Martin's so-called Canadian values --
and the reality
by Peter O'Donnell
In this last week of the campaign, we are bound to hear more from Paul Martin about his vision of "Canadian values." No surprise, these values are the policies of the Liberal Party. From the left, Jack Layton attacks Martin on the grounds that his declarations are phoney, that these values are really those of the NDP, and that the Liberals just give most of them lip-service.
Layton's critique is probably valid to some extent, but the truth is, the Liberals and New Democrats share a left-liberal ideology which in modern times has become more or less the state religion known as political correctness. Anything that is "p.c." is automatically part of the declared agenda of "Canadian values," and any other perspective is therefore defined to be either valueless, or an alien value (which in Canadian politics means an American value).
We are asked to believe, in a series of heavy-handed and almost self-satirizing negative ads, that Stephen Harper and the conservative movement in Canada lacks any sort of moral vision or compassion. Once again, this is an attempt to reduce the alternatives available in this election to black and white, where really the choice is more between what works and what doesn't work.
Climate change is often cited as a defining issue for "Canadian values." We've signed the Kyoto accord, our elite believes in the received view that human activity is behind global warming, and therefore if a Harper government takes another course of action, this is somehow undermining Canadian values. The reality is far different. The Kyoto accord is based on flawed science and very faulty political economics. It more or less invites developing nations to pollute at a steady rate while countries like our own have to choose between severe cutbacks or pollution credit trading. Meanwhile, actual air pollution issues in our cities are not necessarily addressed, so while China and India happily continue to fire vast quantities of carbon-based soot into the atmosphere (this is really the worst aspect of human-induced environmental change, rather than carbon dioxide), Canada basically puts money in Maurice Strong's back pocket and poses for photo ops with Bono. These "values" reduce to denial, but the Harper approach will be to work with like-minded developed nations (there is growing uncertainty about the wisdom of Kyoto) to work out more feasible international approaches, while at the same time working on specific air quality issues that impact on the health of Canadians especially in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes where the issue is most problematic.
So how about the value differential implied by the child care issue? Here, it is clear what the real contrast of values is -- the leftist or "statist" vision that the state is an ideal agent for parenting in general, contrasted with the conservative view that families should choose their best options, and that a financial incentive might make those choices more attainable. The CPC has not totally abandoned the creation of day care spaces, they call for incentives to employers to provide them. On this issue, it is really a choice of competing values, not a choice between "values" and "no values."
Then what about this widely repeated assertion that Canada will abandon its international role if Harper is prime minister? Apparently, our international role is thought to be leadership on various issues that affect the third world, the provision of peacekeeping, and aid/development policies. The rhetoric is high and overblown, but the reality on the ground is thin to nonexistent. The problem in Darfur, for example, has simmered away for the whole period of Liberal rule in Ottawa, and we seem to have accomplished nothing to help those suffering people. A cynic would say that's because none of them would be likely to emigrate to Canada and vote Liberal. The problems faced by the people of Iran, Syria or North Korea, all living under brutal repressive regimes, are not helped in any way by Canada's anti-American foreign policy, and frankly, it is hard to find anyone besides the Khadr family and Osama bin Laden who are helped by this anti-American foreign policy. Why do we sling this vicious anti-Bush rhetoric from the PMO month after month, other than to cut into the NDP vote and prevent Liberals from going down to defeat? And what good has it done us in the softwood lumber dispute? None whatsoever. Bush is not even a stakeholder in that dispute, because the political forces we must work with (or against) in the United States are Lou Dobbs style protectionists, who come from red states and blue states alike, and sit as congressmen, or senators, or state governors.
As far as the peacekeeping traditions of this nation, Martin talks a good game and never fails to invoke the memory of Lester Pearson, but the reality is that our military has been sadly neglected over the past twelve years and sent off to perform heroic duties in Bosnia or Afghanistan with incomplete equipment that endangers their safety. The CPC would make an upgrade of our military a priority and not worry about the squawking from the NDP cheap seats. So that's actually an upgrade of our traditional values.
