Those Safe Liberal Crooks (Ted Byfield On Why Ontario Fears Western Canada Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 11/05/05 | Ted Byfield

[goldstategop]

A federal judge proclaimed last week that in the final years of Canada's Chretien government, untold millions of dollars were channeled from the treasury into the bank accounts of the federal Liberal Party, several Liberal-friendly advertising agencies and a few senior party backroom gentry in Montreal. His report was viewed with alarm by the media, the politicians and the pundits – by everybody, it seemed, except the Canadian people.

They knew that already. They had gathered it conclusively from a report of the auditor-general three years ago, and reaffirmed it in the testimony of the sordid parade of Liberal insiders who spelled it out for days on end before Mr. Justice John Gomery's judicial inquiry. How much was effectively misspent or stolen, Gomery did not say. Unofficial estimates ran well over $50 million.

Even so, with the central facts already known, the Canadian people had returned the same Liberals to office under the new leadership of the present prime minister, Paul Martin. True, the government's majority was gone, but with the help of the socialist New Democratic Party it still clung to power by a single vote in the Commons last spring when the worst of the corruption became public.

Those disclosures briefly sank the Liberals' polled popularity down to the level of the rival Conservatives. Within two months, however, it was back up again – a full 10 percentage points ahead of the Conservatives, enough to return the Liberals to office with a safe majority.

The Gomery report does little more than officially establish what everybody already knew. So what difference is it likely to make in the election expected next February or March? The answer is none whatever, and the explanation is the political bent of the Ontario voter. He elects about one-third of the Commons, and he votes overwhelmingly Liberal. That was enough to determine the outcome of the last four Canadian general elections.

But why does he do this? Why this unfailing attachment to the Liberal Party? Most would agree that it's not his love of the Liberals. It's his fear of the Conservatives. More specifically, it's his fear of western Canada, which exerts the dominant influence in the Conservative Party.

"Time and again," said one western Tory last week, "Ontario has had to choose between the Liberal crooks and a westerner. Always they choose the crooks, and they'll do it again."

But in a way, their Liberal bent is understandable. For the Conservative Party under the leadership of the fastidious, studious and largely colorless Stephen Harper threatens sweeping structural changes in Canadian government. For instance, they would require that senators be elected rather than chosen by the prime minister. This would gradually change Canada's present pointless artifact Senate into something much closer to the American model and thereby make it a powerful body. That is, it could and no doubt would significantly amend legislation advanced by the government without bringing the government down. In so doing, Canada's legislative branch would actually legislate, rather than rubber stamp.

Moreover, the Tories would submit judicial appointments for Senate review and ratification, making it much more difficult to pack the court with ideologically driven judges. The Tories would restore to the provinces many of the functions taken over by the federal authority and thereby reduce the gargantuan federal civil service.

In short, the Conservatives would restructure Canada. And why should Ontario vote for that? All through the 20th century, Ontario has been winning the game. It has become the biggest, richest, most economically powerful province. So better the crooks than a westerner.

The first poll after the Gomery Report showed an electoral response much the same as the one that followed the disclosures of last spring – the Liberals had dropped to 31 percent and the Conservatives were at 30 percent. But the Martin government has four months to convince the public that the bad old days of "Chretienism" are gone. "The tone we must take is one of respect, one of regret," Martin told his party last week.

Thus the line: The whole Liberal Party has learned its lesson and will now abandon its errant ways. Under the guidance of the staunchly scrupulous Paul Martin – who was absolved by Gomery of any blame in the scandal – the party will now move pristinely forward.

Will Ontario buy this? You bet they will. Especially when the only other feasible option is those dangerous revolutionaries from the West. Why change the rules, when you're winning?

[goldstategop]

There's Jean Chretien, Canada's last Prime Minister, implicated in the Ad-Scam vote buying scheme. Succeeding him is Paul Martin, the current PM, absolved by Gomery of any role in the scandal who promises a clean up. And there's the Conservative Stephen Harper on the outside looking in - who will never become Prime Minister.

Pivotal in that verdict is Ontario, Canada's largest, richest and most populous province that sticks with the Liberal Party devil they know, as Ted Byfield writes because they fear Western Canada. And Steven Harper is a revolutionary from Alberta poised to deliver change no one in Ontario wants. Ontario voters know the reforms the Tories want would lead to an elected Senate that would lead to a dimunition of Ontario's status. Right now the province elects a third of the House Of Commons. The fear may be irrational but it makes sense. Right now Ontario enjoys an embarrassment of riches. They'd be insane to allow Western Canada to share in it. So the Liberals are assured of being returned to office, Gomery or no Gomery.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[saluki_in_ohio]

Pretty damn sad that one large province can run the whole country down the toilet.

