rumbleph1$h Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Scandal's brush tars Quebec By DONALD MCKENZIE Sunday, April 10, 2005 Updated at 3:57 PM EST Canadian Press Montreal ? The federal sponsorship scandal has led to the inevitable claims in some parts of the country that the Quebec way of doing politics is dirtier than elsewhere. Callers to some talk shows say patronage and corruption are just a fact of life in the province and that advertising executive Jean Brault's startling allegations at the sponsorship inquiry shouldn't come as a surprise. But some observers believe that view is unfair and say Quebec is actually a leader in limiting the kind of corruption associated with the province. ?That perception exists,? says Fran?ois-Pierre Gingras, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa. ?I could see it in my last trip to Alberta a few weeks ago.? Mr. Gingras acknowledges Mr. Brault's testimony will only strengthen the belief that politics in Quebec routinely involves exchanging cash for favours. ?The main actors are from Quebec and whether one likes it or not, it's very difficult not to make that link,? Mr. Gingras said in an interview. ?It involves mainly people from Quebec. And the sponsorship program was designed with Quebec in mind, for political and national reasons. ?But the same (sponsorship scandal) could have happened elsewhere ? and there is no guarantee it has not happened elsewhere.? Mr. Gingras and others point to Quebec's law governing the financing of provincial parties as evidence of the province being ahead of the pack in terms of grassroots democracy. The law limits individual contributions to $3,000 and prohibits donations from companies. Although testimony at the sponsorship inquiry has suggested the Parti Qu?b?cois and the provincial Liberals had ties to some sponsorship cash, there have been few provincial scandals related to money since the PQ passed the legislation in the 1970s. ?I'm sure Mr. Brault and others would have done the same thing provincially if it had been easier,? Mr. Gingras said. ?Quebec electoral laws, especially regarding the financing of political parties, make it much more difficult so it did not happen, certainly not on the same level.? But that doesn't stop Canadians from harbouring the suspicion that corruption and Quebec politics go hand in hand. A Leger Marketing poll last year suggested 50 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec thought political patronage was more rife in the province than elsewhere in the country. Twenty-one per cent believed the level of patronage was the same, while 12 per cent thought there was less corruption in the province. Mr. Gingras said the belief in the rest of the country has historical roots, including the corruption of former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis in the 1940s and '50s and the various scandals that plagued former prime minister Brian Mulroney's first term in government. ?I think it goes back in the subconscious of English Canada, considering Quebeckers as different from others. And that difference has expressed itself in a variety of ways, including the ?lack of patriotism' in the Second World War. ?The perception is that people who are different from us seem to have different defects or different biases than we have ourselves. Then, every failure, if I can use that word, serves to reinforce the prejudices some people have and this is further reinforced by some political actors who see a personal benefit or a party benefit.? PQ Leader Bernard Landry takes umbrage at the idea that the sponsorship scandal means Quebec politics is dirtier than elsewhere. In fact, Mr. Landry lays most of the blame on one man ? former prime minister Jean Chr?tien. ?We have purified the political manners in Quebec, and Quebec has the highest level of ethics in the democracies I know,? Mr. Landry said last week. ?As a compensation for that, Jean Chr?tien and other federalist Liberals from Quebec are dishonoring our high standard of ethics. ?It's revolting, disgusting. ?I am aware of the political life of many occidental countries. I think le petit gars de Shawinigan has beaten everyone ...with that sort of scandal.? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 I think that this scandal might hurt canada terribly by allowing the pcs to get into power which is completely rediculous, I mean I may be way off base but as far as I can tell this is more because of Cretien than Martin and for some reason they are blaming it on the current administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 I think that this scandal might hurt canada terribly by allowing the pcs to get into power which is completely rediculous, I mean I may be way off base but as far as I can tell this is more because of Cretien than Martin and for some reason they are blaming it on the current administration. 