Coyne on Harper

[August1991]

Now the Tories have their hands on the levers of power, and they will set about with a will to dismantling the apparatus of Liberal rule: a sweeping program of ethical and democratic reforms, both to prevent the kinds of overt abuses of power that were the Liberals' downfall, and the broader deployment of patronage and favours that was their greatest strength.

Andrew Coyne

This nomenklatura predates Pierre Trudeau but it was certainly Trudeau who made it go professional. If you are curious to know who is a member (and, no, it's not the Carlyle Group, nor the Trilateral Commission, nor Halliburton, nor Desmarais), check out the following PWGSC list, or go here.

Trudeau set this network up as part of his "create counterweights" theory of political democracy in a post-sixties era. Trudeau also wanted to co-opt separatists by spending federal money to buy support. Once the Liberal Party people figured out what Trudeau was doing - wholescale funding of groups under the legitimacy of "national unity" - they took the idea into primetime.

Mulroney never tried to change this system - he just put himself in the driver's seat. And at its base, the sponsorship scandal is just a symptom of it.

According to Coyne, Harper wants to dismantle this nomenklatura system. The question is: can he?

One solution is to push funding for these groups off to the provinces, and then let the provincial governments deal with all the rent-seeking these groups employ to get their subsidies. Provincial governments are probably better placed to say no: money for roads and hospitals is more important.

Harper may have the support of the NDP for some changes, but many of these funded groups have NDP leanings. Harper may be able to rely on the BQ, but many of the groups are in Quebec. On the other hand, these groups are at the core of the modern Liberal Party's lock on power.

Harper has got to dismantle this network of professional moochers, and find some other way to fund directly people who need help. That argument might resonate with Duceppe and Layton.

[geoffrey]

I'd like to see all the moochers run out of town one and for all. If thats all Harper did this mandate, he would have done more good for this country than the last seven Prime Ministers combined.

Why do these groups deserve government money? The real answer is they don't.

[geoffrey]

Looking at that document you posted August, under the Public Works and Government services section.

Gatineau got $20,000,000 in funding. Calgary, larger in size, got $2,000,000. Saguenay got $4mil.

North Bay almost recieved the same as Calgary.

--

Someone better stop me from reading this, I'm get more upset with our government and how much it spends on such ridiculous stuff by the minute.

[Hicksey]

I think the accountability statute needs to extend to make the efficiency of the government available for public viewing. They need to set up a website for every government agency with an efficiency meter for how much of the gross money allocated for each project made it to its intended target.

If my idea won't work then some other way of measuring the weight of the pork being served up by our government has to be worked out and then eliminated.

[mar]

I think the accountability statute needs to extend to make the efficiency of the government available for public viewing. They need to set up a website for every government agency with an efficiency meter for how much of the gross money allocated for each project made it to its intended target.

If my idea won't work then some other way of measuring the weight of the pork being served up by our government has to be worked out and then eliminated.

The bizarre aspect of this is that all through Gomery, etc. the only people who had a problem with the actual idea of the sponsorship program - as opposed to the money aspect - were those in Quebec. A number of Quebecois analysts thought that Quebec's reaction was much more that the program existed (even though it wasn't exactly a secret during the last referendum), rather than that money was stolen. Not surprising when you think that Gomery was shown so extensively in Quebec and people were seeing a daily accounting of this "undercover" spending. Ironically, they chose to blame Martin, though as pointed out above, the program began under Trudeau, was enthusiastically taken over by Mulroony and in the '90's was enthusiastically supported by all the Anglophone federal parties.

I don't think this is a "pork" issue, I think it is a question of whether the government should be in the business of attempting to manipulate the opinions of Canadian citizens by subterfuge using fake action groups. etc. As a means of influencing the outcome of the referendum, it would probably have been cheaper and more effective just to mail everyone in Quebec a cheque for their percentage of what the government was going to spend on this ill-conceived program.

[Hicksey]

The whole program is pork.

But your comments are well taken.

However, this kind of manipulation of public opinion is disgusting. It should be outlawed and life imprisonment be the penalty for any attempt. That's flagrant indoctrination. Is this a communist country? I didn't think it was but now I am starting to wonder.

[mar]

The whole program is pork.

But your comments are well taken.

However, this kind of manipulation of public opinion is disgusting. It should be outlawed and life imprisonment be the penalty for any attempt. That's flagrant indoctrination. Is this a communist country? I didn't think it was but now I am starting to wonder.

