Sponsorship Scandal in Canada.
 

I understand that in the recent elections the liberals lost a number of ridings to the "Soveriegnists," as the seperatistes have now redefined themselves, in the province of Quebec.

I think this was generally true Canada wide, wasn't it?

Marylou Finley and Barbara Bud from "As it Happens" opine that this has much to do with the Sponsership Scandal, and little to do with a general desire of the Quebecois to seperate from Canada.

Could one of our Canadian members thumbnail this for me? The sponsership scandal that is.

I am also really interested in talking about the seperatiste movement in general, as it seems to be the cure all for everything Quebers don't like. Whether it's budget deficits or surplusses they feel they should be getting more of. Either way, the Soveriegnistes have an angle...it seems.

Anyhoo...looking forward to learning more about my native land :)

-bear

BTW...Happy Canada day (belated) to my homey's from the north.

There were several scandals in the last years of the Liberal government - Sponsorship was one, the gun registry another, HRDC another.

I'm not sure how much the scandals really influenced things. The Liberals successfully managed the finances of the country for the last 12 years extremely well, really. No deficit year to year, the debt being paid down, surpluses gained - like a successful company. But like any large organization, parts of it grew out of central control and people within took advantage.

As to the seperatists - they aren't that big a factor anymore. We've had 2 referendums and twice they've been beat down (though last time was a little too close for comfort). The Bloc got a lot of seats not because they are going to seperate (Gilles Duceppe - the leader of that party - even said another referendum is highly unlikely) but because Quebecers felt they would be best represented by the Bloc, that the Bloc would look out for the province more than the other parties, because they are focused only on Quebec. And there is some truth in that.

I did hear Gilles say just that..that a referendum is unlikely, and that they even downplayed that position of their party in the election run up.

What exactly was the Spnsorship scandal?

-bear

And happy belated "Canada Day" as well.

Basically, the pockets of ad and marketing agencies close to certain members of the Liberal government got their pockets lined. An ad campaign that should have cost 10K to make, the government paid 100K for and the like. There's a lot more but that's a major component. What we call Crown Corporations - businesses effectively owned and run by the government - were also involved.

The impression I got during this most recent election was, "We're pissed at the Liberals, but that Stephen Harper scares the shit out of us!". I was definitely among that group.


SLM3

Harper can never be PM - his roots with the Alliance and his Western focus means he cannot win Ontario and Quebec. He won't be around next time.

And a happy fouth of July to you.

Hope you guys get tomorrow off in lieu.

Oh yeah. A lot of people were saying, "I dunno what it is about this Stephen Harper guy, but there's something that I just don't like."

The combined PC / Alliance party actually got less votes than last time!!! But since they were united, they got more seats.

It's interesting, 8 months ago, no-one, I mean no-one thought Martin would get anything less than a majority, and an astounding one at that. Prominent PC's such as Mike Harris and Bernard Lord opted not to run and I think it was because neither thought that they could defeat Martin in a million years.

And they would have been right.

Until Adscam.

If either of them were at the wheel of the Conservative party, they would have done better than Harper. Harris would have been able to have a much better showing in Ontario.

I have always liked Martin because he has run the country like a business and has done amazingly well in terms of balancing the budget and paying down the debt and I hope he continues to do so. We as a country could not have gone on year after year spending more than we earned. It's just plain insanity and a recipe for an economic melt down. I firmly believe that if it wasn't for Martin, Chretien would have just continued deficit financing like Mulroney and Trudeau before him.

I think Martin knew about adscam, but what's he going to do??? Rat out his leader and sink his own party?? You'd like to think that it could be done, but it can't. It would have sunk the liberals. A mutiny from within. Unheard of in politics.

Now that the election is over it is my one true hope that they start shining the adscam spot light where it belongs. And that would be right in Jean Chretien's eyes. That rat was the guy behind it all, and we all know it. But I think just like Brian Mulroney covered his tracks very well, the same will be true of Jean boy.

Martin is now on probation (and rightly so). He has done well, but as we all know, you can do 10 good jobs at work, but do one bad one and you are a bum. I expect that this sort of shit comes to an end now with Martin. No more HRDC, no more adscam, no more pressuring banks for friends, no more idiotic gun registry like programs.

This sums it up pretty good

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/thre...php?Number=684

I still haven't heard one person explain why Stephen Harper is so scary. There really isn't much difference between what he was proposing and what Paul Martin was. I think people just like saying things like that to make it seem like they know whats going on or to be en vogue. If they knew, they would explain.

Stephe Harper is scary because:

1. He is socially conservative and he and his party in particular have a conservative social agenda.

2. He hid his conservative social agenda (abortion, equality for gays, death penalty, etc. ) throughout the election always tap dancing around the issues.

