Article

2004-06-29 Great White North

Canada's Liberals Lose Parliament Control

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2004-06-29 12:24:06 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I hope Quebec finally gets its wish. I like too many people in Canada to boycott our Northern neighbor, but if Quebec was it's own country, thwarting their aims would be so much easier to rationalize.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-06-29 3:16:53 AM|| 2004-06-29 3:16:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 By far the biggest losers yesterday were the polling companies. They should have called me instead. I had been predicting a Liberal sweep in Ontario and especially the greater Toronto area. Just days before the election the poll numbers showed the Liberals and Conservatives in a tight race, virtually even. And I believed them. What utter bullshit it turned out to be.

The Final seat count (pending recounts) is: Liberals 135, Conservatives 99, Bloc Quebecois 54, NDP (socialists) 19, Other 1. With 155 needed for a majority.

This is about as bad as it gets in Canada. The NDP will be a royal pain. Expect increased taxes to pay for all the bullshit coming our way. Time to get out.

And we can expect another separation referendum in Quebec soon.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 12:45:23 PM|| 2004-06-29 12:45:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Rafael, let Quebec go, but ensure they take their share of the national debt with them.

Posted by Yank 2004-06-29 1:01:08 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-06-29 1:01:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 If I am not mistaken, this could be a tie, if the Bloc and "other" throws their support in with the Conservatives for a vote of non-confidence.

The Liberals need to appoint a Speaker from their ranks, so it's 153[Liberals + NDP] to 153 {Conservatives + Bloc], with "other" holding the tie breaking vote. CBC said that minority governments don't have a long life in Canada. They typically last 16 months before being forced to call another election.

I would not worry too much about Quebec. They are a "have-not" province and have been for many years. They are firmly imprinted to the federal government's teat. That's just posturing to get more $ from the feds. Canada should call Quebec's bluff-they are going nowhere, puhleaze. It's Alberta that Canada needs to worry about. I think this was a real slap to Alberta's face. It's one of the 2 have provinces in Canada, and it's per capita transfer of payments to the other 8 have not provinces is almost twice that of Ontario, which is the other have province. The Albertan separatist party got official party status in May. Read the comments on "active topics" of www.freedominion.ca, which is the Cdn. counterpart to Free Republic. Or go to the Alberta Separatist Party page explaining the reasons for Alberta pulling out of Canada:
http://www.separationalberta.com/whyseparation.asp

Quebec needs Canada, but Alberta does not need Canada. Financially, Alberta would be much better off WITHOUT Canda. Also, for a first time in a while, Conservatives dominated all Western provinces, even socialist inclined Saskatchewan and Manitoba and BC.

As for your comment that the NDP will be a big pain-how will the NDP-Liberal compadre mindset change now from the Chretien reigns. Even though the LPOC were not forced to co-operate with the NDP, they almost always did-gay marriage, hate speech law, Kyoto, gun registry, favoring the Palestinians, visible minority quotas for government hiring, pro UN genuflecting 24/7...the only change now are the names of the leaders of the NDP and LPOC.. It's the socialist good old buddies who have won again and the NDP are just a more red hue than the LPOC who are definitely pink.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 1:32:09 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:32:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 If Quebec goes, it takes 99% of the high tech industry with it. Actually, if Quebec leaves, that would effectively be the end for Canada.

Atlantic Canada would probably form their own nation, or perhaps join Quebec. The west starting with Manitoba would definitely seek separation from Liberal Ontario (Ontario would always have more seats than the west). That leaves miserable Ontario on its own.
And I wouldn't be keen on counting Ontario as the 51st state. You'd quickly get an upset stomach.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 1:38:09 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:38:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 we'd rather have the west and the northern areas. Oil, gas, coal, cattle, lumber, and better people

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-29 1:42:00 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:42:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The NDP will be a pain because they will side with the Liberals, but in return they will inject their own socialism into everything that gets passed. The Bloc already have said they will vote on a case by case basis (which means whatever benefits Quebec). This was another decisive Liberal victory, thanks to Ontario. In the west the resentment will only get bigger.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 1:46:57 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:46:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Frank G, dont forget BC's favorite import.

