MY
CANADA May 2015 is near the beginning of this year’s federal election campaign.
Much has changed in the way parliament serves the electorate. In effect leading
it seems to so few results that benefit the majority. It is doubtful Canada
will ever return to past practices in parliament. The past was when most of the
world looked at Canada and Canadians with wonder at how such a country could
exist in the world that then as today was in so much turmoil.
The problem without any doubt is politics. The Harper Conservative Party of Canada superseding the traditional Progressive Conservative Party of Canada after Peter McKay delivered the original PC group to Harper is one reason. The Harper Conservatives since taking first minority then given majority status instituted most of the changes Canada is experiencing. The CPC rules primarily on a mandate of instituting fear rather than the traditional Canadian conviction as a peace advocate. During recent years the country’s armed forces were instructed to invade some countries under the guise of helping train Canada’s allies while bombing two nations in the Mideast using similar reasons. During the current NHL playoff hockey broadcasts advertising claims Canada’s armed forces in action is brought to listeners by the Government of Canada. The indication is the government wants all Canadians to accept the current Middle East warlike stance as approved by all Canadians.
One well read Canadian journalist wrote a column dated April 19, 2015 claiming Stephen Harper loves the small of napalm in the morning. Michael Harris author of the book “A party of One” about Canada’s PM refers to Field Marshal Harper by writing “Going after the Ukrainian vote in Canada is one thing. But sending troops, even as trainers, into Ukraine’s “fratricidal” civil war and confronting Russia is quite another. If this thing goes sideways, he may wish he had sent diplomats instead of military advisors. Has anyone told the PM that these are not toy soldiers he is dispatching — by the hundreds no less — but flesh and blood human beings?”
Sending Canadian Forces jets to bomb another country because an opposition insurgency is attacking the current regime is not the traditional Canadian way. Assigning troops to train a side considered allies in a civil uprising for any reason will only lead to alienation of Canada if the revolutionaries are successful. The entire military operation CPC claims is a NATO United Nations sanctioned operation. The claim is farfetched after the Harper Government announced Canada was recently withdrawing aspects of its UN representation.
The New Democratic Party election victory in Alberta against all odds seems like a strong indication, although it is difficult to ascertain, that Canadians are either looking for or intent upon political change. Numbers are hard to believe because polling companies appear so deeply under political influence that the results are often wrong. Elections results in recent years the polling companies claim are the result of voters changing voting preference s at election time. The pollsters’ assertion is probably the result of a couple of reasons. Either people are reluctant to allow polling companies to hear their true voting intentions and simply go along with media reports or the company executives are being influenced in some way by political parties.
The major news media is more than probably another reason politics is changing. Journalism has changed since the early 1990’s for a few reasons. As former and now deceased tough, fair minded and controversial Canadian journalists Marjory Nichols stated in the 90’s today’s journalist feel scandal mongering is journalism. The premise is true since journalism at least until the advent of social media was usually the art of synopsis, compromise and balanced coverage in free societies. The main thrust of journalists in the past was to present the best opinions based on fact while digging for the factual truth. Now it seems presenting the case for the political party favoured by the journalist, or maybe more aptly his or her management superiors, is the rule. Journalists are now offered lucrative deals to follow and promote a party. Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy are extreme examples of such offers. Both had stellar media careers and public acceptance before both were demolished by using media fame for personal gain.
Canada’s provinces and territories seem to have disintegrated into almost a dozen or more small countries still dependent on the federal government for a share of taxpayer money. Unity practiced in the past is now often confrontational unless the federal party and province elect the same political party. Some will argue the same scenario happened in the past which is probably true. However confrontation whether within Canada or due to the federal government mandating military action abroad without the approval of opposition parties is dangerous and untraditional.
Another recent Canadian political change happens during almost every Question Period session in the House of Commons. Opposition parties questioning the government proposed or legislated bills rarely find the government with a strong case for the action. Instead of trying to convince the public of the worthiness of the legislation the government seems intent on attacking the past record of one or other of the opposition parties or transversely attacking the reason for the opposition parties questioning the government initiatives. The process doesn’t seem to lead to progressive government legislation.