3. His party does not have a clear party policy on social issues. In fact, they have no official policy in writing whatsoever

4. Although raised in Ontario, Harper has spent the last 20 years in Alberta and he has become very Alberta Reform right wing, with comments about Alberta building a firewall around itself to insulate itself from the rest of Canada, etc.

5. His stupid comments about bilingualism. (It's here, it's here to stay, let's not take a step backward.)

6. His stupid comments about Paul Martin being for kiddie porn.

7. Ralph Klein.

8. Harper's ideas to drastically increase the size of military spending, increase health care, decrease taxes AND balance the budget. I'd love to know just how in hell he planned to do that little soft shoe routine. Either he would have to massvely cut through out the rest of the government or he would have to deficit finance. Deficit financing is the worst thing a country could do.

9. His lack of a credible Quebec wing.

10. A two tiered health care system.

11. His changing hair cut.

1. Then where does that leave the NDP and why aren't they scary.

2. Can't comment on the death penalty, but as for abortion and gay marriages he stated that is more provincially bound than federally. And what was Paul Martins platform on abortion, gay marriages and the death penalty? I heard nothing of those from him.

3. That's because the party is 6 months old. Perhaps Paul Martin could have extended them time to have a convention but was to afraid, so he rushed an election.

4. O.K. it's fine for Quebec to do that but not Alberta. I guess that's the difference between a have not province and a have province.

5. Bilingualism. He is not interested in scrapping Official Bilingualism. He simple wants some accountability since no one seems to know where the annual 1 billion Quebec receives yearly
goes. And it was Martin who started that rumour. Somehow it went from changes to the Air Transportation Act or something like that to Official Bilingualism, I don't know. Fooled alot of people though.

6. First of all, it wasn't his comments but a press release from someone within the Consevative Party. None the less, as stated somewhere else he should have followed Martins leads and hid all the mouthpieces. Worked for Martin ( re McGuinty) He just should have stuck with the message that Martin doesn't give a shit about our kids when it comes to sexual predators or that would have been a Liberal party policy years ago.

7. What about Ralph Klein? What about Dalton McGuinty?

8. Well then what is worse? Rendering the military useless, destroying healthcare through health transfer cuts, increasing taxes just to balance a budget?

9. And how credible is a Liberal wing in Quebec right now? Seats are what wins the day, but credibilty is another story. But how does this make Stephen Harper scary?

10. What's wrong with a two tiered system. Everybody still pays the same but if you can afford it, go privately. It's not like those who go private won't have to pay like everyone else. They actually are paying twice.This is something that people fail to understand. The more people who go private, the sooner those who can't afford it get treatment quicker.

11. I prefered the Mad magazine look myself.

If you look at the results of the popular vote, both the Liberals and the Conservatives lost votes... the Greens, NDP and Bloc... all left-leaning Socially Democratic parties gained votes... Clearly the people of Canada (about 70% of those who vote chose centre left policies over those of the Conservatives).

Harper supported a free vote in the commons rather than support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms... and threaten with the Notwithstanding clause. See point one... most Canadians support choice and gay marriage.

The Conservatives knew the election was going to happen in the Spring... almost everyone did. They just didn't get their shit together in time. Some in the party are blaming the LIberals for "fear-mongering" about the so-called "hidden agenda" but at the same time placing blame on some back-benchers who couldn't keep quite about things like abortion... Which is it? If it isn't a hidden agenda why get upset when their members speak aloud?

The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives are still populated by a large number of former Reform and Alliance members who's points of view do not agree with many Canadians...



Actually it isn't OK for Quebec to do it with the Bloc, bit that said the Bloc wasn't running anywhere outside of Quebec. They don't position themselves as a "big-tent" national party. In the last couple of days, Harper fell into old patterns when he said something to the effect of, "at last Alberta will be in the driver's seat". People outside of Alberta don't want that in a national leader.


I don't have enough information to comment on this point.


Doesn't matter who said it, it was spun in such a way to make him look bad... played right into the fears of the Centre Left voting block (see point one)


Again, what about McGuinty? The Conservatives never managed to capitalize on McGuinty... Klien should have kept his trap shut.

These are the differences that make two parties unalike...


At least the Liberals have some seats in Quebec... The Conservatives only had 8.8% of the popular vote in Quebec...

I don't want to debate this here... suffice it to say (under the terms of this thread) that the people have chosen what they want... if two-tiered is a better system then the Conservatives failed to convince me (and many others).


Ultimately Harper's vision for Canada was quite clear: remaking Canada in the American image, with lower taxes, smaller government, fewer services but a more muscular army and perhaps higher deficits and debts; stronger provinces at the expense of Ottawa; populist free votes and referenda, the antithesis of parliamentary democracy; politicization of the courts; and general obeisance to America.

Not surprised, given most Canadian's political preferences, that they didn't choose Harper.

