—— OPiNiONs Continued from page 9 fy an election to toss the Liberals, or they haven't. To claim that a “middle ground” exists is rather like refusing to fire Michael Jackson as a babysitter. Sure, he may show your kids porn and sleep in the same bed, but let’s at least let his child-molestation trial play out before we make any rash decisions. The other roadblock is, of course, Ontario. Today, when you read the histo- ty books for the reasons why Prime Minister John Turner lost the 1984 elec- tion to Brian Mulroney, the inherent “corruption” of the Liberal regime is usu- ally listed as a key factor in explaining the Tory leader’s landslide victory. Yet the corruption of the Trudeau-Turner era is comparatively mild the Sponsorship scandal of today. By “1984 standards, a few suspicious senate and civil-service appointments constituted a major offense. Today, such allegations would garner little more than a collective yawn. The main difference in the equation is that in 1984, Ontario voters felt confi- dent in turning power over to the PC Party, where as today, a deep-seeded dis- trust of the new Conservatives will likely ensure that the Liberals manage to yet again sweep the province. In 1984, the PC’s advantage was that next to Kat Code, OP Photographer the party was very much part of the Ontario establishment. Brian Mulroney, Michael Wilson, and the rest of the Tory all well-established Ontario faces. They had gone to school, run busi- nesses, and married within the province, elite were or at the very least within greater Montreal. This, in Toronto pundit-speak, made the Tories “electable,’ a word you'll never hear them use in regard to Stephen Harper or his party. In Ontario, you see, many still buy into the belief that Canada is best understood by the “two founding nations” myth, in which Ontario and Quebec form the only relevant con- stituent Canada, with everywhere else being largely superfluous. pieces of Thus, while electing a prime minister who can barely speak English is considered perfectly acceptable, electing a guy from Alberta would be akin to electing an Inuit from Nunavut. He’d still sechnically be Canadian, but not as Canadian as some- one from one of the “founding nations.” Despite what many allege, this reality is not simply a matter of Ontario being “less conservative” than the west, or oth- erwise scared off by the Conservative Party’s ideological “extremism.” While one could use such an argument to justify the party’s unpopularity in Quebec, Ontario, by contrast, is the province that twice elected Mike Harris to power—a man who remains one of the most radical Conservative leaders in Canadian history. There is not much difference between what Harris said in 1997 or 1999 and what the CPC is saying today—in fact, one could even argue that in some respects the latter actually holds the “ess hard-line stance on many issues. The only readily apparent divergence is that while Harris lived down the street, Harper lives several provinces over. Conservative ideas are all well and good, as long as they come from the mouth of someone from the right province and right background. When conservative ideas come from someone from Alberta, or even BC, however, they suddenly become manifestations of red- neckism and savagery. By embracing stereotypes, hypocrisy is thus avoided. I’m not an Ontarian, and I won’t pre- tend to understand their apparently all-powerful aversion towards western politicians. They may fear a western prime minister will change the Senate and dimin- ish Ontario’s present dominance of the upper chamber. They may worry that a westerner doesn’t understand the Toronto business climate. Or maybe they just dis- like the sight of plaid shirts. I don’t know. If the past has been any indication, how- ever, it would not surprise me to learn that the voters of that province are more con- tent to live with familiar corruption than with a gang of “foreigners” they don’t trust. In short, the 2005 election will likely be little different from the one we had in 2004. Voters will initially be vaguely con- cerned with the sponsorship scandal, but the Liberals will quickly brush this away by reciting their usual talking points of healthcare, national daycare, and how to best keep the dreaded Americans at bay. Within weeks, Ad Scam will have merely become yet another trivial issue that the Liberals will reduce to a ten-second sound byte about “fighting corruption,” hidden within a myriad of what they will no doubt describe as “more pressing con- cerns.” Ontario voters will in turn once again be satisfied to vote for the crooks, not the rednecks, and the “natural govern- ing party” will once again retain its divine status as the perpetual leader of all Canadians, for all time. Maybe even with a majority government. So that’s my prediction. Prove me wrong, Canadian people. Prove me wrong. _As you may or may not be aware, we have a provincial election on the horizon. May 17, to be exact. Other Press photographer Kat Code took to the streets of New Westminster to find out which students are planning on voting, and who they’re voting for. 10 | www.theotherpress.ca May 11/2005