Then the Liberals get into the territory of fighting Quebec separatism, but of course they are the prime reason why Duceppe has such an easy time getting votes. In this campaign, the Conservatives are gradually eroding that secure base with their alternative view of federalism. That alternative view is sold by Liberals as asking people to "fend for themselves," but in reality, we've been fending for ourselves under Martin's guidance, first as finance minister then as prime minister. Martin totally gutted the EI program and left millions to fend for themselves after basically stealing their premiums to make his economic policies look good to the world's financial markets. He built his legacy on the backs of thousands of people who lost employment, often through no fault of their own, and then found themselves without that vital 12-week safety net of reasonable income. I know personally of many people who went through this, and there were real victims of this policy. In the last election, it was considered over the top to blame Martin for urban homelessness, but in reality, there is a cause and effect. There is also a cause and effect between Liberal politics and the growing chaos of our health care delivery.
The health care issue really illustrates best of all the phoney nature of the Martin (and Layton) "values crusade." By sticking to a narrow, outdated vision of public health care, and not even admitting that the world has changed, moved on from the days of Tommy Douglas and Martin's father, that most European nations have a mixed system and theirs work much better than ours -- only the Conservatives have any real credibility on this issue. We need change, we need realism, and the provinces need both additional funding and a framework of guaranteed wait times. That's the real path forward, and I believe that only the CPC comes even close to understanding that fact. Ralph Klein and Gordon Campbell are often presented as bogey men in this debate, but in reality, even the two western provinces are in the same boat as the rest of Canada, trying to fund a largely public system with inadequate resources, insufficient numbers of professionals and equipment, and no modernization of approach except what the haphazard framework of the Canada Health Act will allow.
The debate then rages on to same sex marriage and women's right to choose. These are currently separate issues and one could see them in two different political frameworks. The same sex marriage issue represents a period of questionable legislation, with dangerous precedents for freedom of speech and religion in Canada. The political reality is that many Canadians feel that the legislation was pushed through parliament on the backs of a minority of public opinion and a thin majority of MPs, some of whom were coerced by Cabinet solidarity. It is entirely within the rights and the responsibility of the Canadian people to speak up if they don't like this legislation or its consequences. The CPC is the only party committed to exploration of change in this area. What form that change may take will depend on the will of parliament. It may be an adjustment of definitions, or it may be a second-tier assault on the more controversial spin-off legislation that allows for hate speech prosecutions and could in some future scenario place pressure on religious groups to conform to the unwanted new legislation. This is a situation in flux, and the Canadian people have the supreme authority here -- not the PM, not the Cabinet, not the Supreme Court, and definitely not Svend Robinson or assorted talking heads from the far left. That's a Canadian value known as "common sense."
As far as the abortion issue, the Liberals keep insinuating that back-benchers will try to cut back the current access to abortion, so Martin has proposed neutering the not-withstanding clause. Personally, I doubt that even with a Conservative majority, there would be enough elected MPs to bring serious change to our abortion laws. But if there were and the people agreed with them, then that's another little discussed Canadian value known as "democracy." In my view, the politically intelligent approach on this issue is to leave the advocacy to non-political groups who would be trying to change attitudes with their presentations. Until they succeed in changing the public opinion on this issue, I don't think legislation would be a viable option. And I am saying this from the perspective of a social conservative who personally believes that abortion is almost always morally wrong. I suspect that Stephen Harper and many prominent members of the caucus are in this same general head space on this issue. There is the sense that the public debate would have to be joined and that attitudes might shift very gradually over a period of perhaps ten or twenty years on this issue. The possibility that a Harper government would vote to outlaw abortion within five years is probably more remote than realistic.
For the undecided voter who visits this forum looking for conservative answers to these questions, I want to emphasize this -- the new party has resolved most of the questions that formerly divided the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. A few people on either side find the blend not to their liking, and they have made their views available as further political options, running as independents or small-party candidates. But the vast consensus in the Conservative Party is clear and is fundamentally Canadian in nature -- good government, honest government, accountable government trumps overblown Liberal ideology, and the proof is in their record. As for the NDP, they are no doubt more sincere, but living in British Columbia I can remind you, given a choice between the NDP and moderate centre-right politics, the credibility of the conservative option is considerably greater -- more accountable to the voters, and less accountable to unions and special interest groups.
For the past twelve years, Liberals have broken promise after promise. Their world view is borrowed from a far-left agenda that really belongs on the debate floor of the NDP or even the Marxist-Leninist Party. But this world view is presented mostly for show -- the real agenda of the Liberal Party is to keep their patrons and clients in gravy while the ordinary needs of the ordinary citizens across the country are ignored and left to spin doctors who specialize in the art of promise -- you know the routine, "we are just about ready to get around to that," or "we have a study group consulting with the people and the provinces."