Either way it's horses for courses. I can understand your position and that's fine. I think we are miscommunicating though on some issues. Not quite apples and oranges but close.

The above caught me the most,..."antithesis of parliamentary democracy." Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Wow. Assume a party is going to scandalously exceed it's democratic will from a hypothetical standpoint while the governing party has taken that liberty time and time again, yet that's o.k. Wow. Now that's something.

populist free votes and referenda *are* the antithesis of parliamentary democracy.

I think free votes and referenda are a bad idea all around.

Free votes in the parliament render the Supreme Court impotent. For example, Gay Marriage. A free vote in the parliament would likely end up against Gay Marriage. This would fly in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was set up to protect Minority Rights in the face of Majority rules politics.

Referenda reduce a complex issue (pick pretty much any issue) and reduce it to a binary opposition (yes or no). The whole point of parliament is to have informed representatives research and debate a subject so that all sides can be studied and voted on in the House of Commons.

I agree that in a Majority position the PM and his cabinet have the strongest position in the western world. They can enact pretty much any law and make it happen. This is why I would like to see proportional representation. I think we should always have Minority or Coalition Goverments.

Now we agree on something.

And if Minority or Coalition governments could/would act in the peoples best interests, rather then lobbyistic party agendas that fray into dissent, we'd really be on to something.

EDIT;

I'll have to look it up, but my impression of free votes was that it was in regard to House motions, that being that the Consevative MP's could vote outside the party line without fear of getting demoted or booted out of caucus, not to overide the Supreme Court.

Referendums, when asked of Harper on the CBC, was of my understanding something that took place after parliamentary hearings, committes etc,...but yeah,.. who wants a referendum every week.

But I do like the idea of overhauling the Supreme Court (not exclusively only the Supreme) to a degree. Once in a while something comes up and instead of upholding the laws as written, the Court takes it upon themselves to interpret the law as to what moral,social, or criminal intent is.

That is what the Supreme Court is *supposed* to do. They are supposed to interpret laws passed by the Parliament.

Agreed. Interpreting the law as written rather than interpreting the law as how one thinks it should be interpreted. This is at times a conumdrum. If your interested I dug this up. Thought it was interesting. Sorry for running off topic.


http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~resulliv/legdr/siinscc.html

That sponsorship scandal thing looks like something every freaking 'party' does. Condit did it for a re-election campaign he was gauranteed to loose.

What are some of the things Canadians in the US and Americans need to know about Canada?

Is it true that everyone has automatic free health care? Are there limits to this? What is the quality of the health care system?

Is it also true that most people keep 45 cents on the dollar, paying 55% percent in taxes? And paying huge GST/PST taxes, sometimes amounting to upwards of 15%?

Is the top tax bracket close to 65%?

Why can't Montreal hold on to professional sports team? Granted, the Habs, at one time a world class franchise. All that strange and beautiful architecture built for 76? CFL comes and goes, and the 'spos....looks like they're coming down my way. I'll just where my Expos lid upside down :)

-bear

I agree this is generally what every party does... however, the Liberals have held power for many years, in a majority position (being in a majority means you can literally ignore the opposition and are only held accountable on the day of the election).

Health Care is *not* free but it is universal. We pay for it with increased taxes and in some cases "premiums". Health Care is a provincial matter and as a result the costs and the services vary slightly from province to province. Depending on who you speak to the health system is in a shambles or works OK.

The issues most people have with it are wait times, the cost of running the system, etc. When it comes down to it, efficencies. This can be dealt with by better management (IMO).

Some are pushing for increased privatization or a "two-tier" system. In this case, if you have the $$ to pay for an MRI scan, for example, you would be able to go to a private clinic and get one on your dime.

Those who are against believe this will just further deteriorate the existing public system.


55% is way to high. Here is a website that lays out the various tax rates. http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#FederalTaxRates

As you can see it changes from Province to Province as there are different Provincial Tax rates and Health Care premiums.

As for GST/PST... yes. In some provinces it can go as high as an additional 15%. The Goods and Services Tax is 7% but some provinces like Alberta pay no provincial sales tax at all.

No. See the link above.


On the whole I don't have a problem with our tax rate. I make about $70,000 to $90,000 a year before taxes and live a relatively comfortable life. I know that if I get sick, I can go to the hospital and not have to worry whether or not I can afford to be treated.

Anytime I've ever been in the hospital the treatment has been great. I have no complaints.

I like the fact that we as Canadians have a strong "social safety net" that we believe in looking after those who are less fortunate. I cringe, like everyone, when I hear of people who abuse the system but believe that those abusers are in the minority.


Sorry can't help you on the Montreal questions... probably has to do with the US/Canadian exchange rate (player want to be paid in US$) and a general apathy for baseball.