(Cue Bob Marley)

Posted by danking70 2004-06-29 1:50:52 PM|| 2004-06-29 1:50:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 This election result is better than a Liberal majority government, but still bad news for Canada. It appears that Canada is becoming more disfunctional. People who are net consumers of Government largesse are voting to increase taxes on the net contributors to the Government coffers. This a metastable situation that could lead to the dissolution of Canada.

The Western provinces have much more in common with the American Northwest than they do with Ontario and points east. We should welcome them into the US. However, I'm afraid that the Democrats in the Senate would have the vapors at the prospect of admitting more conservative states (and senators) into the Republic. (a situation not unlike the pre-Civil War posturing over balancing the admission of slave and non-slave states). In any event the next 10 - 15 years will be interesting.

Posted by RWV 2004-06-29 2:18:52 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:18:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 This election result is better than a Liberal majority government.

I disagree. The NDP will now play an important role, which is not good. Even if the Bloc votes entirely with the Conservatives, it will not be enough.

This is a bigger blow to the west than it appears on the surface. Not only did the east reject the Conservatives, but they rejected a western leader of the Conservatives (Harper is from Alberta, though interestingly he was born in Toronto).

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 2:31:24 PM|| 2004-06-29 2:31:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 If Quebec goes, it takes 99% of the high tech industry with it.
Show me the stats on that, Rafael. Most of the high-ech is in Ontario and a bit in Alberta. If Quebec had such a big grip on high-tech, they'd be a have province, wouldn't they? Quebec will NEVER, NEVER leave. I was on business in Vancouver the night of the political party leaders' debates. Everything that the Bloc leader spouted off was how come Ottawa doesn't give us more $ for daycare, for healthcare, for back rubs...interspersed with how Quebec is a separate sovereign entity BUT we need more $. Give me a break. That's always been Quebec's same old same oldsong. We want to be a sovereign nation but we want to stay on the bean line. The only time Quebec would separate is if they saw Alberta bogging off. Then Quebec would get on bended knee to join the USA, inspite of the fact that French Canadians despise Americans. Quebec looks to where the $ is.

Alberta would not necessarily join America. It might try to do a Puerto Rico thingie maybe first. Maybe Alberta might convince BC to join its independence movement?

Oh, Rafael, knock yourself out trying to pretend that the NDP will have more sway than it had before. Puhleaze, the LPOC have been collaborators with the NDP since the late 1970's when that scuzball Trudeau held hands with Ed Broadbent from the NDP to formulate and ram the Charter of Rights through. Then Chretien continued to hold hands under the table with the NDP. Just look at the list of legislation I gave you that the LPOC and NDP voted like one party. And Paul Martin's best friend and mentor who has bought a condo in Ottawa, btw, is Maurice Strong-billionaire socialist who was the under secraetary to Kofi Annan, was the architect of the Kyoto Accord, and has long standing ties to China. Rafael, the NDP and LPOC are different faces of the SAME coin. Wake up.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 3:26:58 PM|| 2004-06-29 3:26:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Are there significant "leave-Canada-enter-USA" movements in Alberta and other Canadian provinces?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 4:46:14 PM|| 2004-06-29 4:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 French Canadians despise Americans.

Wow. What a shame. I speak French and my favorite vacation spot is in Quebec. Is this a post-Iraq-war thing, or is it a non-francophone thing?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-29 5:02:27 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:02:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 If you speak French, and don't admit you are an American, I have no doubt you would be fine in Quebec. Btw, the most vigorous anti-American incidents after the Iraq War started occurred in Quebec and the most vocal resistence to Canada sending troops as a coalition partner with the USA to Iraq came from Quebec.

Anti-American sentiment has existed in Quebec for a long time, but started to show more of its ugliness under Trudeau and Chretien's reigns. I think it's because of the loyalty Quebec feels to France and Quebec typically mirrors France's au courant political attitude to America.

Also, I think anti-American sentiment has become more visible in recent years due to the fact that Quebec takes in alot of Muslim immigrants/refugees. Montreal has a significant Muslim population in fact. Because of America's support of Israel, many Quebecers are not happy with the USA for obvious reasons.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 5:24:19 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:24:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 If Quebec had such a big grip on high-tech, they'd be a have province, wouldn't they? Quebec will NEVER, NEVER leave.

