A Tale Of Two Canadas

That is the title of a very interesting piece by Michael Valpy in today's Star that is well-worth reading. His thesis offers something of a challenge to a post I put up the other day talking about the fact that our core values as Canadians managed to survive 10 years of dark rule under the Harper Conservatives.

While admitting the recent election was a rejection of a policy direction that was simply alien to most Canadians, Valpy notes that it was the participation of a certain demagraphic that tipped the scales against Harper:

What shifted on Oct. 19 was the appearance of three million more voters than in the previous election of May 2011 — most of them young and wanting to declare that the Harper government was alien.

What shifted were the significant numbers of small-l liberals who had voted NDP in 2011 and large-L Liberals who stayed home, but not this time. As well, in the last days of the campaign, what shifted was a significant chunk of the over-65 vote from Conservative to Liberal.

Citing pollster Frank Graves' analysis of the election, this past election differed from the one in 2011 thanks to values and emotional engagement,

values that said Harper’s-Canada-is-not-my-Canada and an emotional engagement largely absent in centre-left voters in 2011. Emotion is what gets people to the polls.

Whether it was tough-on-crime, the passivity toward climate change, the diminution of the federal state to an unprecedented 14 per cent of GDP, the shuttering of research and evidence-based decision making, or a much more militaristic foreign policy with an unblinking pro-Israel stance, collectively those positions were increasingly disconnected from what the majority of Canadians considered their country’s core values and the public interest, says Graves.

However, Valpy points out that there is another side to this picture:

The popular vote that gave Harper his majority in 2011 — 39.6 per cent — was almost identical to the popular vote that gave Trudeau his majority in 2015: 39.5 per cent.

Harper’s absolutist approach to government with the backing of not much more than one-third of ballots cast (and the support of only 24 per cent of all Canadian voters) was branded a debasement of democracy.

That assessment will likely not be made of the Liberals, Valpy suggests, because theirs are values represented by a larger proportion of Canadians. However, the fact is

the roughly one-third of voters who stuck with the Conservatives on Oct. 19 are real people, with a very distinct profile in terms of both demography and values. Conservative Canada is older, more likely to be male, less educated, rural, and focused to the west of the Ottawa River.

Valpy concludes that

there are two Canadas, each with seemingly irreconcilable values, maybe bringing us to the necessity of seeing the country in a new light — as a modern, pluralistic society with no national consensus, with only limited harmony at the political level, with tensions and contradictions cemented into the basic operating DNA of the country.

It means that while the positive response to the new Trudeau government is the highest this century, the idea of common values in Canada is a chimera, a fantasy.

While his last sentence may be a source of discomfort for some, and certainly challenges my notion about Canadian core values, the tension between opposing visions is also something that should remind all of us of the importance of political engagement and the nurturing of our voices and values. It should also prompt an acknowledgement that a competing vision and competition for our vote is an absolute necessity in a healthy and dynamic democracy, preventing to a degree both governments and voters from taking things for granted.

Redefining Government

Those of us who followed closely the dark years of the Harper regime are well-aware of its ethos: government is an impediment and an intrusive force, foisting itself upon people who would be far better off left alone. The tax-cut policies of the regime, along with the creation of TFSAs, the underfunding of programs, the gutting of environmental regulation and oversight, etc. were all ample testaments to that philosophy.

The thick carapace of my cynicism led me to fear that far too many of my fellow citizens had accepted the message of the primacy of the individual over the collective. While a humbling experience, I am so glad that I was so wrong, a fact amply attested to by the results of our recent election.

Hope and goodness are alive and well.

In a recent column, Toronto Star publisher John Cruickshank makes some very interesting observations about what led Justin Trudeau's Liberals to such a definitive victory, and the word 'good' figures prominently in his assessment. He observes that the word was used during the campaign by both Harper and Mulcair as being synonymous with 'skilled', as in 'good leadership.' Trudeau, however, used it differently:

...when he used “good” as in “good government,” Trudeau often wasn’t speaking merely of skilfulness or efficiency.

He meant morally good. Virtuous. Right.

It was a little shocking to hear. It echoed the language of an earlier generation before the relentless Conservative assault on the size, scope and nature of democratic government impoverished our speech and slackened our hopes.

