by Klaus Rohrich
June 17, 2004
as political debates go, Tuesday’s "leaders’ debate" was a total yawn. I have seen better high school debates than the debate offered by the four leadership candidates; certainly ones with more substance and less rudeness.
But there were a few issues that drew my attention. The first was Gilles Duceppe’s opening statement wherewith he addressed "Quebecers and Canadians". This is clear evidence that Quebec is going to continue to blackmail the rest of Canada with the constant threat of separation hanging over our heads. This issue should be cleared up once and for all and not be allowed to fester. What’s more, the question of Quebec separating should be put to all the people east and west in a clearly stated, "yes" or "no" referendum.
Whatever the outcome, it would rid the country of a specter that continues to haunt us each and every year. Had this been done under Jean Chretien’s watch, maybe they wouldn’t have had to bribe people with stolen taxpayers’ money and the issue of Quebec as a nation or as a province would be solved once and for all.
The only thing more cynical than Gilles Duceppe participating in this "national" election, is Paul Martin’s claim that health care in this country needs to be "fixed", which brings me to the second item I noticed.
Is anyone in this country aware that one of the reasons health care is "underfunded" (and that’s debatable fodder for yet another column) is that as Finance Minister, Martin gutted health care in Canada by pulling billions of dollars in payments to the provinces. This left them to pick up the tab for the extra. Then he takes credit for balancing the budget and bringing in tax cuts. Now he wants to fix it. as far as I’m concerned, he’s already "fixed" health care in Canada in similar way as one "fixes" a cat or dog.
The obvious answer to Martin’s concern about health care is that he’s the guy who broke it, why would he now be capable of fixing it. another thing that became clear about Martin was that he has a fixation with derrieres, as he made several references to "getting to the bottom" of the Quebec sponsorship scandal. What "bottom" is there to get to, as the Liberals have pretty well "bottomed" out as a result of their sticky fingers?
When Jack Layton began his schtick he looked like a Southern Baptist minister with an ecstasy and speed habit. His "positive ideas for positive change" line is one of the most hackneyed slogans I’ve heard since "all power to the people". Is this guy for real or does he have to work himself up to his pitch like an overweight tenor practicing his scales? To me he was the worst of the bunch. at one point Stephen Harper talked about an elected senate and Layton segued into the abortion and gay rights question with the fine touch of a Viking Berserker. His claim that under Harper gays would be fired for being gay was so fatuous that not even the most ardent, frothing-at-the-mouth lefty could take him seriously. Someone needs to tell Jack that we are living in Canada in 2004, not in Mississippi in 1964.
Several times he referred to gay marriage and abortion as "fundamental rights". This comes as a great surprise to me, as I was under the impression that these so-called rights were neither enshrined in law, nor included in Mr. Trudeau’s constitution. But then, they stopped teaching history in schools a long time ago, so it’s easy to see why Layton is selling his particular brand of snake oil.
While listening to the "debate", it occurred to me that the whole question of minority rights in Canada had assumed a level of gravitas way beyond its true importance. It isn’t enough that minorities in Canada are protected from discrimination by one of the world’s most cogent human rights codes. We must now allow the minority to rule the majority in whatever crackpot direction they may want choose. It’s not enough to recognize gay couples as being legally wed in a civil union. We must now recognize these unions as true marriages, even though the majority of Canadians are in favour of the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
What’s more, a recent StatsCan poll of over 84,000 Canadians as well as one undertaken by the Vanier Institute has established that only about 1% of the population is homosexual, while a further 1.8% consider themselves BI-sexual. Yet according to Layton, as well as Martin, Canadians are expected to redefine marriage to accommodate 1%.
This opens the question of whether marriage is going to go the way of the Christmas tree. Will there come a time when heterosexual couples will be embarrassed to say that they are married, lest someone be offended. I don’t believe there are many people in Canada who advocate discrimination against minorities, be they gays, people of colour, or immigrants. But frankly, I think the obsession of the left with minority rights is beyond what might be considered reasonable.
Finally, I think that Stephen Harper’s performance was weak. He just seemed too polite, too nice, and too…Canadian to be in Politics. I think that he should have gone for the throats of all three leaders. Instead, he seemed to want to paint himself as someone whose beliefs and policy are not too far off his three competitors. Instead of worrying about the accusations of a "hidden agenda", Harper needed to show that there were clear philosophical differences between himself and the others. In my opinion, he did not achieve this.
as for the format and venue of this debate, I’ll go back to my original comments. It looks like it was put together by a high school with a good budget. The Gothic motif of the set was more suited to Hamlet than a debate. The approve-O-Meter at the bottom of the screen was right out of the Ted Mack amateur Hour ranging from red to green, depending on how the voters felt about what was being said. Who decided how the voters felt? Was it some geek with a list of buzzwords that he was watching for before prompting the approval scale? Totally bizarre!
Oh yes, the moderator, anna Maria Tremonti failed miserably in keeping the debate focussed and civil. The leaders talked over each other to where at times one couldn’t tell what any of them were trying to say. and the three stooges, Craig Oliver of CTV, Dan Vienneau of Global and the CBC’s Keith Boag couldn’t manage to hide their own predilections in the questions that they asked. all in all, I should have watched those re-runs of I Love Lucy.