The unsolved mysteries of this election
by Peter O'Donnell
Granted, this election campaign was an improvement over the past several, especially the last one. The Conservative Party set the tone in terms of keeping the focus on issues, while the Liberals tried everything they could think of to justify their return to power. One hopes they have failed, because one more term will be the fatal blow to national unity that many have feared for the past ten years.
However, this election did not really remove the rock that conceals any number of troubling issues that, sooner or later, this nation will need to confront. Those insects are still hiding there in the dark, waiting for the sudden light of day to send them scurrying out into public consciousness.
First of all, the election campaign did not address the very important issue of freedom of speech in Canada. It may have come up in local races, but I never heard one word spoken nationally or regionally in British Columbia, about the assault on freedom of speech that has come in lock step with the gay rights legislation. You would have thought that this issue was perfectly suited to the Conservative cause -- Christian ministers being asked to explain their opinions, entirely Bible-based, to the courts of Alberta, of all places. Christian laypeople wondering when the police would be at their door to ask for a toning down of their comments on the issue -- earnest young police officers who might very well have some sense of the irony of the situation, them wasting their valuable time lecturing morally upright people on how to conduct themselves while down the block their neighbours were busy with their grow-ops or having their homes broken into by criminals looking for the money to buy the product.
Another issue that remained mute, like a dog that could not bark, was the linkages between the Liberal Party and powerful interests that seek to profit from Liberal policies, notably Kyoto, without any real public scrutiny.
The abortion issue was only addressed in the usual code language of "a woman's right to choose," which apparently is important enough to Paul Martin that he forgets everything he hears at Mass on a weekly basis, and risks his eternal life to seek out five more years of political life. Although I don't think the Canadian public are necessarily ready for a full discussion of abortion yet, the issue of partial birth abortion could have been raised as a first step.
We never heard much about foreign policy either. Apparently we are still on the level of thinking that we can sit on the sidelines of most of the world's major conflicts, and not process any of the new information made available by the events of the past ten years. I suppose it's too much to ask at this early stage of political re-awakening, but nobody in Canada ever seems to challenge this insulting notion that "everyone" in Canada dislikes George Bush and can see no reason for the American presence in Iraq. For the record, I admire the man's resolve and I think the people of Iraq should be thankful they have been given this doorway to a stable and prosperous future. On a related note, we have heard nothing about the NDP's history of support for the Saddam Hussein regime. I am sure that if Stephen Harper had once idolized Pinochet, we would have heard about that on a daily basis.
Another taboo topic was western alienation. I suppose that's partly due to the political divide already in place -- no reason for Harper to campaign on something so obvious in his support base, and no justification for Martin to bring it up either, since he's the latest accelerant on the fire. Jack Layton seems not to have been told that western Canadians are enormously annoyed at Ottawa, and perhaps that's because his support base don't share this feeling. So there has been no discussion of the subject, just a few platitudes about senate reform, which seems endlessly postponed, and the usual Liberal twaddle about representing our interests (like Stalin promoted world peace, I suppose you could say).
The question of judicial bias and activism was debated to some extent -- there was an airing of it on Don Newman's show, "Politics," the other day. However, there is not much public consciousness of what's at stake when social change is being pushed along by the twin turbines of prime ministerial power and the activism of the Supreme Court. This is really the most important political issue of our generation, aside from Quebec separatism or health care. Canadians need to decide whether they can tolerate the lop-sided imbalance between parliament, the PMO, and the Supreme Court. I think parliament needs to have its proportion of power increased. And I agree with Harper that if the Senate is to continue being any kind of player, it should be an elected player. Not triple-E necessarily, because of my oft-stated objections to seeing 40% or almost that many Senators elected east of Rimouski. But something more balanced towards provincial equality.
That brings up a final point of my own concern, the code of silence imposed on discussions of the division of powers. Canadians are so woefully uninformed about the nature of this central provision of their constitution (the one we had before Trudeau "upgraded" it in Bill Gates style, making the new version worse than the former one -- let's wait a minute here and see if my words disappear -- no, well then... My concern is that when people don't know much about the division of powers, then they are wide open to the blustery rhetoric employed by Liberals and New Democrats about how Harper wants to "pander to the provinces."
News flash, the Fathers of Confederation wanted to pander to the provinces in order to get them to join the federation. Deal with it!
This is by no means a comprehensive list. You may have a number of issues in mind that you would like to hear debated. The problem with open debate is that the Liberals have no concept of democratic debate. Their idea of a campaign is to put the fear of the devil in the voters' minds, and promise to turn over a new leaf. We've been waiting a long, long time for that leaf to be turned over.
I would recommend January 23rd as a day to blow that leaf away.
by Peter O'Donnell
Granted, this election campaign was an improvement over the past several, especially the last one. The Conservative Party set the tone in terms of keeping the focus on issues, while the Liberals tried everything they could think of to justify their return to power. One hopes they have failed, because one more term will be the fatal blow to national unity that many have feared for the past ten years.
However, this election did not really remove the rock that conceals any number of troubling issues that, sooner or later, this nation will need to confront. Those insects are still hiding there in the dark, waiting for the sudden light of day to send them scurrying out into public consciousness.
First of all, the election campaign did not address the very important issue of freedom of speech in Canada. It may have come up in local races, but I never heard one word spoken nationally or regionally in British Columbia, about the assault on freedom of speech that has come in lock step with the gay rights legislation. You would have thought that this issue was perfectly suited to the Conservative cause -- Christian ministers being asked to explain their opinions, entirely Bible-based, to the courts of Alberta, of all places. Christian laypeople wondering when the police would be at their door to ask for a toning down of their comments on the issue -- earnest young police officers who might very well have some sense of the irony of the situation, them wasting their valuable time lecturing morally upright people on how to conduct themselves while down the block their neighbours were busy with their grow-ops or having their homes broken into by criminals looking for the money to buy the product.
Another issue that remained mute, like a dog that could not bark, was the linkages between the Liberal Party and powerful interests that seek to profit from Liberal policies, notably Kyoto, without any real public scrutiny.
The abortion issue was only addressed in the usual code language of "a woman's right to choose," which apparently is important enough to Paul Martin that he forgets everything he hears at Mass on a weekly basis, and risks his eternal life to seek out five more years of political life. Although I don't think the Canadian public are necessarily ready for a full discussion of abortion yet, the issue of partial birth abortion could have been raised as a first step.
We never heard much about foreign policy either. Apparently we are still on the level of thinking that we can sit on the sidelines of most of the world's major conflicts, and not process any of the new information made available by the events of the past ten years. I suppose it's too much to ask at this early stage of political re-awakening, but nobody in Canada ever seems to challenge this insulting notion that "everyone" in Canada dislikes George Bush and can see no reason for the American presence in Iraq. For the record, I admire the man's resolve and I think the people of Iraq should be thankful they have been given this doorway to a stable and prosperous future. On a related note, we have heard nothing about the NDP's history of support for the Saddam Hussein regime. I am sure that if Stephen Harper had once idolized Pinochet, we would have heard about that on a daily basis.
Another taboo topic was western alienation. I suppose that's partly due to the political divide already in place -- no reason for Harper to campaign on something so obvious in his support base, and no justification for Martin to bring it up either, since he's the latest accelerant on the fire. Jack Layton seems not to have been told that western Canadians are enormously annoyed at Ottawa, and perhaps that's because his support base don't share this feeling. So there has been no discussion of the subject, just a few platitudes about senate reform, which seems endlessly postponed, and the usual Liberal twaddle about representing our interests (like Stalin promoted world peace, I suppose you could say).
The question of judicial bias and activism was debated to some extent -- there was an airing of it on Don Newman's show, "Politics," the other day. However, there is not much public consciousness of what's at stake when social change is being pushed along by the twin turbines of prime ministerial power and the activism of the Supreme Court. This is really the most important political issue of our generation, aside from Quebec separatism or health care. Canadians need to decide whether they can tolerate the lop-sided imbalance between parliament, the PMO, and the Supreme Court. I think parliament needs to have its proportion of power increased. And I agree with Harper that if the Senate is to continue being any kind of player, it should be an elected player. Not triple-E necessarily, because of my oft-stated objections to seeing 40% or almost that many Senators elected east of Rimouski. But something more balanced towards provincial equality.
That brings up a final point of my own concern, the code of silence imposed on discussions of the division of powers. Canadians are so woefully uninformed about the nature of this central provision of their constitution (the one we had before Trudeau "upgraded" it in Bill Gates style, making the new version worse than the former one -- let's wait a minute here and see if my words disappear -- no, well then... My concern is that when people don't know much about the division of powers, then they are wide open to the blustery rhetoric employed by Liberals and New Democrats about how Harper wants to "pander to the provinces."
News flash, the Fathers of Confederation wanted to pander to the provinces in order to get them to join the federation. Deal with it!
This is by no means a comprehensive list. You may have a number of issues in mind that you would like to hear debated. The problem with open debate is that the Liberals have no concept of democratic debate. Their idea of a campaign is to put the fear of the devil in the voters' minds, and promise to turn over a new leaf. We've been waiting a long, long time for that leaf to be turned over.
I would recommend January 23rd as a day to blow that leaf away.
Comment