They almost left the last time they had a referendum (1995). The results were 50.58 against, 49.42 for. That's about as close as it gets. They now have the same mandate as they did in 1995 (54 seats in 1995, 54 seats today) for another try at separation. This time they may succeed.

Everything that the Bloc leader spouted off was how come Ottawa doesn't give us more $

Of course. That's his job as head of a separatist party. His assertion is that Ottawa is short changing Quebec, and in turn his solution is separation.

The NDP had no sway seeing as they only had a couple of seats. This time around, the Liberals do not have a majority. They need the NDP.

Looking at the NDP platform, it looks of a magnitude worse than the Liberals. At least the Liberals gave us a balanced budget. The NDP is screaming for deficits. God help us.

Are there significant "leave-Canada-enter-USA" movements in Alberta and other Canadian provinces?

Not yet.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 5:31:33 PM|| 2004-06-29 5:31:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Rafael, I'm aware of the referendum-it's all bluff-Quebec just wanted more goodies and they won the bluff. If Canada said "go" and shut about it, Quebec would not do it. What assets do they have except the St. Lawrence seaway and that's not saying much. Their main asset is blackmail and the unsaid "worry" that Canadians fear[outside of BC and Alberta]that parts of Canada [BC and Alberta]would become Yankee if Quebec "went." You think America would want Quebec? No Eastern Canadians, most of whom live like parasites off the treasury of Alberta worry that THEY would be left behind while BC and Alberta fell into the hands of evil America and their golden goose would be whistling Dixie.

At least the Liberals gave us a balanced budget. The NDP is screaming for deficits. God help us Puhleaze, you are truly naive, Rafael. Go read some research on fiscal, economic policy done by the Fraser Institue, son.
For example, here's a recent one:
"Canadian Government Debt 2004: A Guide to the Indebtedness of Canada and the Provinces"
Link
...Largely due to increases in program obligations, in 2001/02 federal, provincial, and local liabilities added up to $180,421 for each Canadian taxpayer or $87,291 for each Canadian citizen.

Are there significant "leave-Canada-enter-USA" movements in Alberta and other Canadian provinces? Not yet.
Read this morning's article in the Globe and Mail. Things are not happy in Alberta.
Link
"Western Tories greet Grit win with disappointment, disgust"
CALGARY -- A fourth straight Liberal mandate, but by a larger minority than expected, left key Alberta Conservatives shaking their heads in disbelief -- some in disgust -- last night.

Ted Morton, a University of Calgary political scientist who helped shape Conservative Party policy, looked on coolly when asked what caused the collapse in what was expected to be a major breakthrough in Ontario.
"I haven't understood Ontario in the past and I don't understand it now," he said.

The senator in waiting, who has advocated putting firewalls up around Alberta to protect it from intrusions from Ottawa, was too angry to put more of a spin on it. Meanwhile, re-elected Conservative MPs were trying to keep a lid on western anger...

Ted Morton is a guy to watch. He is very eloquent and has a large following in Alberta. Don't kid yourself, Rafael - Morton is thinking separatism for Alberta as we speak.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 6:01:55 PM|| 2004-06-29 6:01:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I seriously doubt that the western provinces, if they left Canada, would become part of the U.S. right away. A Puerto-Rico like commonwealth status might be one solution, but I suspect the western provinces would form a confederation of some sort and attempt to go their own way. BC and Alberta are very prosperous, Sas and Manitoba reasonably so, and Yukon would go along because it has no choice.

I could be wrong: California and Texas became states without a long intervening period as territories. So it's possible, but not likely.

And the merest hint that the US was considering admitting one or more province into the Union would precipitate a huge crisis. The rest of Canada would go nuts, there would be a lot of rancor, and it might well spill into the rest of our international affairs.