Seems Canada needs something similiar to our Senate; not that toothless patronage appoitment-based rubber stamp liberal Senate. Probably will never happen as long as Ontario keeps electing liberal anti-American and anti-West vermin to their Parliament.

I've been to Alberta and rural British Columbia, and the people are warm and friendly there. I have been to Ontario as well, and many times I get flipped the bird when one of Ontario's native sons sees my Ohio plates on the car, especially when traveling around Toronto.

I've had the opportunity to watch the propaganda media arm of the Liberal government the CBC, and you will see nothing but socialist propaganda, and experience seething hatred of things American. If it weren't for the wonderful folks out West, one would think that Canada is an enemy of the US.

Perhaps it is time that we encourage the American-based auto makers to bring their plants back to the US from Ontario?

[Alexander Rubin]

Wish I could tell Ted Byfield he was wrong. Here's one Ontarian who wants to see change and responsibility. But my compatriots will continue voting for the damned Liberals.

[goldstategop]

I agree a stronger role for the provinces would make Canada's politics more accountable and also even the political playing field. That being said, its not hard to understand why Ontario and Quebec will never vote for a Western-based party. They're being asked to give up the spoils to make numerically insignificant provinces feel better. If you were an Ontario or Quebec voter, would you want to see your power and benefits diminished? The question answers itself. The Liberals will make sure Ontario stays on top and the Bloc looks out for Quebec's interests. The Conservatives are little more than a Western-based protest party, unless they give up their Western agenda. That will they will never do for no one else would want them. No wonder the Liberals are justly described as Canada's "natural governing party."

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[kjo]

Yeah. I've had the same experience in Ontario. They don't like Americans. When I used to live in eastern Michigan I received the CBC TV and radio network and they REALLY don't like Americans. We scare them with our economy which is produce or get out, and we scare them with our foreign policy. Instead of appeasement of terrorists we confront them.

They live a good life in Ontario; God knows we have protected them. They don't want to be distrubed. They keep voting for the liberal crooks becasue they are sleep-walking though history.

[wita]

I've said it before, I'll continue to say it. Canada should comprise the next six or so states of the Union. Everything but Quebec that is.

You are either with us or against us. The perfect excuse to tell them in no uncertain terms, what the terms are and if they don't like it, we are coming. As for their hatred of all things american? If you want to remain in North America, you better jump on the train or we are coming!

Normal Canadians are full fledged Americans all ready... remaining comments self censored.

[saluki_in_ohio]

I've said it before, I'll continue to say it. Canada should comprise the next six or so states of the Union.

I must respectfully disagree.

I don't want to add a bunch of states that would tend to elect Democrats. The only Canadian province I would support for statehood is Alberta, and then I'm not even sure they would vote Republican. Ralph Klein, Alberta's premier, is a member of their Progressive Conservative party, however, from what I have seen and heard, he isn't THAT conservative.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I like Canada the way it is. A little bit European and depending on the province, it can be Oklahoma or Seattle. If Alberta joined the US, we'd just tax the daylights out of their oil and gas.

[NZerFromHK]

This is what I wrote on another thread about Canada. I said it before but I will not again, that Canada's anti-Americanism is not entirely or even mainly the faults of French in Quebec. It is the English Canada's power broker, Ontario, that exhibits the most problems:

---

Right from the beginning of time Canada has always been anti-American. The original English Canadians were Americans who opposed the American War of Independence (what you call the American Revolutionary War) and after the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 the Loyalists followed British north to Canada. Even today Canada still honours the United Empire Loyalists as they came to be called in the country. Their descendants have been the power brokers in Ontario's cities like London, Peterborough, Toronto (originally named York), Kingston, and Ottawa.

When Canada was confederated in 1867 the drafters of the constitution for Canada such as Sir John A. MacDonald decided a "strong and orderly government" was the business - they think the lessons from the US Civil War was to increase government "stability" and thus decided to opt for an entirely appointed Senate and that none of the provinces besides Ontario and Quebec could get equal representations in the Senate itself. (Yes, I know Canadian Senate seats were decided as equal representations across regions, but US and Australia decided to have equal representations for all states). Decades later, Australia drafters of the Australian constitution such as Sir Edmund Barton, are not impressed with the Canadian Senate such that they moved the Australian Senate designs to the American side.

Fast forward to the late 19th century. In the last period of Queen Victoria's reign signs of contemporary Canadian pacifism and leftism is already manifest in its elites. Said Sir Charles Tupper, Prime Minister in 1896, "Canada," he explained, "shall dominate the American continent, not in aggression or materialism, but in the arts of peace, in the greatness of its institutions, in the broadness of its culture, and in the lofty moral character of its people." Tupper is English Canadian, a Conservative Party politician, and is from Nova Scotia. His beliefs reflect the High Toryism of English Canadian power brokers, and it is safe to see that on a paractical policy level, High Toryism and socialism is essentially identical.