585757964[/snapback] The problem is that it isn't the PCs anymore. I wouldn't mind Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives but the current Conservative Party of Canada is controlled by the former Reform/Canadian Alliance members. It looks like they are poised to win the next election if they can convince the Bloc Qu?b?cois to topple the current Liberal minority government. Yes, Stephen Harper is slightly better than Stockwell Day (the former leader) but they both are social conservatives. I'd take a fiscal conservative over a social conservative any day of the week. Preston Manning seems better all the time.... Yes, the federal sponsorship scandal has gotten ever juicier (with talk of cash stuff envelopes and stuff). I can see why they created the program (to prevent a separtist vote in Quebec) but that department could have used a little more red tape. All in all, I hope the Paul Martin can come out from all of this. He basically rid himself of all of Chretien's cronies and installed his own team (look how Shiela Copps got dumped). I hope this goes down as a Chretien's problem and I hope they go after the people responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 The problem is that it isn't the PCs anymore. I wouldn't mind Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives but the current Conservative Party of Canada is controlled by the former Reform/Canadian Alliance members. It looks like they are poised to win the next election if they can convince the Bloc Qu?b?cois to topple the current Liberal minority government.Yes, Stephen Harper is slightly better than Stockwell Day (the former leader) but they both are social conservatives. I'd take a fiscal conservative over a social conservative any day of the week. Preston Manning seems better all the time.... Yes, the federal sponsorship scandal has gotten ever juicier (with talk of cash stuff envelopes and stuff). I can see why they created the program (to prevent a separtist vote in Quebec) but that department could have used a little more red tape. All in all, I hope the Paul Martin can come out from all of this. He basically rid himself of all of Chretien's cronies and installed his own team (look how Shiela Copps got dumped). I hope this goes down as a Chretien's problem and I hope they go after the people responsible. 585759043[/snapback] Man do i ever hate Cretien, I always have always will. (probably because i was more conservative before). Anyways, I voted NDP and probably will again, but I hope the liberals stay in power. Yeah Sheila Copps is just a witch. But like you said, this isn't so much Martins problem and it would be tragic for that tool Harper at the lead of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 Apr. 11, 2005. 10:58 AM I can still lead, Martin says PM speaks for first time since publication ban lifted OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he has the moral authority to govern despite new allegations that the Liberal party took kickbacks in the sponsorship scandal. Martin, speaking today for the first time since damaging testimony was released by the sponsorship inquiry last week, also reiterated that he had nothing to do with the scandal. Despite a public opinion poll suggesting his Liberal party is in freefall in the wake of the latest testimony, Martin maintained he has the ?moral authority? to govern. An EKOS Research Associates poll for the Toronto Star released today indicated that just 25 per cent of respondents interviewed late last week said they would vote for the Liberals if an election were held that day. The Conservatives under Stephen Harper were backed by 36 per cent, up 10 points from a survey taken in February. The national results gave the NDP 20.5 per cent of the vote, the Bloc Quebecois 12.6 per cent and the Green party five per cent. The poll surveyed 1,125 Canadians over voting age between last Thursday and Saturday. The results are considered accurate within plus or minus 2.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The survey immediately followed the release of devastating testimony last Thursday by former Montreal ad executive Jean Brault at the inquiry looking into the federal government?s sponsorship scandal. Brault alleged gross misconduct in the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party. The results suggest a dramatic drop in Liberal fortunes everywhere, but particularly in their onetime Ontario stronghold. In Ontario, the Conservatives were backed by 40 per cent of respondents, with the Liberals at 33 ? a drop of about 10 points since last year?s election. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Someone is just NOW figuring out that Quebec's politics are shady? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 Hey Joel? What is the seperatist climate over there in Quebec right now, it crossed my mind that I might want to pay attention to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Dead. Of course, with the Liberals doing so badly here the next party of power may be the PQ again. The AD doesn't have the following to matter yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Hey Joel? What is the seperatist climate over there in Quebec right now, it crossed my mind that I might want to pay attention to that. 585760261[/snapback] it's dead of course, but often on other msg boards, and in one of my Poli Sci classes, the debate is often brought up. Recently on a board i was involved in a discussion where the topic was entitled "What's going to happen to Gatineau when Quebec separates?". Its something i'd prefer to never gain momentum again at all, even little discussion about separation can hurt Quebec (or Montreal) more than you'd think. Based purely on economics, any political instability (the same instablity that drove mtl to #2 in Canada imo) is lethal to the Provice. Maybe because i'm the son of an immigrant father, and an anglophone mother, i don't see any positives in the separation movement. I don't remember how long ago, maybe 1-2yrs ago, but our beloved mayor Tremblay and some other politicians mentioned another referendum in the next 5yrs iirc. Maybe Joel can clear this up for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 That is awesome, I think a seperation would devistate Canada and take away a huge part of what makes Canada