Liberals, Conservatives Virtually Tied in Canada

[unclepercy]

OK, someone said all I had to do was ask in order to learn about Canada. This article has one particularly confusing statement in it. Could someone explain it, please?

November 8, 2005

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – The Liberal party’s advantage has dwindled considerably in Canada’s federal political scene, according to a poll by Ipsos-Reid released by CanWest Global. 31 per cent of respondents would vote for the governing party in the next federal election.

The opposition Conservative party is second with 30 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 19 per cent, the Bloc Québécois with 13 per cent and the Green party with five per cent. Support for the Grits fell by seven points since late October, while backing for the Tories increased by four points.

Liberal leader Paul Martin took over as Canada’s prime minister in December 2003. In the June 2004 election, the Liberals secured a minority government with 135 seats in the House of Commons. Last year, Martin called a public inquiry into the federal sponsorship program—initiated during the tenure of prime minister Jean Chrétien to promote Canada in Quebec—after auditor-general Sheila Fraser concluded that approximately $75 million U.S. of the program’s budget was paid to Liberal-friendly advertising firms for little or no work.

URL http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9761

This seems crazy to me. That's like promoting steak in Texas.
What does that mean? And why would that be necessary?

Uncle

 

[no1important]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

Go to the poll section in the federal election forums and the pols have changed since that one 35% Lib and 28% conservative.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Liberals, Conservativ

Go to the poll section in the federal election forums and the pols have changed since that one 35% Lib and 28% conservative.

Well, this article was dated today. But anyway, I was asked why Canada would promote Canada in Quebec, which is Canada. That makes no sense. What is the motivation?

Percy

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

You really have to read our history to understand it, Uncle. I'll give you a quick rundown though.

There has always been an element of separatism in Quebec. It goes back to the French/English wars.

In the 1960's and 1970's we had some terrorism by a group called the FLQ. If you read their manifesto, they really weren't being that unreasonable on a lot of points and they likely could have gone on blowing up mailboxes for years without anybody taking much notice. Then a particularly militant faction of the FLQ kidnapped a diplomat and a cabinet minister. One of them turned up dead in the trunk of a Chevy and all hell broke loose.

Our Prime Minister invoked the War Measures Act...martial law...in Quebec and our army was arresting people left, right and centre.

All that, along with something called the Quiet Revolution...kind of an intellectually based decision to be a separate nation whether recognised or not...led to separatism becoming a legitimate political movement. One of Canada's best politicans, whether you love him or hate him, a man named Rene Levesque, got it really rolling.

Levesque held a referendum but lost by a fairly large margin. He was still building separatist support though, and his referendum was really just part of that building.

Then Brian Mulroney came along and did his level best to piss off everybody in the country. We all wanted to separate and become 30 million little nations of our own. Who could blame us?

Ten years ago, shortly after the Liberals got back into power, we had a referendum in which Quebec almost decided to leave Canada. The margin was cigarette paper thin...1%. The Liberals formed the sponsorship program to promote Canada within Quebec as a result of that referendum. It was basically an advertising program to promote Canada. It worked to an extent too...separatist sentiment was waning and things seemed to be settling down.

Right now separatism is on the rise. The next referendum, and there will almost certainly be one, will be at least as close as the last one.

 

[Shiva]

Just a small correction- not all people who were a part of the Quiet Revolution were separatists, but all separatists were a part of the Quiet Revolution.

The situation in Quebec in the 60s and 70s was such that all positions of power and influence in Quebec were held by English speaking Quebecers, effectively creating an English speaking bourgeiousie, with the French speaking Quebeckers left in the cold doing more menial labour. The idea behind the movement was to empower the local French speakers so that they, too, could succeed to the highest posts in Quebec in gov't and the private sector, destroying old barriers and segregations. The province had been run on a more colonial style previous to this time, and Quebeckers had many legitimate grievances against the status quo.

Consequently, some people felt that in order to be rid of this English domination, a separate nation would need to be formed. Separatists were actively involved in creating a French speaking Quebec business class and exerting influence in political policies to ensure that French was the main language of Quebec (particularly in Montreal, the home of the English speaking Quebeckers). However, there are many Quebeckers who wanted to be rid of the social inequality, but were nevertheless proudly Canadian.

