Gomery inquiry set to return to front pages.

[Minimus Maximus]

We would not even be discussing this now except for the dogged questions of the BQ in the House and the work of Daniel Leblanc of the Globe & Mail.

Aint that the truth. Was particulairly impressed with Mr. Leblanc's reporting on this issue.

I Google my news in the morning and the first bits of knowledge I gained on Sponsorship were from him(The Gazette I believe?) and I found that I would read his articles first every morning after that. Also the BQ did prove to be very tenatious in the House to force the entire affair into the public spotlight on a nation wide level.

[Minimus Maximus]

The West wants in was the mantra of those, particularly from Alberta. who demanded the changing of Canada in the image they conjured up from the delusions of Manning. The West was always in but could not accept that the tail could not wag the dog. A minority of Reformers with an ideological outlook that has been discredited for generations now, wanted to impose their "vision" on the Canadian nation. That is what the supposed alienation is about.

I respect your view about what western alienation is, but sorry this is a stereotype. I dont think for a second that the intent of the present unrest in Alberta is to " wag the dog", this shows your own bias (based on geography) toward the west. The power of the PMO and the regional concentration of that power is at the heart of western greivences.

I lived and worked in both Alberta and B.C. for years so I do have some knowledge of that region. I have also lived in both Ontario and Quebec so I do have some grasp of their politics - a lot in the case of Quebec.

I'm not sure who you came into contact with in Alberta when you were here, but the root causes of western alienation go deeper that you may think, these feelings have existed since Alberta became a province. Since there are very few Albertans with roots here it may be difficult to get the gist of this merely working here.

Regardless the feds have never had to sell Canada to Albertans.

There is a great need to "sell" Canada to Quebec. The French people of that province are educated from an early age and are battered with reinforcing propaganda for the rest of their lives by the government and media of Quebec, to believe that the Provincial government is responsible for everything good and that the federal government just takes their money. They truly believe that they are economic losers in the Canadian Federation. They also still have the "victim" mentality and believe the ninsense that they have been weaned on about their opression by the English community.

This dog dont wag my tail. If things are as bad as you say they are then something a hell of alot more radical than flag waving is in need. You can't fix a hemmoraging aorta with a bandaide.

[shoop]

Also, and what irritates me, this "pork" to advertising agencies was at a much higher level under the Mulroney Conservatives. They brought it to an art form. Quebec provincial governments, in spite of the supposed cleansing by the PQ, have always spent government money on propaganda purposes. They do it now under the banner of promoting French culture and ridding the Province of English. They are as corrupt as ever Duplessis was, but they couch their corruption in a cloak of virtue.

One of the first initiatives of the Chretien administration (and Martin, of course) was to lessen opportunities for "pork" that Mulroney had larded his government's wheels with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So your defence of the Liberals can be summed up with the age-old "He started it."

There was corruption in the Mulroney government, it was time for a change and the Canadian people got it.

There has been corruption in the recent Liberal government, it is time for a change, hopefully the Canadian people get it again...

[Guest eureka]

Will it ever get through to you, Shoop, that I am not defending the Liberals or anyone else. I am defending "due process" and the Presumption of Innocence. I am attacking the cheap political game that is being played.

[Guest eureka]

I would suggest that it is you who needs to go a little deeper, Minimus. The "Power of the PMO and the regional concentration of that power" is just what I mean when I talk of Western demagogues. There is no great power in the PMO in a national jurisdictional sense.. Canada is, as I have repeatedly posted, the most decentralized nation in the world. The provinces have more powers than any regional authorities anywhere in the world.

It is a case of the "tail wanting to wag the dog." A small percentage of the Canadian population in the West is trying to dictate radical change in the way Canada is configured for no benefit to anyone but themselves - not to the residents of the provinces, but their personal advantage.

