We are a simple people, I suppose, like hobbits.

At the start of this thread, Steyn argues that Canada has become a derelict welfare state where individuals are like Soviet citizens - dependant on the State to solve their problems.  Kinsella argues that too many Canadians are basically angry white men who hate life.  Neither of those descriptions make any sense in Quebec, so I'm assuming they are a start on describing what, for a better word, I'll call ROC, or whatever.

You're between the Scylla and Charibdys of two notoriously sleazy axe-grinders.

To be honest, I'm inclined to think that many apparently vexing political problems could be easily dealt with if Canada managed these problems without Quebec.  IOW, I think there is some kind of commonality in English-speaking Canada.

There seems to be a assumption on your part that it is Quebec's lack of commonality with this monolithic 'ROC' that stands in the way of resolving problems. Given the assumption, I think we need to examine which problems you identify.

... many people in Ontario are like an ostrich that puts its head in the sand ... they don't want to know about Liberal corruption.

Millions are being spent to uncover just how much "Liberal" corruption there was. This autumn, those millions of dollars are supposed to bear their fruit. I don't see what basis there is for criticism against people who think the way to find out about the corruption is through the mechanisms established for exactly that purpose.

What is so hard to grasp about that?