To answer your question about why the federal gov't was interested in using public monies to promote federalism in Quebec, the answer is simply that a separatist gov't was in power in Quebec that was using public monies to spread its message, in attempt to foster support and bring federalists over to the separatist side. The federal gov't had to do something to counter this campaign, and decided to play the same game and sponsor public events, festivals, etc., in Quebec, with public money provided that Canadian symbols, etc., were visibly shown. The provincial gov't had reneged on its responsibility to promote federalism and the federal gov't had to step in and play the role.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Just a small correction- not all people who were a part of the Quiet Revolution were separatists, but all separatists were a part of the Quiet Revolution.

Just trying to keep things simple, Shiva. I also didn't get into the Jesuits or how they acted as power-brokers and controlled who was educated etc. They got kicked out of positions of influence in nearly every country on earth during the 17 and 1800's, including France, yet they maintained massive influence in Quebec until the 1970s.

Chretien was educated by the Jesuits, btw. So were most of the francophone politicians and thinkers in Quebec up until the late sixties. When people wonder how come we have so many leaders from Quebec, they should go talk to a Jesuit priest for a while. It doesn't take long to understand that they provide a better education in skills needed for political debate than most institutions. Their students become leaders because they are better at the game.

Are you confused yet, Uncle?

 

[unclepercy]

Well, yes, I am still confused. I have been on high tech Canadian forum for a few years, and they are super smart techno-geeks.
I started 2-3 discussions about America vs. Canada and Canadian Politics. Eventually someone said, "If you figure out Canadian politics, would you explain it to us?"

So, I pretty much gave up on them. Haven't been there in a while, because I got the home theatre setup I wanted for the time being.
Also the computer. I pretty much knew all the computer stuff, but I got some help on the home theatre.

Maybe it would be simpler if you told me what is the same in US and Canadian politics? There must be something. We both originally came from England...what is it? Please don't say absolutely nothing.

Uncle

 

[no1important]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

Our parliament or House of Commons, elections, form miniority or majority governments is pretty well the same as Englands.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Maybe it would be simpler if you told me what is the same in US and Canadian politics?

A bit. Our Conservatives follow neo-conservative doctrine almost to the letter. The Christian right has a lot of influence over them and they keep trying to mix that with politics (abortion, SSM...not too much creationism yet, but it's coming).

Our followers of Leo Strauss here belong to something called the Calgary School (as opposed to the Chicago School). They also use right wing think tanks to influence policy. Our Conservatives have a problem though...they have a bad habit of confusing American jingoism with Canadian soft nationalism since they've been unable to generate much Canadian jingoism.

The Conservatives get much of their money from the business lobby (though that's restricted by our laws) and it shows in their policy.

Our Conservatives are like your Republicans.

Our Liberals have moved right since Paul Martin haas come on the seen and are now close to your Democrats. They play the same game of running from the left and governing from the right once they get into power too.

Because of promises made when they were running, they can sometimes be tricked into putting people ahead of money.

They generally like "free" trade and get much of their money from corporate interests. They tend to be better on social issues than the Conservatives because they don't mix church and state.

They are also better at real-politik. While Harper mumbles about some vast silent majority that simply doesn't exist, the Liberals look at the polls and do what they have to while doing what they can to keep their corporate masters happy.

That's about where the similarities end. Twenty years ago, we didn't have a single party as far to the right on the political spectrum as your Democrats. Now we have one that is basically Republican and one that is very close to your present-day Democrats.

That brings us to third parties. Nader (you really should make him President) got what, less than 1% of the vote last time around right? You have no significant third party movement in the United States. At this point all similarity to the US really falls apart.

Our oldest third party is the NDP. Because we sometimes have minority governments (nothing like it in your two-party system) they have been able to get progressive legislation through to help actual Canadian people. They have gotten Canada universal health care, pensions, labour legislation, unemployment insurance and other social programs by putting forth policy initiatives that were popular with the majority of Canadians. The ruling party (generally the Liberals) have been forced to adopt those policies because they needed the NDP votes and Canadians liked the policies.

Our other major third party is the Bloq Quebecois. They hold more seats than the NDP and were even the Official Oppostion for a while. They exist to break the country up. That is their main reason for being. At the same time they do a decent job of representing the centre-left values of most Quebecois. Imagine if NY, Mich. and Mass. had a single government that was left-leaning and had seccession as it's ultimate goal. That's the BQ.

That's federal politics. The provincial/federal interactions are also much more complex than your federal government has with your states.

 

[unclepercy]

Maybe it would be simpler if you told me what is the same in US and Canadian politics?

A bit. Our Conservatives follow neo-conservative doctrine almost to the letter. The Christian right has a lot of influence over them and they keep trying to mix that with politics (abortion, SSM...not too much creationism yet, but it's coming).

