- Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

I grew up in the Beaches and went to Grade School and High School there. This Summer I came back to visit and went to the Beaches Jazz Festival. It was almost like I never left. It is very much ‘you can take the boy out of the Beaches but you can’t take the Beaches out of the boy’.

One thing I learned growing up, both inside and outside school, was to view things with an open mind, not to have preconceived notions about how things should be and to be able to adjust my thinking as I am confronted with new information and a new context.

I grew up in a very much an open, free and tolerant community, where informed, open and transparent discussion was always the order of the day. And, I know I wasn’t the only one.

I am saying this now because I think that all those living in the Beaches ought to consider this when deciding how to vote.

Any party that is ideologically driven can, by definition, not be free in their views since their views are based on preconceived notions about what is right and what is wrong and not open to change.

They can not have open discussions since invariably someone will confront them with a reality that is diametrically opposed to their way of thinking and which might require them to somehow admit that their position is wrong.

They cannot be transparent since that would expose the weakness in their position. They can only obscure and obstruct. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right – you’re wrong”. They are very reluctant to expose themselves to rational analysis and attempt to keep the discussion at an irrational, emotional level.

They consider implementing their ideology without consideration to anything else as being ‘decisive’; and, taking time to listen to the other side of an issue and perhaps adapting and adjusting their position as called for to be a sign of weakness and lacking in leadership.

You can see all this with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party which is motivated by extreme right wing ideology. It seems to me that there are many examples of Harper and the Conservative party obscuring issues and obstructing attempts to get at the truth. Harper and the Conservatives deal with issues not by open, free and transparent debate but by appealing to people emotions and, of course, hurling insults. Their attacks are designed on an emotional level.

I was listening to a Conservative strategist on 6 Sep. (Geoff Norquay, I believe) who stated that Harper [is someone] “who knows where he wants to take the country”. It seems to me that his type of statement is indicative of extreme right wing ideology. First of all it is referring to where “he [Harper]” wants to take the country and leave no room for debate, consultation or consideration of other points of view. That a majority of people in Canada may not want to go where he wants to take them is not a consideration to Harper or the Conservatives. That a majority of people in Canada are not made privy to where Harper and the Conservatives want to go is no accident.

Second, it is anything but transparent – it is based on the belief that the important thing is that Harper knows and whether we, the people, know is not a consideration. This statement is designed to be dynamic and decisive. But, it is appeals to the emotions and not the intellect. This statement is not a slip of the tongue either, since last October he was quoted as saying “After 18 months, I think the PM and the cabinet have a much clearer sense of what the issues are and the direction that they want to take the country" (Toronto Star, “Harper, Tories riding high”, October 22, 2007). It is where they want to take the country that has any significance to them. Given that Harper and the Conservative had a minority government it is actually quite startling to see things phrased in such one-sided, uncompromising terms. It is clearly a manifestation of extreme ideology, in this case right wing.

Global Warming is, of course, a prime example. Nothing in my lifetime, except in the ‘60s with the threat of nuclear war, has there been such a grave threat to our fundamental way of life than Global Warming. It’s seriousness is heightened by the fact that it may be decades before the full extent of the impact will be felt. It is not my generation that will suffer the most but our children and their children.

Any political leader that proposes significant steps be taken ought to be considered with the utmost seriousness. When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian. It is deliberately aimed to play on people’s emotions and fears. When Dion recently explained that after consultation with many people throughout the country he would, within the Green Shift policy, increase benefits for farmers, etc., to offset their use of diesel fuel, the Harper and Conservative response was that Dion is indecisive, flip-flopping and not a leader. How can anyone suggest that informed, open and transparent discussion to the benefit of all Canadians is indecision and lacking in leadership, unless of course they are motivated be extremist beliefs.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien criticized Harper for his in-your-face [my words] diplomacy with China. This is a very important issue. For example, many billions of dollars flow from Canada to China every year. Tourism from China would allow us to recoup some of this and would offset the loss of tourists from the US and from within Canada (due to the high price of gasoline and the Canadian dollar). The main obstacle to the floodgates of tourists from China coming to Canada is the Harper approach to diplomacy with the Chinese government. Rather than engaging in an open, informed and rational discussion of this very important matter to which Chrétien was drawing attention, the response by the Conservative Party was to attack Chrétien’s integrity (by asserting that Chretien’s China policy was influenced by his post-politics business plans, and the interests of rich and powerful friends - G&M, “Personal financial interest behind Chrétien attack on PM's China policy, Kenney says”, August 20, 2008). Chrétien pointed out that Harper not attending the Olympics would have been considered an insult by the Chinese government and that it was likely politically motivated. Rather than explain his decision not to attend, something that all Canadian have a right to know, we are left wondering why. Perhaps, when it gets right down to it, the Chinese government simply did not invite him because of his approach to them and he didn’t want Canadians to know the true impact of his ‘in-your-face’ diplomacy.

This response was no slip of the tongue by a rogue MP. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct. For example, when Elections Canada executed a search warrant of Conservative Party headquarters. The Conservative Party’s response was to attack the integrity of Elections Canada. When confronted with the Cadmen tape, their response was to challenge the integrity of the tape.

Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Lloyd MacIlquham