The kind of fatalism implicit in the Harper message, that we are controlled by global forces and markets that compel us to be either lean and mean or 'die', was challenged by Trudeau:

Trudeau called out both this fatalism and the pessimism about voters that underlay the Conservatives’ personal attacks and their scaremongering against new Canadians.

His promise to run a modest budget deficit for three years to restore public works and put more Canadians to work was above all a pledge to think differently and more confidently. Challenging current ideology, he said we could alter our circumstances.

Second, he insisted that inequality of wealth and opportunity was a moral problem as well as a technical one. The promise to raise taxes on the rich and reduce those on the middle class gave testament to his seriousness.

Raising taxes and running deficits have been considered political third rails. Despite the risks, Trudeau grabbed on hard.

Canadians responded by strongly endorsing a philosophy that says government can once more be a force for good, a notion constantly challenged and undermined by the neoliberal agenda:

And it was this enthusiasm for “good government” that decided the election.

It was a vote for a return of moral passion and a sense of purpose when we address our economy, our environment, the newcomers to our nation and our Aboriginal Peoples.

This kind of political talk was once much more common in Canada. Perhaps it will again be possible after this very broad and deep victory to engage Canadians in pursuing what another Liberal prime minister called the Just Society.

The message to all Canadians is that they are not alone in their struggles, surely one that can bring some solace to many. Let us now hope that message will find full expression in policies implemented with vigour and deep conviction.

Rick's Rant: About Those Conservative Newspaper Endorsements

Redoubtable Rick is relentless in his excoriation of both The Globe and Mail and The National Post for their corporate-driven endorsements of the Harper regime during our recent election:

On The Post-Election Employment Prospects Of The Harper Fallen

In Power Play's Don Martin's considered opinion, they are decidedly dim:

On The Restoration Of Canada's Soul And Other Matters

There is a series of excellent letters in today's Star that I hope you will take time to read. I am reproducing the first two dealing with what the ejection of Harper means for Canada; the third, about the long-form census, is followed by a link to an As It Happens interview with Munir Sheik, the former chief statistician for Statistics Canada who quit over a matter of integrity and principle. Sheik talks about why a return to the mandatory long-form census is crucial if we are to have data that can be relied upon.

The dismissal of Stephen Harper and his Conservative government provides welcome and palpable relief for those Canadians they tried to browbeat, bully and frighten into submission. This election, more than any other in the past 40 years was about soul of our nation. Canadians came down squarely on the side of decency, fairness and inclusivity as the moral foundations of political leadership.

Mr. Harper now understands that federal democratic governments are not in power to abuse it. They are not there to frighten, intimidate and shut up our nation’s researchers and scientists; they are not there to value the lives of first nation women less than others; nor to marginalize and badmouth all refugees while ostracizing the physicians, nurses and others who care for them.

They are there to govern with respect and inclusion for all in this country. Bullying those Canadians whose opinions differ from theirs became the nasty, bulldozing hallmark of the Conservatives under the stamp of Harper. Thankfully, it is now this belligerence and oppositional defiant government behaviour that Canadians rejected.

I suspect the same feeling of release and relief is being felt by many across Canada today. Mr. Trudeau was bang on in his post election conversation with Canadians. Sunnier days!

Dr. Paul Caulford, Toronto

It’s not a new Canada as the Star’s Tuesday headline suggests. It’s still the same old Canada: relatively progressive and open-minded. But back to the future? Not quite.

Almost a decade of Harper’s rule failed to destroy this nation. His attempts to turn us into a country of fear, hate and discrimination didn’t work, as Monday’s results demonstrated. Despite its imperfections, the first-past-the-post system served us well.

And yet again the NDP’s move to the right cost them dearly and, as happened here in Ontario last year, they paid the price. When Canadians want change they vote for it, as they did last spring in Alberta and nationally on Monday.

Although I don’t expect a full-fledged just society to emerge under Trudeau the Younger, he does have a golden opportunity to restore Canada’s tattered reputation on the global stage, while jump-starting our economy through a welcome dose of Keynesian stimulus spending.

Where Canada goes now is up to the Liberals. They can start by following through on the promises that won them the election.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

On the same day as Prime Minister Trudeau is sworn in, he should instruct StatsCan to restore the mandatory long-form census, if possible in time for the 2016 census. This simple action would be widely popular, would help the economy, and won’t need legislation.