Our followers of Leo Strauss here belong to something called the Calgary School (as opposed to the Chicago School). They also use right wing think tanks to influence policy. Our Conservatives have a problem though...they have a bad habit of confusing American jingoism with Canadian soft nationalism since they've been unable to generate much Canadian jingoism.

The Conservatives get much of their money from the business lobby (though that's restricted by our laws) and it shows in their policy.

Our Conservatives are like your Republicans.

Our Liberals have moved right since Paul Martin haas come on the seen and are now close to your Democrats. They play the same game of running from the left and governing from the right once they get into power too.

Because of promises made when they were running, they can sometimes be tricked into putting people ahead of money.

They generally like "free" trade and get much of their money from corporate interests. They tend to be better on social issues than the Conservatives because they don't mix church and state.

They are also better at real-politik. While Harper mumbles about some vast silent majority that simply doesn't exist, the Liberals look at the polls and do what they have to while doing what they can to keep their corporate masters happy.

That's about where the similarities end. Twenty years ago, we didn't have a single party as far to the right on the political spectrum as your Democrats. Now we have one that is basically Republican and one that is very close to your present-day Democrats.

That brings us to third parties. Nader (you really should make him President) got what, less than 1% of the vote last time around right? You have no significant third party movement in the United States. At this point all similarity to the US really falls apart.

Our oldest third party is the NDP. Because we sometimes have minority governments (nothing like it in your two-party system) they have been able to get progressive legislation through to help actual Canadian people. They have gotten Canada universal health care, pensions, labour legislation, unemployment insurance and other social programs by putting forth policy initiatives that were popular with the majority of Canadians. The ruling party (generally the Liberals) have been forced to adopt those policies because they needed the NDP votes and Canadians liked the policies.

Our other major third party is the Bloq Quebecois. They hold more seats than the NDP and were even the Official Oppostion for a while. They exist to break the country up. That is their main reason for being. At the same time they do a decent job of representing the centre-left values of most Quebecois. Imagine if NY, Mich. and Mass. had a single government that was left-leaning and had seccession as it's ultimate goal. That's the BQ.

That's federal politics. The provincial/federal interactions are also much more complex than your federal government has with your states.

OK, where does states rights (or provincial rights) come in? Every state is pretty much allowed to make ALL of its own laws as long as they do not contradict a federal law. That is the reason Texas had the right to decide that gay marriage is not legal. Personally, I could care less - it really doesn't apply to me - but I do realize it matters to some.

Texas does have it own government in a manner of speaking. No other state has an identical set of laws. We also have the right to secede. However, we are not left leaning - although we used to be a Democratic state some years ago. Secede? Not us! We love our country and even our neighbors, as we proved when Louisiana got into a bit of hurricane trouble.

Does Ontario love Quebec? Does BC love Labrador? Is there a strong affinity among provinces?

Uncle

 

[Reverend Blair]

OK, where does states rights (or provincial rights) come in? Every state is pretty much allowed to make ALL of its own laws as long as they do not contradict a federal law.

Canada is more centralised than the US...the feds wield more power here. That's been diminishing over the past couple of decades and the result has been an increase in separatist sentiment, both in Quebec and Alberta (when you hear people speak of western separatism, what they really mean is Alberta separatism).

There are also some odd overlaps where Ottawa has laws and provides funding and the provinces have laws and provide funding. Health care is a good example of that. We have the Canada Health Act, which outlines what provinces can and cannot do. If they break the rules, they lose funding. We also have provincial laws and provinces that lose funding because they will not follow the federal rules then whine that they are being treated unfairly because they are not getting all of their funding. This is commonly known as "fed-bashing" and it's an easy way for a provincial government to get votes.

Another area of much contention is that Ottawa makes trade deals for our goods even though all natural resources belong to the provinces. This gets sticky because sometimes premiers (kind of like governors) forget which country they belong to or that there are rules.

Ralph Klein would crap his pants if an export duty was put on oil as part of the softwood lumber dispute for instance. The feds have every right to do so though. The result is a lot of confusing and contradictory rhetoric where both sides make illegitmate claims.

That is the reason Texas had the right to decide that gay marriage is not legal. Personally, I could care less - it really doesn't apply to me - but I do realize it matters to some.

The SSM thing here shows a difference. Our gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married. The only way for a government, federal or provincial, to get around that is to invoke the notwithstanding clause, which is basically a way for the government to claim that the constitution does not apply in a specific case.

