Day: December 17, 2005

Transcribed from this evening’s English-language leaders debate, here are two sets of answers to a question I think is among the most important any potential leader can be asked. (Emphasis is mine.) There are going to be scandals in every government (even an NDP one), there will be differences of opinion, and there will be disagreements on policy, but in the long run a leader needs to have a well-articulated view of how they will improve the country and make it better for its citizens.

Andrea Nyer, White Rock, BC: I feel that Canada has become essentially leaderless, with no clear vision and more energy spent on reacting to disasters than inspiring us to be better people. So, party platform aside, what is your big-picture vision for Canada in the future? What does your Canada look like in fifty years?

Stephen Harper: Those are the toughest questions to answer, especially when you’ve got a clock running. Look, Canada has, really, resources, and a land mass and natural resources unparalleled on this planet. We have a population that in a few short generations people of ambition and energy have been drawn from all corners of the earth. I believe that Canada should have the wealthiest economy, the highest standard of living, the best social services, and the highest standards of democracy in the world. I don’t think we should settle for anything less. That’s the kind of Canada I want to see for my children, and hopefully for their children as well.

Paul Martin: Well, my vision of Canada is a country that essentially sets the standard by which other countries and other peoples judge themselves. It’s a country with strong social programs so that no one is ever left behind. It’s a country that pays for those social programs with a very strong economy, one that is focused, really, to begin with, on our natural resources but primarily on a very strong educational system. It is a country that speaks on the world stage, with an independent voice. A country that projects its values, it protects its interests, and it essentially says to the world “we are where the world is going, not where it has been.” We are a multicultural nation, we have phenomenal assets, and we’ve got to basically say, this is indeed the model that others can follow, and we’re doing that. Look at our social cohesion, compared to others. It is a country that never forgets our values, generosity, respect for diversity, equality of opportunity. We are indeed a nation blessed, and we have got to make sure that generations that follow us understand that, and that the world sees it as well.

Jack Layton: Fifty years from now, a country where sustainable development and harmony with our environment has been achieved. Perhaps even sooner. A country where working families know that when they go to work there’s going to be the basics for them there, a decent standard of living, education for their kids—too many are losing that right now—their seniors being looked after at the tail, at those wonderful years at the end of their hard work, the investment in our economy, in the infrastructure, is there and established. It’s a country where people come from all parts of the world knowing that they’re not going to get a second-class status, which we’re seeing right now, but they will be full participants in everything that goes on in this amazing country. A country where our voice in the world isn’t something we just talk about but we deliver. And we can look back and say we delivered on helping the AIDS crisis in Africa, we delivered with peacekeepers around the world, that we can support on an ongoing basis. That’s my vision.

Gilles Duceppe: I think in fifty years we will have two sovereign countries, one named Quebec, one named Canada, respecting each other. Because two democratic countries, participating in larger economic and political institutions, like maybe a larger NAFTA just like there’s a larger Europe today, I think this is the way of the future. And Bill Clinton in 1998 in Tremblant described pretty well the evolution that Canada should take. He said, with the example of the United States, we’re taking political decisions in Washington and then we’ll look who’s best placed to apply them, being the states, universities, cities, or so on. I think he’s right. The problem is Quebec doesn’t feel at ease in that scenario, we want to do the same thing in Quebec as a sovereign country, not superior, neither inferior, but just different as countries are different, and it’s important in our globalized world to exist and to have a great link of friendship with our neighbours.

Trina McQueen: […] I’d like to end with a followup asking you what you see is the single greatest strength of Canada that will deliver your vision of fifty years from now.

Martin: Oh, our people. Overwhelmingly our people. I mean, you think about this country, linguistic duality, a main, a tremendous value of this country, about a multicultural nation, people drawn from the four corners of the world. But take a look at the rest of, take a look at what’s happening in Europe and other countries, the lack of social cohesion, how they pull together. And yet we have done this. We are essentially, I believe, building an ever-richer identity every year. And I think that those people, with those skills and that understanding, that’s our greatest asset.

Duceppe: Well, even if I want a sovereign Quebec, I admire Canada and Canadians as a great nation, a democratic nation, a country that is well-respected in the world. And I think it’s not because we’re against Canada that we want Quebec to be sovereign, just like Canadians are not against United States, but they feel they’re different. Simply that same thing for us.

Harper: Well, unfortunately I have exactly the same answer as Mr. Martin. I think it’s our people, it’s the incredible diversity and yet social cohesion and we see a lot of the potential out there that isn’t being properly used. But if I can just go maybe to a different subject on this. You know, we watch our hockey team competing for gold medals and often winning. We probably wouldn’t win if we had a Canada team and a Quebec team, and I just say to Mr. Duceppe and all the people of Quebec, I understand where they’re coming from, but we would be, both of us, irreversibly diminished if this country were to be divided.

Layton: Our greatest strength are the working people who build the country. They’ve been building it for decades, generations. It’s been tough, hard work. They’ve done it for their families, but they’ve also done it for our country. We are a nation of builders, sometimes on a small scale, sometimes on a grand scale. We need to start building again. We’ve seen too much taking apart of the things that we’ve built, our medicare system slipping between our fingers, our social programs in tatters, poverty increasing. We didn’t want to build that kind of society. Let’s get back to building.

Lots of live blogging of tonight’s English-language debate. I’m going to link to Antonia Zerbisias’s since it’s the only one I’ve read since watching the debate. (Despite being a geek—or perhaps because of it—I watched the debate slightly time-shifted and without attempting to multitask.)

I’ve got several things to add to the various comments that have been made, but one stands out. To my surprise I agreed most with Gilles Duceppe’s comments during the discussion of civility: I believe that any responsible government, be it a majority or a minority, owes it to voters to work with all of their representatives, not just those in the same party; similarly, the parties that don’t form the government need to work with the party that does. To that end, it was very interesting to note that only once (perhaps twice, I’ll need to check) did any leader admit to agreeing with another, and that was Stephen Harper’s unfortunate agreement with Paul Martin that Canada’s strength is its people. Perhaps I’m just naive, but I wanted to see more acknowledgement of their similarities on issues than the leaders were willing to concede.