No single action taken by the Canadian government led by Mr. Harper has been so thoroughly discredited and condemned as making the long-form census voluntary. Manufacturers and marketers, property developers and professors, cities and school boards have repeatedly pointed to the serious economic and social damage caused by not having this data available. If Mr. Trudeau wants to signal that he is serious about creating real change, perhaps the best way to start is by making it clear that this parliament will use data, and not ideology, to make decisions, policies, and laws.

Howard Goodman, Toronto

Click here for Munir Sheik's thought on the census.

Decision Time

It has been, in the estimation of most people, an almost unbearably long campaign; its eleven weeks' duration likely tested the mettle of the most ardent of political junkies. Yet at the same time it has probably served at least one positive purpose for those who don't follow politics very closely: it has laid bare the true nature of the Harper regime. Contemptuous of democracy, willing to foster suspicion and incite racial, religious and ethnic tensions, the party's desperation has grown palpable. I am not sorry to see things wind down.

Ultimately, however, it has turned out to be personally valuable. As people get older, I am convinced that emotions like excitement and anticipation are harder to come by, time blunting the things that we so eagerly embraced in our youth. Yet it is precisely those feelings, along with some anxiety, that I am now experiencing as I anticipate the outcome of this election. This emotional state has also helped me realize more clearly than ever that there were largely two motivations behind this blog since I started it in 2010: a deep aversion to abuses of power, which I and so many others have written about over the years, and a deep love for Canada. It is the latter I want to discuss today.

Surely one of the most insidious and Machiavellian of the regime's schemes has been to relentlessly devalue and debase the notion of citizenship. While Harper's team was not the first to attempt this (here in Ontario Mike Harris gave it his best shot), they have had the longest opportunity to remake Canada in their own soulless ideology, one where the bonds that connect us to each other and the larger possibilities of society are slowly weakened until they break.

The low tax agenda, which erodes over time the ability to fund a larger vision, has been a centrepiece for Mr. Harper. And with it, of course, has come the inevitable extolment of the individual and the denigration of the collective. It is a formula designed to rip away our foundations as a nation, and one that people like former clerk of the Privy Council Alex Himelfarb and so many other progressives have been fighting back against. Himelfarb insists, for example, that tax isn't a four-letter word, warning that to embrace the neoliberal agenda means we won't be able to face up to our challenges and we will sleepwalk toward a smaller, meaner Canada.

But taxes are only a part of the Canadian equation that has been under consistent attack since the Harper ascension to power. The country I grew up in and love embraces so many qualities to which so many other countries aspire: acceptance, compassion, inclusion, peace are but four that have been put at grave risk by a government that regards them not as the virtues they truly are, virtues that need constant nurturing, but rather as impediments to the implementation of its marketplace mentality that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

These are a few of the things about this country that I love so deeply, and I want them back to once more nourish our collective soul and enrich all of us. It is what guided my vote in the advance poll, and it is what I want to see rekindled throughout our land.

If all goes well tonight, the reign of Stephen Harper and his horde will be at an end. The healing and rebuilding of our country can begin. It is a task no particular party is up to alone, but I believe that all of us, together, can still accomplish great things.

On The Company You Keep

This kind of makes it easy to judge Harper, doesn't it?

I'll Be So Glad To See The End Of This

I think most would agree that Terrence Young and the rest of his ilk are long past their best-before dates.

More Encouraging News

I quite enjoyed this report, which suggests some of the most odious of Conservative sycophants have a good chance of losing their seats.



Meanwhile, in the first three of the four days set aside for advance polls, 2.4 million Canadians cast their vote. That has to mean something.

An Unvarnished Assessment

Over time we've seen that this man cannot be trusted. He had no integrity. He's trying to stifle democracy. There's no end to what he's doing," said Williams.

"He's a lousy prime minister who's divisive." -Danny Williams

Watch as former Newfoundland-Labrador Premier Danny Williams offers an unvarnished assessment of Steven Harper:



A lengthier interview with Williams on Power Play can be seen here.

Rick Mercer Opines On The Campaign

The always interesting and insightful Rick Mercer needs no introduction from me. Enjoy.