Ralph Klein (you'll notice that Alberta is a lot like a half-bright juvenille delinquent with too much spending money and an attitude problem...that has a lot to do with the Premier of Alberta being a half-bright delinquent with too much spending money and an attitude problem)...anyway...Ralph Klein yammered and sputtered about invoking notwithstanding to keep SSM out of Alberta (word is that he thought it was mandatory :wink: ), but in the end he backed down because notwithstanding has to reviewed every five years and everybody was pointing at Ralph and calling him a backwards hillbilly.

Does Ontario love Quebec? Does BC love Labrador? Is there a strong affinity among provinces?

Yes and no. Conservatives tend to foster competition and discord among the provinces while Liberals and New Democrats try to bring the provinces more together.

 

[unclepercy]

Thank you, Rev, for taking the time to explain Canadian politics
to me. You understand that I am coming from a totally different mindset, and yes, ignorance. Not stupidity, though, I'd hope.

I listened to the people at the high-tech forum until I was blue in the face, and mostly they argued among themselves. I didn't learn a thing. What is grits? I see this in Canadian news article, and I have no idea what they are talking about. To me, it's a corn side dish served in the south.

Uncle

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

Grits are the Liberals. Tories are the Conservatives. The nicknames come from long ago and neither party can really claim the terms as part of their true heritage, since both parties have drifted from what they stood for when those names meant something.

There are also factions within the larger groups. There's a kind of short-hand tht has developed to describe them too.

Harperites generally refers to neo-conservatives or followers of Stephen Harper. That term is used to differentiate them from those who came from the old Progressive Conservative Party. The federal Conservatives have very few members who aren't Harperites.

Martinites are those Liberals who are loyal to Paul Martin. They tend to be right-leaning for Liberals...close to your Democrats.

The other major camp within the Liberal party are the Chretienites. Chretien is out of politics, but his followers are still within the Liberal Party, although not in positions of power.

The battle between Chretien and Martin ran for over a decade and gives a lot of credence to claims that Martin didn't know anything about the sponsorship scandal. The dislike the two have for each other is palpable.

You may see references to these terms in the press, but mostly you'll see and hear them in discussions about politics online.

 

[Karlin]

As for politics, Canada has two [main]* parties, one or the other has allways had power. The difference between them came clearer with the Sponsorship scandal and the emergance of Harper as leader of one of these two parties, the CPC.

It isn't much [the difference betwwen them]. The way I see it, the Liberals takes/steals money from taxpayers and other government revenues , whereas the conservatives [CPC} get money from corporations [in trade for ...].

Here is a link to a story about Harper and corporations:

"If it's all about trust, beware of Harper"
http://tinyurl.com/86od6[url] ...ange that and actually VOTE for a leader eh?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

It may be one-sided, Karlin, but it's also full of facts. Harper has worked very hard to keep corporate money in politics. He has worked hard to see that corporate influence within the Conservative and Liberal parties keeps flowing. He has supported keeping lobbying rules lax.

For him to do an about-face now is laughable and his entire party is forever tainted by Harper's past attempts.

 

[Summer]

Wow... great thread, and very informative. I'm brand-new to the board, and welcome the chance to learn more about the ins and outs of Canadian politics. Thanks for humoring us folks from the U.S.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

Good to see a new face, Flower. The first thing you need to know about Canadian politics is that it is much more complicated than US politics. Not only do we have more parties, but there are factions within those those parties.

We've also got things like Question Period and press scrums. Very few of your politicians could get through either without breaking down in tears.

Imagine Bush and his cabinet facing a barrage of questions from the Democrats every day as part of their official duties. Now imagine them doing that, having a bad day, and then having to face 30 or 40 reporters yelling questions at them as they leave. If they sneak out the back, they get written up as cowards who are trying to hide something.

That's the everyday reality of Canadian politics.

 

[Andem]

Countrywide, the Liberals stand at 33 per cent support, just a few percentage points lower than the 36.7 per cent support they won in the last election.

Meanwhile the Conservatives hold 28 per cent support, roughly the same as the support level they had in the 2004 vote, the poll suggests.

According to a CTV Poll.. but another poll on CTV says:

"The Decima Research survey provided to The Canadian Press shows that the Conservatives have 30 per cent of national support while the Liberals hold 33 per cent."

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Liberals, Conservativ

The seat projections are even more different, Andem. The CPC stands to lose seats along with the Liberals. The BQ and NDP will pick them up.

If an election were held today, there would be another within a year or eighteen months.

We really need to go to set election dates.

 

[missile]

That's one of the best things about the US Electoral System[along with an elected Senate]