Canada. On that though i think alot of Quebec is a bit to anti-english but I also think that all of canada should have manditory french immersion for kids untill at least grade 6, but a lot of people would really not be a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 That is awesome, I think a seperation would devistate Canada and take away a huge part of what makes Canada Canada. On that though i think alot of Quebec is a bit to anti-english but I also think that all of canada should have manditory french immersion for kids untill at least grade 6, but a lot of people would really not be a fan. 585761185[/snapback] In Ontario they don't start core-French until Grade 4, which is far too late, IMO. Yes, there are options for extended or immersion French starting earlier but most kids don't get it until Grade 4. It is so much easier to learn another language when you are young. Some people are afraid to have their children learn French for fear that it will hurt their English skills but studies show that learning a second language can actually help you master your primary language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 11, 2005 That is one thing I am greatful for, I was in full french immersion since Kindergarden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2005 Apr. 11, 2005. 08:18 PM Some Liberal MPs considering joining Tories CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA - Pat O'Brien says he's one of at least four Liberal MPs mulling overtures from Conservatives eager to capitalize on the sponsorship scandal. That doesn't include Edmonton MP David Kilgour, who will not attend Liberal caucus meetings until he ultimately decides to stay or bolt from the governing party. O'Brien was all-but-declaring he was crossing the aisle Monday. "I have the option to sit as an independent. . . or I could just stay as a Liberal and run again - that's becoming less likely, I think." The Ontario MP said he has been aggressively courted by emissaries from the Conservative caucus. "I have had in-depth discussions with senior elected people in the Conservative party in the last few days," O'Brien said. "The welcome mat is very much out for me to come to their party. I'm being encouraged, in fact, to do that. O'Brien has been out of step with his party on social issues, particularly same-sex marriage. But his discomfort has been growing with each revelation of malfeasance from the Gomery inquiry. And he insisted he might not be the only Liberal MP who will defect. "Three (Liberal) backbenchers have told me they've been approached by the Conservatives besides me. . .I'm sure there's more, frankly." Geoff Norquay, spokesman for Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper, would not comment on poaching attempts. But Ontario Liberal caucus leader Sarmite (Sam) Bulte did little to mask her contempt for potential defectors. "I find it unfortunate that people who are supposed to be members of the team choose to take a whack at (it)," she said. "What's that old adage, you know: `When the ship is sinking the rats are running.' " Andy Savoy, the national caucus chairman, said he hadn't been able to speak personally yet with either O'Brien or Kilgour. But he indicated he wouldn't try to talk either one into staying if they really want out. "I can understand when the times get tough, people get very nervous, but they'll have to deal with that themselves," said Savoy. "That's their own call. . . Everyone is over 21 here, they can make up their own minds." Kilgour sent an email to caucus officers Monday saying he hadn't decided what to do yet, but he won't be attending caucus meetings while he's pondering his options. O'Brien said he will decide his political future by early next week. He would not reveal the names of other MPs targeted by the Conservatives for possible recruitment. But Liberals renowned for being at odds with their government's bid to legalize gay weddings - including John McKay, Paul Steckle, Tom Wappel and Paul Szabo - all denied any plans to leave their party. O'Brien, who represents London-Fanshawe in Ontario, is weighing his options as a stream of allegations from the Gomery inquiry buffet the Liberals. Plunging support for the minority government in a new poll has fuelled more speculation of an early election. O'Brien says he's incensed by allegations of sponsorship kickbacks to the Liberal party from Quebec ad firms. "I'm feeling personally outraged because at the time these monies were allegedly being misused and misspent, I was struggling - as other MPs were in our own party - trying to get very valid, small amounts of grants for worthwhile projects in my own riding. The Gomery inquiry should be allowed to run its course so voters have the full story, O'Brien added. Potential fallout from scorching sponsorship allegations - combined with tensions over same-sex marriage - may prompt some MPs to change political stripes, he said. "It's just one more brick on the load." Kilgour has also said he may cross the floor to the Conservatives - the party he represented in the Commons before he switched to the Liberals more than 10 years ago. Kilgour, one of only two Liberal MPs from Alberta, told the Calgary Sun that voters now see the Liberals "looking on the public trust as a vulture looks on a dying calf." The scandal makes Canada resemble a "northern banana republic," he added. "I have no desire for people to throw me out on my ear." Kilgour's comments drew an icy response from Anita Neville, head of the Liberal's western caucus. "What party he runs for again is up to him. My own view is that you can only cross the floor so many times and maintain your credibility." