Oh sure, we did have a curiously named ‘Progressive Conservative’ government for much of the Reagan years and it certainly wreaked a lot of right-wing havoc from which we have never recovered. But we didn’t have the full-blown brown-shirtism experienced in many of the countries who fell into lockstep with the Reaganites and the corporatists.
If current polls are anything to judge by, we are about to elect a hard-line hard-right government. The only saving grace for the future may be that a large number of people who are apparently ready to choose the party of the far right are doing so simply because of disaffection with the governing Liberal Party of Canada. It isn’t because they have abandoned the principles that made this a wonderful country.
There is little question that the Liberals need to be publicly humiliated for an abysmal performance over the past decade; but it seems to be a foolish step to throw them over only to put ourselves into the greasy clutches of the Conservative Party of Canada.
It is fair, I think, to acknowledge that all the major parties have some solid and sensible planks in their platforms. It is also fair to say that for each of them, there are a few planks that are pretty wobbly. Frankly, I am surprised at how level-headed and sensible the Bloc Québecois platform is, except for that one little nagging issue, and I think that the other parties could garner some good ideas from the Bloc.
But, as always, the airwaves and print media are filled with the various party leaders talking out of their hats about what they would do and what the other guys won’t do. For people who have a progressive view of what this country should be, there is a real dilemma in how to cast that ballot. Not because the leaders are all speaking drivel, any more than usual, or that they are misleading us about their own or the other parties’ platforms, any more than usual, but because the guy that Canadians all seemed to love just a few months ago is right about one crucial issue. I’ll get to that in a moment.
As always in Canada, people with a view of a caring and compassionate society have a hard choice: the sensible vote for people of good conscience would be to choose the NDP (or, perhaps, the Greens). But we are once again facing a choice where the electorate is more likely to vote against one party rather than to vote for another party. In other words, they will want so desperately to get rid of Prime Minister Martin or so desperately to prevent Stephen Harper from becoming Prime Minister, that they will forgo what might have been a sensible NDP vote.
That, of course, is the danger of our system of government. We have heard a lot of disaffection over the years about unequal representation in Parliament and in this election there has been a lot of discussion about something called ‘proportional representation’. There seems to be little doubt that Canadians are not equally or fairly represented but nothing that any of the parties has discussed in this campaign will ever bring us any closer to an egalitarian level of representation. Personally, I favour some variation of a ‘run-off’ system where the last dog standing is the winner although I haven’t quite worked out the details in my own mind.
But that brings me back to that one crucial issue that I mentioned a couple of paragraphs back: Canadians seem poised to punish Paul Martin for his government’s wretched performance but they should consider carefully when they go to the polling place what Mr. Martin has said about Stephen Harper. Because on this one issue, Paul Martin is right.
Stephen Harper is a dangerous right-wingnut ideologue whose vision of Canada is so far right that none of us presently living would recognize it five years from now. He will move us to an American-style system of health care, he will build up our military --- not for the purposes of allowing us to resume our role as worldwide peacekeepers, but to curry favour with the United States. He will commit our troops to the foolish military excursions so much loved by our American friends and he will introduce hard-line unfriendly elements into everyday Canadian life (restricted women’s rights, restricted reproductive rights, a scrapping of environmental measures intended to save our planet, harsh immigration and citizenship rules, and a whole host of other bad ideas). He will do a ‘Mike Harris’ number on all of Canada: social programs will be gutted, taxes for the rich and corporations will be even better than they are today.
Do not be fooled by Harper’s recently smoother rhetoric: all those harsh things he has said and stood for as a Reform Party member and as leader of the National Citizens’ Coalition have not gone away; he’s still the same hard-right brute that he has always been. Those things are just not being talked about right now because it isn’t the message the electorate will wish to hear, even if they do want to punish the Liberals. And unfortunately, the press has given Harper a fairly easy ride on his hard-right ideology and many of them have dismissed Martin’s complaints about Harper’s extremism as just the desperate bleating of a man soon to lose his dream job.