The election later this year, if the PM sticks to his legislated election timetable, will probably lead to more changes. Whether the changes will benefit the country or lead to more confrontation and splinting of the Canadian political scene will have to wait for the election results.
The problem without any doubt is politics. The Harper Conservative Party of Canada superseding the traditional Progressive Conservative Party of Canada after Peter McKay delivered the original PC group to Harper is one reason. The Harper Conservatives since taking first minority then given majority status instituted most of the changes Canada is experiencing. The CPC rules primarily on a mandate of instituting fear rather than the traditional Canadian conviction as a peace advocate. During recent years the country’s armed forces were instructed to invade some countries under the guise of helping train Canada’s allies while bombing two nations in the Mideast using similar reasons. During the current NHL playoff hockey broadcasts advertising claims Canada’s armed forces in action is brought to listeners by the Government of Canada. The indication is the government wants all Canadians to accept the current Middle East warlike stance as approved by all Canadians.
One well read Canadian journalist wrote a column dated April 19, 2015 claiming Stephen Harper loves the small of napalm in the morning. Michael Harris author of the book “A party of One” about Canada’s PM refers to Field Marshal Harper by writing “Going after the Ukrainian vote in Canada is one thing. But sending troops, even as trainers, into Ukraine’s “fratricidal” civil war and confronting Russia is quite another. If this thing goes sideways, he may wish he had sent diplomats instead of military advisors. Has anyone told the PM that these are not toy soldiers he is dispatching — by the hundreds no less — but flesh and blood human beings?”
Sending Canadian Forces jets to bomb another country because an opposition insurgency is attacking the current regime is not the traditional Canadian way. Assigning troops to train a side considered allies in a civil uprising for any reason will only lead to alienation of Canada if the revolutionaries are successful. The entire military operation CPC claims is a NATO United Nations sanctioned operation. The claim is farfetched after the Harper Government announced Canada was recently withdrawing aspects of its UN representation.
The New Democratic Party election victory in Alberta against all odds seems like a strong indication, although it is difficult to ascertain, that Canadians are either looking for or intent upon political change. Numbers are hard to believe because polling companies appear so deeply under political influence that the results are often wrong. Elections results in recent years the polling companies claim are the result of voters changing voting preference s at election time. The pollsters’ assertion is probably the result of a couple of reasons. Either people are reluctant to allow polling companies to hear their true voting intentions and simply go along with media reports or the company executives are being influenced in some way by political parties.
The major news media is more than probably another reason politics is changing. Journalism has changed since the early 1990’s for a few reasons. As former and now deceased tough, fair minded and controversial Canadian journalists Marjory Nichols stated in the 90’s today’s journalist feel scandal mongering is journalism. The premise is true since journalism at least until the advent of social media was usually the art of synopsis, compromise and balanced coverage in free societies. The main thrust of journalists in the past was to present the best opinions based on fact while digging for the factual truth. Now it seems presenting the case for the political party favoured by the journalist, or maybe more aptly his or her management superiors, is the rule. Journalists are now offered lucrative deals to follow and promote a party. Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy are extreme examples of such offers. Both had stellar media careers and public acceptance before both were demolished by using media fame for personal gain.
Canada’s provinces and territories seem to have disintegrated into almost a dozen or more small countries still dependent on the federal government for a share of taxpayer money. Unity practiced in the past is now often confrontational unless the federal party and province elect the same political party. Some will argue the same scenario happened in the past which is probably true. However confrontation whether within Canada or due to the federal government mandating military action abroad without the approval of opposition parties is dangerous and untraditional.
Another recent Canadian political change happens during almost every Question Period session in the House of Commons. Opposition parties questioning the government proposed or legislated bills rarely find the government with a strong case for the action. Instead of trying to convince the public of the worthiness of the legislation the government seems intent on attacking the past record of one or other of the opposition parties or transversely attacking the reason for the opposition parties questioning the government initiatives. The process doesn’t seem to lead to progressive government legislation.
The election later this year, if the PM sticks to his legislated election timetable, will probably lead to more changes. Whether the changes will benefit the country or lead to more confrontation and splinting of the Canadian political scene will have to wait for the election results.