The attachment of English Canada (read: Ontario) to the Mother Country could be seen as a jest against the United States. Back in the days when the sun never set on the British Empire, English Canada supported the Empire due to pride of the Empire's accomplishments and that "We are not like the savage Americans".

When the British Empire was being dismantled in the 1950s/60s this sent a shock wave to English Canada. On one hand, they became resentful to the US's eclipse of Britain's power and making the Empire no more, and on the other hand they realized they can't rely on following Britain to achieve anti-American stance anymore in the age of Special Relationships. If you follow Britain it now means you must support Uncle Sam, that breakaway colony! How terrible! At this point, socialism and trans-national pacifism started to acquire anti-American tones. So voila, English Canada now make allegiance to the United Nations and intellectual leftism to fill in the vacuums of British Empire.

And on domestic policy it is even easier. When you have inherited a High Tory belief of paternalism (High Toryism is particular influential in English Canada, more so than Australia and even NZ), adopting socialism is not that hard.

And even today their High Tory attitudes are reflected in how they describe individual soldiers fight. It is not uncommon to find Canadians extolling the individual valour of Canadian, British, Australian, and NZ soldiers while dismissing Yanks as "rubbish wimps that depend on technical gadgets to get by". The "We the British-influenced armed forces are the best quality" stance taken by Canadians in general reads no different from contemporary British High Tory commentators like Sir Max Hastings, Sir Simon Jenkins, Matthew Parris, or Sir Peregrine Worsthorne. English Canada is not in fact socialist - it has bits of socialism mixed with High Toryism.

Contemporary Canada suffers from a lethal cocktail of High Tory snobbery, Fabian socialism, and Quebecoise federalists desire to emulate contemporary France in socialism.

---

[NZerFromHK]

Ping to Australian FRers. The reason why Canada tilts Left. Thank God that NSW and even Victoria aren't as leftist as Ontario, and so Australia largely escapes the insane leftism that grips Canada.

[NZerFromHK]

The first Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Edmund Barton, was so furious with Canadian Senate structure that he literally said that Canada has a "banal federalism".

Australia's Senate has equal representations for all states and like the US Senate, it still has real power as opposed to the Canadian one. In 1975 the government of leftist Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was brought down just because he couldn't pass the budget through the Senate.

In fact official Australian government-approved publications all describe the Canadian Senate (and thus dominance of the "big two" in Canadian politics) as a negative example for Australia to not emulate. Examples of such publications are below:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/odgers/contents.htm

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/occa_lect/transcripts/220302.pdf

http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume8/v8chap6.htm

[NZerFromHK]

The more I read about Canada, the more I'm furious with English Canadian elites and a majority of Ontario who are either High Tory or socialists but all support the Liberals due to little practical policy differences. The Quebec anti-American poeple are actually federalists and they add in the French socialism into the cocktail mix. (To the sceptics about the anti-Americanism in Quebec being concentrated among Quebec, note that anti-American ideas are the most virulent in Montreal, and guess which way Montreal took in separatism debate? Yep, staying in Canada)

Western Canada should separate as soon as it can. Vive l'Ouest Canada libre!

[NZerFromHK]

Correction to post 9: it should be "This is what I wrote on another thread about Canada. I said it before but I will say it again..."

[NZerFromHK]

Ping! I'm interested to know, given that Canada nationally is effectively governed by Ontario (much more politically statist than the Western provinces), why is there such a less different political regional variations between NSW and Victoria and the rest of the states, and do NSW and VIC dominate Australian federal politics they way Ontario and Quebec do in Canada? Any answer would be appreciated.

[Carry_Okie]

Thank you for a great summary.

It explains a lot.

[NZerFromHK]

Thanks. Also remember a majority of Canada supports Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state just because of anti-Americanism. Having the monarchy is the most un-US thing to do, and if I'm correct support of the monarchy in Canada is the highest in Ontario.

[fanfan]

Canada Ping!

Please FReepmail me to get on or off this Canada ping list.

[rickmichaels]

And Steven Harper is a revolutionary from Alberta...

Actually, he's from Ontario. Bio here

[.cnI redruM]

The next Canadian succession movement needs to be in Calgary, not Quebec. Western Canada is way more like Montana, than it is like Windsor or Toronto.

[Snowyman]

Do you ever notice how the more a non Canadian thinks he knows about Canada , the more her /she writes about it . Twenty-five words minimum . And are wrong.

And the ones that do know just make a short comment. And are right. :)

I read this and wonder if it's true . I'm thinking you might know,

"Alaskan oil royalties. The feds take 50% of the oil royalties from state land (22 billion bbl so far) and 90% of the royalties from federal land (most of Alaska including ANWR) for redistribution to the rest of the states. "