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winky Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Would Canada fight a civil war ala the American civil war to keep the French in the fold? Is there really any chance Canada would ever really bust up? (seems krazy to me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Flex Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Would Canada fight a civil war ala the American civil war to keep the French in the fold?Is there really any chance Canada would ever really bust up? (seems krazy to me) 585762291[/snapback] :huh: I don't believe that is a problem... As for the sponsorship scandal, it may be bad (although maybe not as horrible as the Tories lay it out to be) for the Liberals, but I'd rather have a corrupt minority Liberal government than a majority Conservative government. With Harper in charge, that frightens me. He'll quote progress Bible-style as he deconstructs the Constitution to fit a more religous right agenda- first to go, same-sex marriage and abortions. He will call any protest an attack on religous authority. As for his current situation, Harper wants the voters to call the election, rather than him, so that he can say, "Hey, I didn't want to call an election, the voters did," whenever he gets blamed for something. If Harper were a decisive leader, he would call the election and follow up on this 'horrendous' scandal he keeps quoting as the death of responsible government. Layton is just as bad. I used to like the NDP, I even campaigned for them in order to stop my local Tory MP, but ol' Jack does nothing but complain about the Liberal's 'secret intentions.' Even when they try to woo him, he finds some flaw, damaging relations between the parties. Who does he think he is? He can't afford to attack the ruling party again and again in vain attempts to raise support (protest works, apparently). He has the smallest party, and I see no point in supporting Layton. These rebellious 'Liberals' have no political morals. They abandon their party so quickly after their party was scandalized. Clearly, they only seek re-election (due to their association with the Liberals), and one can question whether they joined the Liberals to represent Canadians, or to be secure in the most trusted party. That's right, the most trusted party. Worst scandal since WWI, and the Tories can't raise enough voter support, or either start an election. Soon they'll lose the advantage and everyone will forget about sponsorship. The NDP are gaining more support than the Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2005 April 11, 2005 Are we scandaled out? The latest Gomery shockers may not yield a spring election JOHN GEDDES ... Even so, a cautious Stephen Harper said his Conservatives were not ready to force an election. Jack Layton said he needed time to listen to what Canadians were saying in coffee shops before deciding if his NDP favoured a spring campaign. Only Gilles Duceppe was primed to go to the polls, but his Bloc Qu?b?cois has been so buoyed by the Gomery effect in Quebec that it was ready to run long before Brault's sordid tale came out. So Paul Martin's government seemed in no immediate danger. Minorities are supposed to be more vulnerable than this. Past ones have fallen over comparatively trivial matters, like the seemingly routine budget vote that felled Joe Clark's short-lived Tory regime in 1979. What's keeping Martin afloat now is largely the suspicion of many political strategists, particularly Conservatives, that Canadians have developed such thick skins when it comes to scandal that even the gross corruption described by Brault might bounce off. Airbus, Shawinigate, now the sponsorship affair -- who can keep track? And who's to say what's worth getting really angry over, and what is just dirty business as usual? ... MARTIN: The PM needs time to make his case -- over and over -- that this scandal unfolded on Jean Chr?tien's watch, not his, and that he ordered the inquiry to clean it up. Gomery's final recommendations for how to prevent similar abuse in the future won't come until mid-December. The Liberals need to hold on until then. "How Paul Martin handles the findings of the inquiry will be more important than the findings themselves," says pollster Nik Nanos, president of SES Research. "He has to be prepared to hit the ground running, to act." HARPER: The Tory leader needs voters in Ontario, where he must make a breakthrough, to catch a bit of their Quebec neighbours' sponsorship outrage. But a veteran Ontario Tory organizer said that might not happen unless Martin, or figures close to him, are shown to have known about the skulduggery. "As long as there isn't a direct link to the Prime Minister, Ontario voters are probably willing to overlook it," he said. If Martin remains insulated, Harper's best hope might be to pull the election trigger in early November, when Gomery is slated to deliver his findings. Waiting until December, when Gomery is scheduled to make his final recommendations, would give Martin's Liberals a chance to score points by enacting whatever reforms the judge wants. DUCEPPE: The Bloc leader is in perhaps the best, and yet most frustrating, position of all. Tacticians in all parties agree he would add to his current 54 seats in Quebec if an election was held anytime soon. But that's exactly why Harper is unlikely to co-operate by voting with the Bloc to bring down the Liberals. Still, minorities don't last forever, and disgust over the scandal is deep enough that