Paul Martin says you want five more years of that. On your TV set. Day after day. I am not making this up.
and the reality
by Peter O'Donnell
In this last week of the campaign, we are bound to hear more from Paul Martin about his vision of "Canadian values." No surprise, these values are the policies of the Liberal Party. From the left, Jack Layton attacks Martin on the grounds that his declarations are phoney, that these values are really those of the NDP, and that the Liberals just give most of them lip-service.
Layton's critique is probably valid to some extent, but the truth is, the Liberals and New Democrats share a left-liberal ideology which in modern times has become more or less the state religion known as political correctness. Anything that is "p.c." is automatically part of the declared agenda of "Canadian values," and any other perspective is therefore defined to be either valueless, or an alien value (which in Canadian politics means an American value).
We are asked to believe, in a series of heavy-handed and almost self-satirizing negative ads, that Stephen Harper and the conservative movement in Canada lacks any sort of moral vision or compassion. Once again, this is an attempt to reduce the alternatives available in this election to black and white, where really the choice is more between what works and what doesn't work.
Climate change is often cited as a defining issue for "Canadian values." We've signed the Kyoto accord, our elite believes in the received view that human activity is behind global warming, and therefore if a Harper government takes another course of action, this is somehow undermining Canadian values. The reality is far different. The Kyoto accord is based on flawed science and very faulty political economics. It more or less invites developing nations to pollute at a steady rate while countries like our own have to choose between severe cutbacks or pollution credit trading. Meanwhile, actual air pollution issues in our cities are not necessarily addressed, so while China and India happily continue to fire vast quantities of carbon-based soot into the atmosphere (this is really the worst aspect of human-induced environmental change, rather than carbon dioxide), Canada basically puts money in Maurice Strong's back pocket and poses for photo ops with Bono. These "values" reduce to denial, but the Harper approach will be to work with like-minded developed nations (there is growing uncertainty about the wisdom of Kyoto) to work out more feasible international approaches, while at the same time working on specific air quality issues that impact on the health of Canadians especially in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes where the issue is most problematic.
So how about the value differential implied by the child care issue? Here, it is clear what the real contrast of values is -- the leftist or "statist" vision that the state is an ideal agent for parenting in general, contrasted with the conservative view that families should choose their best options, and that a financial incentive might make those choices more attainable. The CPC has not totally abandoned the creation of day care spaces, they call for incentives to employers to provide them. On this issue, it is really a choice of competing values, not a choice between "values" and "no values."
Then what about this widely repeated assertion that Canada will abandon its international role if Harper is prime minister? Apparently, our international role is thought to be leadership on various issues that affect the third world, the provision of peacekeeping, and aid/development policies. The rhetoric is high and overblown, but the reality on the ground is thin to nonexistent. The problem in Darfur, for example, has simmered away for the whole period of Liberal rule in Ottawa, and we seem to have accomplished nothing to help those suffering people. A cynic would say that's because none of them would be likely to emigrate to Canada and vote Liberal. The problems faced by the people of Iran, Syria or North Korea, all living under brutal repressive regimes, are not helped in any way by Canada's anti-American foreign policy, and frankly, it is hard to find anyone besides the Khadr family and Osama bin Laden who are helped by this anti-American foreign policy. Why do we sling this vicious anti-Bush rhetoric from the PMO month after month, other than to cut into the NDP vote and prevent Liberals from going down to defeat? And what good has it done us in the softwood lumber dispute? None whatsoever. Bush is not even a stakeholder in that dispute, because the political forces we must work with (or against) in the United States are Lou Dobbs style protectionists, who come from red states and blue states alike, and sit as congressmen, or senators, or state governors.
As far as the peacekeeping traditions of this nation, Martin talks a good game and never fails to invoke the memory of Lester Pearson, but the reality is that our military has been sadly neglected over the past twelve years and sent off to perform heroic duties in Bosnia or Afghanistan with incomplete equipment that endangers their safety. The CPC would make an upgrade of our military a priority and not worry about the squawking from the NDP cheap seats. So that's actually an upgrade of our traditional values.
Then the Liberals get into the territory of fighting Quebec separatism, but of course they are the prime reason why Duceppe has such an easy time getting votes. In this campaign, the Conservatives are gradually eroding that secure base with their alternative view of federalism. That alternative view is sold by Liberals as asking people to "fend for themselves," but in reality, we've been fending for ourselves under Martin's guidance, first as finance minister then as prime minister. Martin totally gutted the EI program and left millions to fend for themselves after basically stealing their premiums to make his economic policies look good to the world's financial markets. He built his legacy on the backs of thousands of people who lost employment, often through no fault of their own, and then found themselves without that vital 12-week safety net of reasonable income. I know personally of many people who went through this, and there were real victims of this policy. In the last election, it was considered over the top to blame Martin for urban homelessness, but in reality, there is a cause and effect. There is also a cause and effect between Liberal politics and the growing chaos of our health care delivery.
