Visions of Canada

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.

Can’t we all just get along?

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.

Come in, Orson

Just had a giggle over this typo, which I took at face value until I’d read it two or three times: I found out recently from a cow orker that in Danish, kneecaps are “Knee Shells” (knæskallen). How does one ork a cow, anyway?

One more for good measure: He adjusts his teeth. I ask him if I can see them because I’m interested in buying some.

London-Fanshawe candidates

I’m not sure how voters in the London-Fanshawe riding will decide between Irene Mathyssen and Glen Pearson. I’ve met Pearson and his wife, Jane Roy, and I have a lot of respect for their work in the community and in Africa; they’re all-round good people, with a strong sense of what is morally correct and the courage to act on that conviction. If I lived in the riding, I’m pretty sure my ballot would be cast for Pearson.

That being said, I know former MPP Mathyssen only by reputation, but it’s a good one. I’d definitely like to see a more experienced NDP candidate in my own riding, and Mathyssen would have made it a tough three-way race between her, incumbent (and cabinet minister) Joe Fontana, and John Mazzilli (who’s also an import from London-Fanshawe). As suggested by my letter to the candidates, though, I’m going to need to do a pretty thorough evaluation before making up my mind for London North Centre.

I like Blog Boy

The most entertaining part of the 2005-2006 election campaign has been, by far, Liberal speechwriter Scott Feschuk’s Blackberry Blog. As with a lot of humour there are those who like it, those who hate it, and those who just don’t get it. (Me, I’m among the first group; I even sent him a “fan letter”.) Where else can you find out how to give the Prime Minister a high-five? And, on a more serious note, what other Liberal communication would dare to say, in response to an incredibly stupid comment by one of their own, I think we all know that, yesterday at least, he put the ass in jackass.

Letter to candidates

The following is a letter I e-mailed to the four major-party candidates in my riding, Joe Fontana (Liberal), Stephen Maynard (NDP), John Mazzilli (Conservative), and Stuart Smith (Green).

Dear sirs,

I’m a voter in the London North Centre riding. My vote in the upcoming election will not be based solely on a leader, a party, a candidate or a particular issue, but on a considered evaluation of all of those elements. To that end, I’d like to ask several questions of each of you, the answers to which will help me make an informed vote on January 23.

First off, if you have one, what is your personal campaign website? I’ve only been able to find Mr. Mazzilli’s and Mr. Fontana’s.

Although you are running for election to the federal government, it is as a representative of your riding that you will be elected. To date I haven’t seen much discussion of what any of you believe are the most important issues facing local ridings, i.e. not just London North Centre but London-Fanshawe, London West, Kent-Middlesex-Lambton, etc. If you had to pick three issues for this area, what would they be, and what is your position on them?

Voters will be choosing you in large part to make their voice heard by the government. If elected, how will you evaluate the opinions of those you represent? When they are in conflict, what will be your process to balance those opinions with your personal beliefs and party policy?

Three of you will belong to parties that do not form the government after the upcoming election. If you are elected, how will you work with that party to see that local opinions are represented? Similarly, how will you and your party work with MPs from other parties if yours forms the government? For example, in a Conservative government where a Liberal candidate like Marc Garneau wins his riding, would you consider appointing him to a relevant advisory position, or even a position in the government (or cabinet)? If at all, how will your actions change in a minority government?

We rarely hear about the actions of MPs unless they are in cabinet or are running for election; even then we hear more about what their party has done and less about their achievements on behalf of their riding. How will you, and your party, make government and candidates more accessible, visible, and accountable to the voters in local ridings?

Recognizing that it is run at arm’s length from the government, what is your stance, and your party’s policy, on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly with regard to funding, the Broadcast Act, corporate governance, and the lengthy recent lockout? Do you believe there is a need for a national public broadcaster at all? If so, what is your vision for the organization; if not, why not? Mr. Fontana, as one of the direct (albeit belated) players in the lockout, do you think the organization is being run effectively by its current management?

