May 12, 2003
In an article published in the Comment section of the Globe and Mail last month, Patricia Pearson wrote about why she left her job as a columnist at the rival National Post. Pearson wrote that the papers’ pro-American stance was one thing, but she felt that "Canada-bashing" by the Post had gone too far. The columnist described how she "sat at the knees of my grandfather (former Canadian prime minister, Lester B. Pearson) as a child, absorbing the love he felt for this country, with every exhaled breath…"
It is politically incorrect to pine for the times of the late 1950s and early 1960s when her grandfather was in power. Those were the days of Ward and June Cleaver, when June stayed home and did the dishes wearing a dress and high heels. The biggest problem that the Beav had was when he got ripped off ordering something by mail, and violence in the schools meant that some little girl had punched Larry Mondello in the stomach. Pearson is not advocating a return to those simpler times, but when she speaks about her grandfather, she is speaking of a completely different era.
Back in the 50s and 60s Canada had a functioning democracy with two political parties that could form the government when the voters became disenchanted with the one in power. When citizens grew tired of Daffy Dief or Looney Lester, they could, and did, replace one with the other. Much like June Cleaver’s perfectly coifed hair, those days are long gone.
Canada under Jean Chrétien is a virtual dictatorship, resembling Zimbabwe far more than the United States, with its healthy two party system. During the times of Patricia’s grandfather, a money bill constituted a confidence vote. Now, a vote of confidence means any vote that Jean Chrétien doesn’t want to carry out the wishes of his caucus. The Prime Minister’s power over his caucus backbenchers has reduced them to sheep, voting "aye" when they are told to vote "aye," and "nay" when instructed to vote "nay." The PM can threaten to call a snap election and not sign the nomination papers of dissenters, knowing that he can easily win again. The result of this absolute power can be seen in the actions of Paul Martin, Chrétien’s heir apparent. Martin has said if (read, when) he becomes Prime Minister, he would not implement a bill that is currently before Parliament dealing with aboriginal rights. However, if it comes up to a vote before that time, he will vote for it. Even the assured next leader buckles under the power of the Prime Minister.
The result of Chrétien’s hold over the government, and therefore the country, is that there is no effective opposition. If the Canadian Alliance can’t increase their support at a time when Canadians are fed up with the behaviour (not the policies) of Jean Chrétien, during the time surrounding the war with Iraq, they never will. If they stick to their principles, they will undoubtedly wind up as a right wing NDP--able to influence government policy, but not implement it. That leaves the Progressive Conservative Party, who are nothing more than a slightly better dressed, better-behaved version of the Liberal Party. Canadians love the mushy middle, and unless the PCs return to their pre-1993 status, Canada will remain under one-party rule. That may happen once Joe Clark, who could teach the current Prime Minister a thing or two about arrogance, departs. Had Clark tried to rebuild the party, instead of pretending that it was still in its glory days, perhaps Canada would be a different country.
Until we have a functioning democracy in Canada, the media bears more of an onus of providing opposition to the current government. And, if Canada has to be bashed occasionally to get a point across to the government, so be it.
It is unlikely that the Canada-bashing that Patricia Pearson sees in the National Post would occur if we had a real opposition to the government Liberals. Until that happens, occasionally bashing Canada is necessary.