But Martin is right this time. And if a nation-wide taste of Mike Harris is not what voters want, then they better think real hard about whether punishing the Liberals is more important than giving Stephen Harper an opportunity to take this country down the road of perdition.
Better still, let them cast their ballot for the socially responsible NDP or Greens and just reject both Martin and Harper. We don’t really have to settle for the evil of the two lessers.
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
Is that true Mr. Harris? You find the bloc's radical decentralisation aganda level-headed and sensible? Who are you anyways?
He was wrong to create a loophole for himself and CSL as well as other corporations to deny Canadians their rightful taxes, he was wrong not to allow the Sponsorship investigation a thorough process to reveal all the crooks, he was wrong to cut transfer payments to the provinces leaving them to be 'creative', he was wrong then and he is wrong now to expect our trust after so many breaches of trust. Just as the Mulroney team was thrown out of office,and rightfully so,we must refuse to allow such mismanagement of our country. Now we are encouraging a Mulroney backed Harper team, why? Clearly the populous has forgotten the past and can't see the forest for the trees in Harper's agenda.
No I actually think there is only one choice NDP and we must hold them hard to their platform, support their policies which will increase our sovereignty and protect what is left of Canada.
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
"Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. Paul writes for YellowTimes.org and covers central African current events for News From The Front (nftf.org) where his articles are frequently republished on the United Nations website (monuc.org). His work can also be found at vivelecanada.ca, where he is a member of the Advisory Board on Canadian Sovereignty. Paul lives in Canada."
If that's tooting my horn then I'm sorry, but I didn't know how else to answer that question.
But do I find the decentralization of the federal government to be sensible? Yup. Imagine how the economies of poorer areas of Canada would be boosted by having some government Ministry (or at least its working guts) located in that region. Newfoundland, to pick but one example, would benefit greatly from having the administration of some federal department located on the island and the benefit would grossly outweigh the loss that Ottawa would have to absorb from having it moved.
If you want to see a good comparison of the various platforms, go here: http://www.globeandmail.com/special/fed ... tml#issues
... and then tell me what is so wrong with the Bloc's general social agenda.
Paul Harris
You completely misunderstand the concept of decentralisation. What you describe is not called decentralisation. What you advocate is called reorganising the physical federal administraitve infrstructure. Obviously it would make sense to move federal fisheries buildings, for example, to the maritimes rather than have them in Ottawa. Decentralisation refers to the process of devolving powers to provincial governments, in other words, gutting the national government in favour of provincial autonomy. No national government equals no nation. Are you in favour of a weak central government? Are you in favour of a loose confederation of sovereign provinces? Are you in favour of having a federal government whose sole prerogatives
would be issuing stamps and providing for defence? That's not my Canada. My Canada has a strong central government that nurtures a strong national identity and links all regions of the country into a coherent whole by delivering pan-Canadian political, ecnomoic and social programmes.
I like his social polices, but I don't care much at all for his position on national unity. The Clarity Act is a necessary piece of legislation. It prevents a province from seceding on an amibiguous referendum question. It prevents a province from holding a knife to Canada's throat. Layton is way off on this one. Bill Blakie supported the Act and called it one of Jean Chretien's greatest achievements.
Paul
Besides, how, exactly, would you execute this pipe dream? You actually envision a day when Canadians will completely re-write the entire Constitution? Because that is what your idea would require. The entire thing as it sits now would have to be scrapped. It would be impossible. impossible. The amending formula requires substantial provincial consent for any sort of amending process to unfold. Why would provincial governments voluntarily opt to dissolve themselves?
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato
Silly statements like 'if we just all wish really hard it can all come true' do nothing to refute the near Constitutional impossibility of eliminating federalism in Canada.
I favour abolishing provinces as well, and the reason is all they do is fight among themselves and gang up on the feds.
IF we EVER get a federal government FOR the people, then they could do more good work without all the bickering.
Just a dream.
---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato
Getting rid of provincial level governments has a certain appeal I must say.
Can we abolish the political "Party" system sometimes down the road as well?