I don't think for one moment that alienation was there from the beginning. That is another canard that has gained currency. Alberta was created a province with all the powers of other provinces and was supported by the Central government until it could stand on its own feet. I spoke to many people when I lived in the West and wrote more than one article on the Quebec problem - one in the Calgary Herald: others in Vancouver and I appeared on a couple of radio phone in shows in Vancouver - an interesting experience.

I would agree with you that there are very few Albertans with roots in Alberta. How then, can there be such a thing as Western alienation? There is a circle of power brokers who want more and disseminate the myth of alienation so that a lot of Albertans believe themselves to be alienated, but from what they do not know. Many woll say the same about "concentration in Ottawa even though tht is a farcical observation to all who do know something of the governance of Canada.

[Minimus Maximus]

I would suggest that it is you who needs to go a little deeper, Minimus. The "Power of the PMO and the regional concentration of that power" is just what  I mean when I talk of Western demagogues. There is no great power in the PMO in a national jurisdictional sense.. Canada is, as I have repeatedly posted, the most decentralized nation in the world. The provinces have more powers than any regional authorities anywhere in the world.

It is a case of the "tail wanting to wag the dog." A small percentage of the Canadian population in the West is trying to dictate radical change in the way Canada is configured for no benefit to anyone but themselves - not to the residents of the provinces, but their personal advantage.

I don't think for one moment  that alienation was there from the beginning. That is another canard that has gained currency. Alberta was created a province with all the powers of other provinces and was supported by the Central government until it could stand on its own feet. I spoke to many people when I lived in the West and wrote more than one article on the Quebec problem - one in the Calgary Herald: others in Vancouver and I appeared on a couple of radio phone in shows in Vancouver - an interesting experience.

I would agree with you that there are very few Albertans with roots in Alberta. How then, can there be such a thing as Western alienation? There is a circle of power brokers who want more and disseminate the myth of alienation so that a lot of Albertans believe themselves to be alienated, but from what they do not know. Many woll say the same about "concentration in Ottawa even though tht is a farcical observation to all who do know something of the governance of Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off check out this site it should help clear up some of your confusion on western alienation.

http://www.abheritage.ca/albertans/perspec...alienation.html

Second, my maternal great grandparents were here when Alberta became a province, my great grandfather stayed in a tent along side the Bow River where the stampede grounds now stand while working in a butcher shop in town. During this time he tells me of unrest in the newly formed province of Alberta due to the feeling of being no more that a colony of Canada rather that an active participant. This sentiment was also shared by my Great Aunt's and Uncles as well as my maternal grandparents, I know this to be true because they told me. I didnt read it in an editorial. It was also a widely held view of the early settlers.

Your own rhetoric of when this came about seems to based on listening to too many Eastern demagogues. This is something that the feds have been pounding into your brain for far too long. There has been western discontent for 100 years and I doubt we have another 100 to keep talking about it. Your usage of words like "radical" when discussing Alberta's desires for equality is exactly what they want to hear.

Here's another post which may help explain this complicated issue to you(it may be useful in some of your research).

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists...07/1204899.html

I do agree with you on the fact that this grassroots movement has been hijacked by political forces which mean to use it to their own ends. This is nothing new and I dont feel a kinship to these people, so they dont speak for me.

On the issue of the PMO, get real. The PM can appoint anyone he wishes to the senate or the Supreme Court of Canada. Yes he has advisors, and yes there are law societies and such that can contribute their opinions to the PM, but in the end one man choses who is appointed to these positions.

So as far as alienation and disconent in the west are concerned, there are many Albertan's who have roots here and our collective pots have been simmering for years. One day Ottawa will wake up to find the pot has boiled over and claim that the stove was'nt even on, it will make no difference as damage will have been done and turning back will not be an option. Sad but true.

Changing a system which gives 39% of the popular vote a majority gov't(see Chretien) into something that all Canadians can participate in hardly seems radical to me, more along the lines of rational and inclusive. Your defending a system which will evantually destroy us all. The proof is in the pudding, look how its worked so far.