I love Canada and the Canadians -- great friends of mine in Vancouver and Winnipeg. But I don't see them becoming Americans if Canada falls apart.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-29 6:19:35 PM|| 2004-06-29 6:19:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 We could incorporate the Yukon into Alaska. It already fits like a glove into the W141 deg merdidan line that separates the two entities. Besides, Yukon folks are neat people.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-29 6:38:25 PM|| 2004-06-29 6:38:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 As I said in my #11 post, I too believe that Alberta might first establish itself as a Puerto Rico thingie if it were to separate. BUT keep in mind that there are a significant number of Americans in Calgary[oil industry] so joining the USA may be entertained as well.

What I meant about Quebec playing on the unstated fear of eastern Canadians that if Quebec left, the West might fall into the hands of evil America-it's a real fear of the Eastern provinces, particularly the Maritimes who like Quebec have nothing to offer anyone and couldn't function without transfer payments.

Incidently, SW, you are aware that BC is a have-not province aren't you? In addition to federal taxes, there's a thingie called transfer payments from prosperous provinces to poor provinces, and only Alberta and Ontario are dinged for their profits that the feds take and share with the other 8 provinces. BC is a taker, but I agree BC has "potential." B.C.'s economy was ruined because of a reckless NDP government who was in power before the current Liberals. Also, BC's timber industry has suffered tremendous unemployment and setbacks due to NAFTA decisions that found it was too heavily subsidized by the government.

I love Candians too, I have family there. I do not particularly care for the chauvinist and greedy politics of Quebec and Ontario.

Canada unfortunately has fallen to the major danger of democracies as expressed by Professor Tytler-the USA is moving in the same direction, btw. The good professor said democracies decline when people figure out they can vote in their own benefits.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage." Source.

Written by Scottish jurist and historian Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), nearly two centuries ago while the thirteen original United States of America were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time Tytler was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 6:53:48 PM|| 2004-06-29 6:53:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 hey Rexxxxxxx! use the link button! Or tinyurl.com

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-29 6:56:49 PM|| 2004-06-29 6:56:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Frank, I have tried the link button amd most times it does not work. Usely my link is "disappeared." So that's why I cut and paste the url, so folks can pursue the article if they want. Btw, I put the url in bold so it does not get "lost" in my comments. Is the url in bold bad for some reason?

I think it was unfortunate for Canada that the conservative party did not win. It is also most unfortunate for America, too, because Stephen Harper was a smart guy with no ties to the Canadian power elite per Paul Martin. Stephen Harper would have been very helpful with regards to our national security. It's funny, Americans have more interest in elections in countries all around the world, but there's little interest in the elections of Canada or Mexico, our next door neighbors, who have major roles in helping us /refugee Liberal/NDP government will not be assets to us. And as long as Mexico elects someone from the 50 families who control power and money there, the Mexican government will continue to encourage Pedro to immigrate to the USA to get a job and send $ home. And with Pedro could come other folks who are not looking for welfare perks or a job...

Posted by rex 2004-06-29 7:27:21 PM|| 2004-06-29 7:27:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I still think we should make Alberta an offer it can't refuse.

Let Quebec go back to the frogs, the rest can join us as a state.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-06-29 7:33:30 PM|| 2004-06-29 7:33:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 The Bloc QuebÃ©cois is one of the main sources of anti-American bashing, plus many of it's most rabid supporters in QuebÃ©c would rather return to being under France.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-06-29 7:34:17 PM|| [http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200406290922.asp] 2004-06-29 7:34:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 "First, governments have begun to balance their books and some have started paying down their debt." From the Fraser Institute link.

How does this negate my statement about the Liberals balancing the budget???????????
Now read the NDP platform and tell me with a straight face they can keep their promises with a balanced budget, "each and every year". Bullshit.

And regarding Quebec, it's always been the dream of separatists to get Quebec out of Canada, regardless of any transfer payments, regardless of whether this might actually be bad for them or not. I don't see why anything should change now.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 7:39:42 PM|| 2004-06-29 7:39:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Rafael, why does the rest of Canada hang on to Quebec? From the day that Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, Quebec has been a thorn in the side of Anglo Canada. The only thing they have worth keeping is HydroQuebec, surely not enough to justify the billions pumped into Quebec. Is it a masochistic streak that makes you waste millions of dollars on biligualism? Let them go and get on with your lives, God knows you don't need them.