How would a government formed by your party alter current support for the arts and amateur sports? I’m not referring just to funding, although that’s obviously an important factor, but to other related issues like copyright and local, regional and national exposure.

Finally, I’d like to discuss your answers on my weblog. This may involve quoting or summarizing your responses to each question, in whole or in part. If you’d prefer I only do one or the other—or that I keep your responses entirely private—please let me know.

Thank you in advance for your answers. Good luck to each of you in a positive, issue-based campaign.

(signed)

Greens’ Harris on CBC

Jim Harris, leader of the Green Party, was on CBC’s The National last night in one of their interactive Your Turn segments. Before I watched all I really knew was that the Greens are focused on the environment… and afterwards, that’s still all I know about their platform. I’ll give this to Harris, though: he’s an expert at spinning any question back to his issue. The discussion went something like this:

“Mr. Harris, what does the Green Party have to say about the Gomery inquiry?” “There’s a much bigger scandal in Canada, and that’s the government’s policy on the environment.”

“Mr. Harris, what are you going to do about high income taxes?” “We’re going to put a tax on gas, but it’s not a gas tax, it’s a save-the-environment tax.”

“Mr. Harris, what is the Green Party’s policy on national child care?” “Our children won’t have a future if we don’t fix the environment for them today.”

“Mr. Harris, what about unemployment?” “Canada’s got a good profile for wind power, and we’re going to be creating green-collar jobs in that industry.”

About the only answer Harris gave that he didn’t reroute to the environment was to complain that his party doesn’t get covered by the media… apparently oblivious to the fact that he was doing so on national television. (Host Peter Mansbridge was quite pointed in reminding Harris of that, not once but twice.)

I’m not sure whether the purpose of Harris’s appearance was to show Canadians that the Greens aren’t just a single-issue party or if it was to show that they are. I do know that by refusing to provide substantial answers to numerous legitimate questions, particularly those on which any party serious about governing should have well-defined stances, he made it much less likely that I’ll consider a Green vote.

…not as I do?

It puzzles me to no end why a large majority of the important tools that are needed to build Java applications for settop boxes are written in compiled languages and provided only in Windows executable form.

This isn’t an idle complaint, by the way. I started rebuilding one of those tools in Java tonight, going from an algorithm in a specification (and I use the terms algorithm and specification loosely). Fortunately it’s going quickly: in just over three hours, including puzzling over the algorithm—which, despite being defined as an extension to another algorithm in another spec, is almost entirely different—and learning the relevant Java APIs, it’s about half done and well on its way to being an Ant task to boot. But this is at least the seventh time I’ve had cause to do something like this, and it’s getting really really old.

Specific harm

MOE: I’m a well-wisher, in that I don’t wish you any specific harm.

Sleazy downtown nightclub Club Phoenix has been shut down due to incidents where patrons used beer bottles as weapons and a minor was served alcohol. And I really don’t wish them any specific harm… but still, my thoughts are more along the lines of another Simpsons character:

Ha ha!

Three agents and a student

Of the four candidates from national parties running in the local riding, three are real estate agents and one is a university student. Only one has his own website, and surprisingly (to me, anyway) it’s not the student. Doesn’t mean anything, necessarily, I just find it interesting.

Conservative candidate John Mazzilli is the only one with his own domain, a webpage hosted on GeoCities. It includes an email address, phone number and address of his riding office.

Green candidate Stuart Smith doesn’t have a site of his own, but he has contributed one original item to a shared site for the three city-riding candidates. His page on the party website lists email and phone number, plus the office and contact info for the riding association.

NDP runner Stephen Maynard also doesn’t have a site of his own, but at least the party has a page for him which lists an email address and phone number… good, since apparently he’s had nothing to say about his candidacy.

Liberal MP Joe Fontana doesn’t appear to have a website of his own—the obvious guess, joefontana.ca, is closed—and his Parliamentary homepage is currently down because The security policy for your network prevents your request from being allowed at this time. The Liberal site doesn’t list a website or email address for him; they don’t even show a riding office! Fortunately the Google cache of the Ottawa site is still around, although I’d wager that very few of the people in the riding would think to use it.