I think we agree but interesting that communist is the first example that leaps to mind for you. Past few years in the U.S they had government produced "fake news features" for proposed programs released to all media outlets as if they were news reports, immense levels of funding to pro-Republican groups and that's not even mentioning less easy to define propaganda.

An old adage is that no matter what they say when out of power, once in power the main concern of all political parties is to stay in power. That opens the door to a whole world of thought control.

[geoffrey]

The whole program is pork.

But your comments are well taken.

However, this kind of manipulation of public opinion is disgusting. It should be outlawed and life imprisonment be the penalty for any attempt. That's flagrant indoctrination. Is this a communist country? I didn't think it was but now I am starting to wonder.

I think we agree but interesting that communist is the first example that leaps to mind for you. Past few years in the U.S they had government produced "fake news features" for proposed programs released to all media outlets as if they were news reports, immense levels of funding to pro-Republican groups and that's not even mentioning less easy to define propaganda.

An old adage is that no matter what they say when out of power, once in power the main concern of all political parties is to stay in power. That opens the door to a whole world of thought control.

Including holding the purse strings of the CBC.

[Hicksey]

The whole program is pork.

But your comments are well taken.

However, this kind of manipulation of public opinion is disgusting. It should be outlawed and life imprisonment be the penalty for any attempt. That's flagrant indoctrination. Is this a communist country? I didn't think it was but now I am starting to wonder.

I think we agree but interesting that communist is the first example that leaps to mind for you. Past few years in the U.S they had government produced "fake news features" for proposed programs released to all media outlets as if they were news reports, immense levels of funding to pro-Republican groups and that's not even mentioning less easy to define propaganda.

An old adage is that no matter what they say when out of power, once in power the main concern of all political parties is to stay in power. That opens the door to a whole world of thought control.

The only difference between all out communism and the type of indoctrination we're talking about here is that we have free speech rights so that we can speak out against it without fear of being persecuted by our government.

I agree with the part about staying in power. That's why I want to see Harper eliminate these programs to prevent future governments from using them.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm confused... We had a PC Gov't for two terms + between Trudeau and Martin... no?

[Hicksey]

I'm confused... We had a PC Gov't for two terms + between Trudeau and Martin... no?

For me, this is a non-partisan gripe. It has been fully documented that Mulroney liked and used it as much as those who preceded and succeeded him.

[Bryan]

I'm confused... We had a PC Gov't for two terms + between Trudeau and Martin... no?

What are you confused about?

[Black Dog]

For me, this is a non-partisan gripe. It has been fully documented that Mulroney liked and used it as much as those who preceded and succeeded him.

Yeah: thank goodness that the new Harper conservatives have nothing to do with the old Mulroney P.C.'s.

Oh.

Wait.

The real work begins

Mr. Harper said his transition team, headed by a former chief of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney, is already preparing to take over the reins of power.

[kimmy]

That Harper has tapped Mulroney people (you forgot Marjorie LeBreton, btw ) to help get set up in government isn't a bad thing. I expect that there are large numbers of non-elected staff to be put in place and a lot of chaos going on at Parliament Hill. Having capable and experienced people to call upon can only help get things done quickly and efficiently. It doesn't mean Mulroney's calling the shots or that Mulroney-style porkbarrelling is back in vogue. Hopefully Harper has learned from the pitfalls of his predecessors of the past 20 years.

-k

[August1991]

About a year and a half on, one wonders:

Stephen Harper's Conservative government has appointed Jean Chretien's grandniece Caroline Chretien as High Commissioner to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Ms. Chretien worked with the Liberal caucus research bureau and as special assistant to Mr. Chretien when he was prime minister. She joined Foreign Affairs and International Trade six years ago and has held various jobs, including deputy chief of protocol and director, diplomatic corps services, and director, Korea and Oceania division. She was criticized when she moved to Foreign Affairs -- one Toronto paper suggested she was quietly given a $94,000 job without writing the foreign service exam. At the time, Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton criticized the move, saying, "It's proof that [Mr. Chretien] views the whole government and all its departments ? as his own personal fiefdom."

National Post

Then again, maybe a posting to Lagos is a suitable place for someone like this.

Edited September 11, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

About a year and a half on, one wonders

Then again, maybe a posting to Lagos is a suitable place for someone like this.

I can remember when the Toronto newspaper asked whether she had gotten the job without the exam. You don't think the Tories would have found out by now as they are in government?