Posted by RWV 2004-06-29 9:52:57 PM|| 2004-06-29 9:52:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Alberta leaves, they take BC, Yukon, Saskatchewan, and NW Territory (And maybe Manitoba and Nunavit) with them?

That sounds like a viable nation. Good Natural resources, good pacific ports, stable population, decent hi-tech (In Vancouver), good center for the government in Alberta, well defined borders and socially and culturally cohesion.

They ought to do it. Let Ottowa and Quebec deal with each other.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-06-29 10:28:54 PM|| 2004-06-29 10:28:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 When does the Alberta federa tax revolt start?

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2004-06-29 10:35:06 PM|| 2004-06-29 10:35:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 why does the rest of Canada hang on to Quebec

Probably because Canada would fall to pieces, like I mentioned in #5 above. I can't see Atlantic Canada staying, with the way they're dissatisfied with Ottawa's mismanagement of the fisheries industry (or the perceived mismanagement). New Brunswick is officially bilingual anyway, they might as well join Quebec. And since yesterday the west really hates Ontario.

Quebec hasn't really been a thorn recently. Not since the Bloc haven't had a strong mandate to push through their agenda. They do now. Jacques Parizeau, premier of Quebec in 1995, meant what he said. "We want our country and we will have it", "Until next time".

For some nationalistic reason I don't want Quebec to leave either. Though I would respect their decision if they chose to go.
I don't know why the idea of a "distinct society" for Quebec was so reviled. If it meant that Canada remained whole, who cares if Quebec had their own little language laws, etc? I don't live there and it wouldn't bother me.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-29 10:56:49 PM|| 2004-06-29 10:56:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I know little to nothing about Canadian specifics... but my instictive take on separatism on an ideological level is this: If a state were to break away from Canada to join the USA, I'd not care singificantly one way or another but most probably think such a thing more positive than negative -- who knows it might even be the first step to the whole of Canada and USA becoming a single country, which would definitely be positive IMO....

But if a state were to break away from Canada to become independent -- I'd consider that a negative scenario: it'd be the opposite of the direction I've consistently supported, that of the voluntary union of democracies. A breakup of Canada (with the states becoming independent, not being absorbed in the US) would be increasing disunity in the free world.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-29 11:27:41 PM|| 2004-06-29 11:27:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 to Rex: the long URL's screw up the page width big-time, bold isn't bad

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-29 11:40:23 PM|| 2004-06-29 11:40:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Oddly enough Aris, in the event of a positive referendum result, the Quebec separatists would point to the Czech and Slovak model as an example of a civilised separation. If memory serves, that argument has already been used by them.

I can't imagine any province joining the US, even if Canada were to fall apart. Even while I lived in the west (Vancouver), we were told in school that Canadians don't like Americans. I'm sure this will now change to "westerners don't like Ontarians".

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-30 12:26:35 AM|| 2004-06-30 12:26:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 BTW, I laughed my head off after this election was over: for the first time in a long while, British Columbia was supposed to play the deciding factor in this election (being one of the last to cast votes). Bullshit! For something like the 4th time in a row the election was already decided by the time the last vote was cast in B.C. And this even with staggered closing times so that all polls close at once, more or less.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-30 12:40:08 AM|| 2004-06-30 12:40:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Civilised separations can exist. Certainly much better than the uncivilised separations. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-30 12:54:24 AM|| 2004-06-30 12:54:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Well, you know what I meant :)

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-30 1:05:41 AM|| 2004-06-30 1:05:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 There's always Yugoslavia as a counterexample.

Posted by Rafael 2004-06-30 1:08:37 AM|| 2004-06-30 1:08:37 AM|| Front Page Top

01:16 Anonymous5539
11:36 jules 187
11:10 ConservativeView
12:43 The Doctor
09:22 Anon1
09:15 Anon1
09:05 Anon1
08:58 Anon1
03:09 Super Hose
01:16 Anonymous4617
01:08 Rafael
01:05 Rafael
00:54 Aris Katsaris
00:40 Rafael
00:26 Rafael
00:04 Fred
00:00 Frank G
23:47 joy
23:41 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:32 Pappy
23:27 OldSpook
23:27 Aris Katsaris
23:15 OldSpook