The health care issue really illustrates best of all the phoney nature of the Martin (and Layton) "values crusade." By sticking to a narrow, outdated vision of public health care, and not even admitting that the world has changed, moved on from the days of Tommy Douglas and Martin's father, that most European nations have a mixed system and theirs work much better than ours -- only the Conservatives have any real credibility on this issue. We need change, we need realism, and the provinces need both additional funding and a framework of guaranteed wait times. That's the real path forward, and I believe that only the CPC comes even close to understanding that fact. Ralph Klein and Gordon Campbell are often presented as bogey men in this debate, but in reality, even the two western provinces are in the same boat as the rest of Canada, trying to fund a largely public system with inadequate resources, insufficient numbers of professionals and equipment, and no modernization of approach except what the haphazard framework of the Canada Health Act will allow.
The debate then rages on to same sex marriage and women's right to choose. These are currently separate issues and one could see them in two different political frameworks. The same sex marriage issue represents a period of questionable legislation, with dangerous precedents for freedom of speech and religion in Canada. The political reality is that many Canadians feel that the legislation was pushed through parliament on the backs of a minority of public opinion and a thin majority of MPs, some of whom were coerced by Cabinet solidarity. It is entirely within the rights and the responsibility of the Canadian people to speak up if they don't like this legislation or its consequences. The CPC is the only party committed to exploration of change in this area. What form that change may take will depend on the will of parliament. It may be an adjustment of definitions, or it may be a second-tier assault on the more controversial spin-off legislation that allows for hate speech prosecutions and could in some future scenario place pressure on religious groups to conform to the unwanted new legislation. This is a situation in flux, and the Canadian people have the supreme authority here -- not the PM, not the Cabinet, not the Supreme Court, and definitely not Svend Robinson or assorted talking heads from the far left. That's a Canadian value known as "common sense."
As far as the abortion issue, the Liberals keep insinuating that back-benchers will try to cut back the current access to abortion, so Martin has proposed neutering the not-withstanding clause. Personally, I doubt that even with a Conservative majority, there would be enough elected MPs to bring serious change to our abortion laws. But if there were and the people agreed with them, then that's another little discussed Canadian value known as "democracy." In my view, the politically intelligent approach on this issue is to leave the advocacy to non-political groups who would be trying to change attitudes with their presentations. Until they succeed in changing the public opinion on this issue, I don't think legislation would be a viable option. And I am saying this from the perspective of a social conservative who personally believes that abortion is almost always morally wrong. I suspect that Stephen Harper and many prominent members of the caucus are in this same general head space on this issue. There is the sense that the public debate would have to be joined and that attitudes might shift very gradually over a period of perhaps ten or twenty years on this issue. The possibility that a Harper government would vote to outlaw abortion within five years is probably more remote than realistic.
For the undecided voter who visits this forum looking for conservative answers to these questions, I want to emphasize this -- the new party has resolved most of the questions that formerly divided the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. A few people on either side find the blend not to their liking, and they have made their views available as further political options, running as independents or small-party candidates. But the vast consensus in the Conservative Party is clear and is fundamentally Canadian in nature -- good government, honest government, accountable government trumps overblown Liberal ideology, and the proof is in their record. As for the NDP, they are no doubt more sincere, but living in British Columbia I can remind you, given a choice between the NDP and moderate centre-right politics, the credibility of the conservative option is considerably greater -- more accountable to the voters, and less accountable to unions and special interest groups.
For the past twelve years, Liberals have broken promise after promise. Their world view is borrowed from a far-left agenda that really belongs on the debate floor of the NDP or even the Marxist-Leninist Party. But this world view is presented mostly for show -- the real agenda of the Liberal Party is to keep their patrons and clients in gravy while the ordinary needs of the ordinary citizens across the country are ignored and left to spin doctors who specialize in the art of promise -- you know the routine, "we are just about ready to get around to that," or "we have a study group consulting with the people and the provinces."
Paul Martin says you want five more years of that. On your TV set. Day after day. I am not making this up.
Comment