TORONTO – By this time next week, we will know whether Canada will have decided that “a new” individual/party will shape the Executive Council of the Parliament of Canada. The candidates for that privilegehave made their case and are in the process of solidifying that position with costed policy platforms and by lists of “credible” (in their view) third party patrons encouraging the electorate to do the same.
I confess to not being terribly impressed with the argument that this election/choice is about patriotism and the survival of our country. Ours is a country geographically larger than Europe, yet with only ten percent of that continent’s population. It would be beyond pretentiousness to arrogate a singular view to what that “patriotism” would entail.
Emotional reactions are difficult to justify in ourselves let alone attribute a similar cause/ešect in them to anyone else.
Nonetheless, there is little use in dismissing the emotions experienced by someone else as having little relevance. They are there. People point to them for a reason. Like most people of European ancestry, we at the Corriere Canadese ‘debate with our hearts and vote with our wallet’.
We seek justification in Constitutional authorities, fulfillment of obligations and acceptance of responsibilities. Pragmatism would seem to be the “ideology” of us all: anything and everything for the greater good… but show me.
For what it is worth, Yves-Francois Blanchet, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, is a “patriot” – just not the type anyone outside Quebec may understand. And he is honest about it. I dare say he understands Constitutional powers and those exercisable by Quebec. When talking about “equality” in the debates, he pointed out that Canada and Quebec are two distinct economies (political-economic) entities and that no solution to any threat – real or perceived – will succeed unless Quebec were brought to the table as an equal. No concessions, no projects without Quebec’s interest being first and foremost.
Conservatives pinned their hopes on the issues of obligations and responsibilities with an eye to a receptive audience willing to entertain critique, at the risk of being perceived as negative. Poilievre opted to discuss “pocket-book” issues and entertain a discussion on practicable matters. Did it work?
Mark Carney, probably sensing impending disaster associated with negative topics connected with his predecessor’s government, responded with the proverbial ‘I am not that guy’ approach, saying his personal history was one of managing international crises with success meriting our confidence. Read their platforms and draw your own conclusions.
We will do our best to be objective in our analysis of their programs during the course of this week. We would have liked to have a similarly objective assessment of the NDP’s proposal going forward but their approach so far has be a pugnacious ‘we’ll fight for you’ come hell or high water… but only if the enemy is Poilievre. Hard to imagine that as a winning strategy for his followers, current or potential. Read and go vote.