PS. I would like to read these article you have mentioned. If you are a writer(which I wont dispute), I would find it interesting to see which way you lean. I think I already know, but am willing to read your articles with an open mind.

[Guest eureka]

Those were written more than twenty years ago and were specific to Quebec. I am not a professional writer and have never been paid for any since they were called political pieces. I do have them in my own records, though.

I do find it hard to believe that it is still possible to criticize the method od Senate appointments or of Judicial appointments. We have a Senate that has always since Confederation, functioned well. It has done so without scandal and without any real suggestion of political agenda. Contrast that to the US or anywhere there is the kind of Upper House that the Reformers wish to see in Canada.

The same goes for the Judiciary. In Canadian history, only one judge has been removed from the Bench for improprieties.

Prportional Representation is something I favour. However, there are as many arguments against as for it. It has almost everywhere led to instability and an inability to plan or act for the longer term needs. There arguments in favour that I am sure you know as well as I. The most important one is in the perception of the public and not in any real benefit.

I know very well the sense of grievance that some originals of the West harboured. I just happen to put it in the same category as that of French Quebeckers. It does not match with reality.

Certainly Alberta and the other new provinces were looked as almost Canadian colonies in the beginning. So what! They were colonial possessions that were being transformed and the attitudes and infrastructures could not be changed overnight. The fact is that the new provinces were babied along and supported financially by the older provinces until they grew up.

Now, much of the "alienation' is nothing more than the truculence of a rebellious teenager. Could it be that they are to be Peter Pans?

[kimmy]

Dear Kimmy

Thanks for your feedback.

The expression "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" seems to be apropos here. This program was originally designed to help keep Canada united, after the referendum, was it not? I really wonder how many people realize how serious (I'm talking about the possibility of civil war) the Quebec situation was, and may still be. Chretien, I don't know if allowed is the right word, but whatever, allowed himself to be demonized in Quebec by the separatists. Chretien, for all his faults spent his life trying to keep our country united, and for this I think we should be very thankful. I also don't think a lot of people in Canada have a clue what it is like to be a federalist in Quebec. It has been absolute hell for federalists in Quebec, and certainly there are some parallels with the McCarthy era in the US.

Personally I've always been skeptical as to whether the sponsorship program was ever such a smart idea. Plastering the Government of Canada logo all over everything just after such a narrow victory in the divisive referendum seems like rubbing salt in a fresh wound, to me. Ultimately, the furor over the corruption in the program has undone any goodwill that the program might have achieved in the first place, so that discussion is moot.

I just want to be clear that I understand what you are saying or possibly suggesting. Are you saying that if Martin and all of his current cabinet ministers (also what about current MPs) are not in any way involved in the scandal, i.e. no involvement and no awareness, then Martin is completely off the hook, and will get a resounding majority government?

I don't think they'll get a "resounding majority" in any event. As you've mentioned before, there's other issues and the Gomery report is hardly the only factor in determining the outcome.

I also think that the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" will come into play. It will be hard to prove that Martin and his associates knew of the corruption... but likewise it will be hard to prove they didn't. I personally believe that if Paul Martin didn't know about the corruption, it's because he chose not to know. I suspect that the Gomery report will contain nothing that gives me cause to believe otherwise.

I am an avid hockey fan, and often read columns and so on. I recall reading a column a long time ago-- before the auditor general's report made the sponsorship program a household name-- in which a Toronto Sun columnist looked at sponsorship program money being given to Canada's NHL teams. The Maple Leafs and the western teams received practically none, the Montreal Canadiens received a substancial amount, but by far the team receiving the most money from the program was the Ottawa Senators. Why, the Toronto columnist wondered, is the federal government giving money to our cross-province rivals, while our own team is getting none? Is it, he wondered pointedly, because Senators then-owner Rod Bryden was a friend of John Manley? This was the first time I'd heard of the sponsorship program, and I set about googling for it to find out why my beloved Oilers were not getting a fair share of the pie, just as I'm sure the Toronto columnist was wondering why his Leafs were not getting any pie. At the time it had not occured to me that this program would become a historic Scandal or any such thing.

