Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Friday, August 03, 2012

The bridge that unites Canada is broken

Christy Clark is a political “dead woman walking,” so her cynical stunt last week at the premiers’ conference in Halifax was the all too predictable act of a desperate politician.

But it may have actually accomplished something important; people are talking about Canada’s economic union.

Clark’s “no money, no pipeline” routine highlighted the fragility of that union. She shamelessly threw Alberta’s thoughtful premier Alison Redford under the bus, all but gutting something she’s been diligently working to advance for quite some time. Redford initiated a highly constructive national conversation about the need for an energy strategy that seeks to leverage Canada’s formidable energy capacity. When I reflect on this, however, the notion that any provincial premier would carry the can for an idea of national significance speaks volumes to the absenteeism of Stephen Harper and the leadership vacuum he has produced.

In a country like ours such vacuums are dangerous. Charlatans, demagogues and lightweights are quick to fill the void. And voids can quickly turn opportunities into problems that can quickly become a divisive national crisis.

This didn’t have to become a divisive issue. Diversifying the shipment of Alberta bitumen to other markets is sensible and prudent policy and clearly in the national interest. Why would we insist on being hostage to the U.S. market and not get the best possible value for our resources? The issue isn’t whether this is an approach worth pursuing; rather the question is how do we achieve this objective?

For years now, Enbridge has taken the lead on everything while political leaders stood back and watched, waited, and like Christy Clark, held up their index finger to feel where the wind was blowing. That’s not leadership; that’s an outright abdication of it.

Stephen Harper and the provinces allowed — even encouraged — Enbridge to go it alone. They alone set the agenda and terms for a strategy that we are told is in the “national interest.” Ottawa and Victoria sat on their hands and stayed silent while Enbridge decided what the pipeline route should be. Yet it was obvious from the very outset that the Alberta to Kitimat route is an environmentally treacherous one. There were no other alternatives offered by the company, nor demanded by governments.

Mr. Harper could have, but chose not to, engage on this file years ago. He could and should have used his power to convene to bring the various parties together. He could have worked to build a workable and sensible consensus in keeping with responsible environmental stewardship and Canada’s long-term strategic interests. He could have directed his officials to unblock the permanently constipated treaty process.

Christy Clark could have done the same. Yet, neither she nor Harper did. Instead, they watched and waited from the sidelines.

Finding a smart and safe way to get Alberta oil to world markets makes sense. Removal of inter-provincial impediments to modernizing and linking our electrical grids makes sense. And thinking beyond our little sandboxes not only makes sense, it is a national imperative. But the complacency of Harper and Clark has made this task much more difficult, if not impossible, now.

It has been somewhat humorous to listen to the very same people that to this day use the National Energy Program (NEP) as a potent political wedge — even more than thirty years later — to lament the weakening of the “economic union.”

The intent and rationale behind the NEP reflected a desire to build a cohesive and strong Canada. The policy was aimed at securing the energy future for all of Canada and providing all of our citizens with affordable oil and gasoline. That was at a time when the OPEC oil cartel was driving up world prices, and inflation was a significant economic threat. The NEP ushered in massive taxpayer investment in the research and development of the “tar sands,” as they were then called, opened the far north to exploration, and created Petro Canada as the vehicle for much of our home grown oil and gas sector.

Like the Canada Health Act, Unemployment Insurance, Canada Pension Plan, and regional economic development programs, the NEP was predicated on the basic and very powerful notion that while provinces do have direct jurisdiction in many of these areas, we all belong to the Canadian community. And as such, where you live in this vast country should not be a barrier to equality of services, and to the extent possible, access to opportunity.

Pierre Trudeau advanced the proposition that Canada is not a confederation of shopping centers, but a strong and united nation that is bigger and better than the sum of our parts. The NEP was the personification of this ideal, as is the principle of equalization and transfer payments in our federation.

The Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney was right to repeal the NEP. At the same time, Mulroney strengthened – or at least tried very hard to strengthen – the economic and social union. The Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA were manifestations of that. So too were the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Office of Western Economic Diversification. Barriers to interprovincial trade was always high on the Mulroney agenda, but he made very limited headway in the face of premiers that had political constituencies to protect.

Before and after Meech Lake, First Ministers’ Conferences on the economy were regular and highly productive occurrences during the 1980s and early 1990s. These were always preceded by ministerial level federal-provincial-territorial meetings and working groups. In a world in rapid flux, that’s shrinking, and where competitive forces are more intense than ever, intergovernmental co-operation is critical. Perhaps more than most, our federation depends on it.

Stephen Harper does not agree. In his almost six years in power, he has never convened a single meeting of First Ministers and has just refused an invitation to a meeting on the economy this fall.

In a highly interdependent world governance is increasingly complex. The G-20 countries meet regularly to co-ordinate polices, as do central banks. The European Union brings together member countries daily to do the same. But for Canada, Stephen Harper inexplicably doesn’t believe close co-operation and coherent co-ordination is needed.

He’s wrong.

Instead, Harper has governed by decree; by a ‘my way or the highway,’ ‘take it or leave it’ ethos. Health care is an example. He’s provided the provinces with more federal dollars in the short term and then told the provinces do spend it how they see fit. We are already seeing a dangerous, but very predicable, fracturing of the federation in some key areas.

Because of the vastness and diversity of Canada, the only real spinal cord that we have as a country is our national government and its national institutions. The economic and social union is the little understood, but profoundly vital backbone. Unless it is healthy and functions with unencumbered effectiveness, our national standard of living is lower than it can and should be, and we do not take care of each other as a just society should.

And that’s where a national government comes in. Its job is to strengthen Canada. It is to fight – always – for what is right for Canada as a whole. It is to be a leader and promoter of the national interest, not act like a complacent and disinterested bystander. And it is to serve as a bridge that unites us.

As a piece of geography, Canada is a very big place. It took a New York Times reporter, Andrew Malcolm, to remind me of just how incredibly vast Canada is. There is room for four Great Britains in British Columbia, and almost three Frances in Quebec. There’s enough room in Canada’s three territories for West Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Portugal, and all the New England and Middle Atlantic United States, combined. Canada’s vastness is only part of what makes this a country of bewildering complexity. Northrop Frye once wrote, “The fundamental question in English Canada is not ‘Who am I?’ But ‘Where is here?’

Never before has the imperative of lucid national leadership to tackle the multiplicity of big issues been more unyielding. The world in which we live, breathe, work, and compete is a very small one indeed. As vast as our land is, a pan-Canadian mindset and approach in vital strategic areas will, in fact, save us money and be infinitely more efficient and industrious than the potpourri of narrow and hidebound policies and arrangements in place today that don’t get us results.

Canada’s continued existence is the most persuasive tribute to our fortitude, resilience, and creativity. As we have done throughout our history, we must dig deeper into ourselves to rediscover our capacity for reform and co-operation.

In his biography of Wilfred Laurier, André Pratte wrote that without compromise “there is no marriage, no social life, no federalism – and NO Canada. Those people who have sought compromise ought to be seen not as weak, much less as traitors, but as builders. If Canada still exists today, it is because there have always been citizens who felt that Laurier was right.”

In a very real way, tolerance and compromise is the cement that has held Canada together and it must be the basis for meeting our great promise.

Original Article
Source: iPolitics 
Author: Daniel Veniez 

No comments:

Post a Comment