Duceppe is likely to win big even if an election is delayed until, say, the spring of 2006. After that, many Quebec observers believe he might aspire to jump to Quebec City as the next Parti Qu?b?cois leader. LAYTON: With just 19 MPs, the NDP leader is in the awkward position of lacking the votes in the House to wield much power in manoeuvring over election timing. His best hope is for sponsorship outrage to spread sufficiently to drive left-Liberal support to him. His worst fear: that the same outrage puts the Tories in position to form a government, pushing those vacillating left-tilting voters back to the Liberal fold out of fear of a Harper win, as happened in the dying days of last year's campaign. Understanding how bad the sponsorship scandal was got a lot easier last week. But with the four party leaders pondering such different strategic considerations, guessing the date of the next election did not. One thing the Brault testimony changed: the shadow cast by the Gomery inquiry is now unlikely to lift during the life of this minority, no matter how long it lasts. http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics..._103762_103762# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2005 The fact that the PQ is getting a boost because of this is a testament to stupidity. I mean they got money too although it was significantly less they still got money and they are up in the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winky Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 I'd rather have a corrupt minority Liberal government than a majority Conservative government. 585762851[/snapback] Oh my, that says something right there! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2005 Oh my, that says something right there! ;) 585764705[/snapback] I agree with both of you and to be honest that is why i voted NDP. It is just like in Britain, we don't really have the options. I do not want a government that tries to ban things like abortions and gay marriage and other issues like that. I think it is good to have the conservatives there and I think right now the balence is pretty good, the Liberals can't do whatever they want and Harper can't force his Religious agenda on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winky Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Lack of choices? Here we have the Ultra-Left Commies and the "hey we are right wing and want what you want but we are really just as socialist as the other guys Shhhh don't tell anyone" series of choices. Do you really have all those parties? Does anyone other than the first two (or one) have a chance to win or is it like here, two sides of the same coin offered to keep the masses distracted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2005 The fact that the PQ is getting a boost because of this is a testament to stupidity. I mean they got money too although it was significantly less they still got money and they are up in the polls. 585764129[/snapback] Oh my, that says something right there! ;) 585764705[/snapback] On one level, it is only money. The Quebec sponsorship scandal is "only" C$250 million. The Chretien Liberals have had other more expensive scandals (due more to incompetence than corruption) with the H.R. "boondoggle" and the gun-registry cost over-runs. In recent years, the Governor General's spending sprees and the expense accounts of the former Privacy Commissioner have all come to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted April 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2005 On one level, it is only money. The Quebec sponsorship scandal is "only" C$250 million. The Chretien Liberals have had other more expensive scandals (due more to incompetence than corruption) with the H.R. "boondoggle" and the gun-registry cost over-runs.In recent years, the Governor General's spending sprees and the expense accounts of the former Privacy Commissioner have all come to light. 585765187[/snapback] I don't understand how Chretien got through all of that garbage. Martin is doing well in my eyes and we might have an election in weeks because of 250 million. where chretiens gun registry managed to drain 2 billion. Chretien wasn't even very likeable and the power got to his head, but Martin it seems will have to pay for the 250 million thing that from what I can see is more Chretiens fault than his as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Flex Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I agree that Martin is doing extremely well. The core of the old corrupt Liberals is gone, the previous generations, and Martin hasn't been proved to be involved. A minority government is a lot safer than a majority government (you know anything about Canadian government, Winky?), and the current Tories are social Conservatives that are as radical as the NDP. It is very like the British parties, a good centre party wracked by controversy, one that's too far left, and one that's too far right. Plus the BQ. Liberals appear the safest right now. Bill C36 will pass soon :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 13, 2005 Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2005 A minority government is a lot safer than a majority government 585767864[/snapback] What do you mean by that? It certainly is not safer in the sense that it could collapse at any time with a vote of non-confidence. Are you suggesting it is less likely to encounter corruption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 a minority government is also more unstable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts