Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Sticks in my Craw
Before I go off about how unfortunate it will be for Canadians of Paul Martin sticks to his threat of making the next election about national unity, I would like to point out how profoundly stupid the poll question on the Maclean's website is this week. It asks: "Does enlisting name candidates, such as Peter Kent, to run for political
office influence your decision at the ballot box?" The trouble, of course, is that it isn't riding specific. If you live in Edmonton-St. Albert and let the fact that Peter Kent is running for the Conservatives in St. Paul's influence how you vote, you're an idiot. If you live in St. Paul's and *don't* care that Kent's running, you're an even bigger idiot. There are a lot of idiots out there.
And (cue segue) a lot of these idiots apprently have jobs writing policy on federalism for major federal parties. I mean, if Paul Martin follows through on the above-mentioned threat, we'll be in bad shape. Personally, in an election that was about nothing more than national unity, I'd have to spoil my ballot (living as I do in Edmonton-St. Albert - if I lived in, say, St. Laurent-Cartierville the choice would be somewhat easier.
Let's review: Paul Martin has built a political career on being all things to all people, which inevitably makes him a piss-poor defender of the federation (witness, among other things, his support for Meech and Charlottetown), Stephen Harper wants to prevent Québec from becoming an independent country by giving it powers equivalent to those enjoyed by independent countries, while Jack Layton's now murmering about "asymmetrical federalism". I mean, credit to the Bloc: at least when it comes up policies that will result in the disintegration of Canada, said policies are consistent with the Bloc's state goal of disintegrating Canada. With the others, no such intellectual coherence.
How come none of our federalist leaders are prepared to challenge the assumption that national identity, which Québec undoubtedly has more of than does Canada, ought to bear any relation to political power? Or let's go further - how come nobody's challenging the notion that the Québecois government is the natural voice of the French Canadian nation? How come the New Democrats, who love the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are so prepared to sacrifice the individual rights enshrined therein for the collective rights implied by asymmetrical federalism? And finally, how come nobody's pointing out that our existing federal arrangement gives Québec pretty well all the power it could ever want - even including, to a point, the right to accept only the kind of immigrants it wants, those being francophone immigrants intending to educate their children in French?
If Canadians are asked to choose not just a government, but a federal model, next election, I fear for this country.
|
Before I go off about how unfortunate it will be for Canadians of Paul Martin sticks to his threat of making the next election about national unity, I would like to point out how profoundly stupid the poll question on the Maclean's website is this week. It asks: "Does enlisting name candidates, such as Peter Kent, to run for political
office influence your decision at the ballot box?" The trouble, of course, is that it isn't riding specific. If you live in Edmonton-St. Albert and let the fact that Peter Kent is running for the Conservatives in St. Paul's influence how you vote, you're an idiot. If you live in St. Paul's and *don't* care that Kent's running, you're an even bigger idiot. There are a lot of idiots out there.
And (cue segue) a lot of these idiots apprently have jobs writing policy on federalism for major federal parties. I mean, if Paul Martin follows through on the above-mentioned threat, we'll be in bad shape. Personally, in an election that was about nothing more than national unity, I'd have to spoil my ballot (living as I do in Edmonton-St. Albert - if I lived in, say, St. Laurent-Cartierville the choice would be somewhat easier.
Let's review: Paul Martin has built a political career on being all things to all people, which inevitably makes him a piss-poor defender of the federation (witness, among other things, his support for Meech and Charlottetown), Stephen Harper wants to prevent Québec from becoming an independent country by giving it powers equivalent to those enjoyed by independent countries, while Jack Layton's now murmering about "asymmetrical federalism". I mean, credit to the Bloc: at least when it comes up policies that will result in the disintegration of Canada, said policies are consistent with the Bloc's state goal of disintegrating Canada. With the others, no such intellectual coherence.
How come none of our federalist leaders are prepared to challenge the assumption that national identity, which Québec undoubtedly has more of than does Canada, ought to bear any relation to political power? Or let's go further - how come nobody's challenging the notion that the Québecois government is the natural voice of the French Canadian nation? How come the New Democrats, who love the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are so prepared to sacrifice the individual rights enshrined therein for the collective rights implied by asymmetrical federalism? And finally, how come nobody's pointing out that our existing federal arrangement gives Québec pretty well all the power it could ever want - even including, to a point, the right to accept only the kind of immigrants it wants, those being francophone immigrants intending to educate their children in French?
If Canadians are asked to choose not just a government, but a federal model, next election, I fear for this country.