My point is, this was a Toronto Sun hockey writer in 1999 or so, already looking at the program before anybody knew much of anything about Sponsorship, and wondering whether favors were being given out, just from looking at publically available documents. If dumb-ass hockey-writer guy was onto it in 1999, why wouldn't the Minister of Finance, who talks to all of these people every day and has access to a zillion documents that dumb-ass hockey-guy couldn't dream of, have at least heard something? Wondered whether something was up? Talked to his colleagues? Talked to an aide? Had an aide look up some figures? Taken any action at all? He chose not to know. That's the only answer that makes sense to me.

What I am confused about is after our election of June, 2004, why would Canadians want to have another election before Gomery's report this November. I mean don't Canadians want to hear from Gomery before we go to the polls again?

My own feeling was that waiting for Gomery's report was always the right thing to do, and this spring when Harper was trying to defeat the government to force an election, I had the feeling it was a mistake. That turns out to have been the case.

Now I suspect it is probably the Liberals who will want to force an election before the report comes out, and I think latest delay will likely give them more opportunities to do so. Sad.

-k

[Riverwind]

Now I suspect it is probably the Liberals who will want to force an election before the report comes out, and I think latest delay will likely give them more opportunities to do so. Sad.

I think we will have an election called right after the interim report on Nov 1 and it will be forced by the opposition hoping to strike while proverbial iron is hot.

I don't believe that Martin will do anything to provoke an early election since his only chance at winning again depends on the public believing that he had little to do with the sponserhsip scandal and playing games with the election timing would destroy any hope of that.

[mirror]

Link

If I understand correctly the damaging Gomery report is the one coming out Nov 1. According to pollsters if we an election this fall the Liberals will be hurt. If the election is delayed the Tories will be hurt. And the reality is that the NDP will decide the date of the next election. Just guess who is going have a lot of power in the house this Fall! I think the NDP should join the other two opposition parties and pull the plug this Fall, however they will probably cut another deal with the Liberals. Just a hunch.

[Minimus Maximus]

Prportional Representation is something I favour. However, there are as many arguments against as for it. It has almost everywhere led to instability and an inability to plan or act for the longer term needs. There arguments in favour that I am sure you know as well as I. The most important one is in the perception of the public and not in any real benefit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eureka, this is something we can both agree on. I don't pretend to know everything about PR but have been doing a fare amount of research about it. There is good and bad, but think that the List Voting system(or possibly Mixed Member) would do something to settle "the children".

What I have read so far has been positive with few drawbacks. Many Europeans have turned to Pr to represent them and are living quite happily with the knowledge that there vote "counts". These countries that have turned to PR are old enough not only to be our mothers, they are in fact so old that Canada was not even spermatazoa and egg yet when they were much older than we are now.

Countries like Australia and South Korea have growing economies, although there are many countries in the third world who use PR voting systems that are stuggling right now we cannot discount PR or some form of it( which may be created by us), without doing something we run the risk of increased civil unrest which will only end in the dissolution of Canada.

When 2.2 million voters in in Ontario elect 3 non-Liberal MP's, and 2.3 million voters in another part of Ontario( not saying where...hint hint) elect 100 Liberal MP's, I just gotta say WTF???. My argument against our currently biased system is not just about western unrest its about fairness for all Canadians, rubber stamp senates and intentionaly biased judicial systems don't serve me, they serve the 2.3 million Liberals in Ontario who voted for the man/woman who appointed them.

If you have some links to PR which conflict with my rudimentery understanding on the subject I would like to browse them and learn more about it.

BTW, we should really carry this topic over to a more appropriate thread. The Gomery folk may be getting restless. If you post a reply about western sep. in one of the other threads, I will find it and respond back.