Boydfish

I didn't say he walked into one, I said the meltdown happened while he was in office. Or are you now claiming that there hasn't been a global financial crisis? You're trying to shift the point, badly I might add. The forestry sector is of much greater importance in BC than in Ontario. The auto industry is of much greater importance in Ontario than in BC. When forestry takes a dive, it's ignored and the participants are left to fend for themselves. When the auto indsutry takes a dive, BC is expected to chip in and bail it out. The problem isn't with the agreement, it's with the entire global economy melting down. Nobody is building houses in US right now, so they don't need BC's high quality wood. It is a have province and the only reason we were recently slightly below "have" status was that we rewrote our books so that instead of having to send several more billions to Ottawa, they were forced to return some of our money to us. It's not BC fault that we're smarter than Ottawa. Really? Care to discuss federal gas taxes and road improvements? If you don't see that Ontario and Quebec have always been the net beneficiary parties of confederation, you need to get out more. Actually, BC has a larger oil/gas sector than Newfoundland. Or are you so Toronto-centric that you are unaware that the oil patch extends right into north eastern BC? Or do you think that oil deposits stop at the border? That doesn't even take into account the vast offshore reserves of oil and gas off the Haida Gwaii. So the basis of your complaint is that when bailing out the auto sector, they are disbursing funds in ridings that have auto plants? You've mistaken my position of demanding democracy for absolute support of any party. That's the difference between the NDP and it's hardcore supporters and the rest of the electorate. The bulk of the electorate will shift their votes, even to an extremist party like the NDP, based on the actions of it's leaders and policies. They might not support everything a party they voted for does, but does so based on which is the better choice. The extremists in the NDP, however, will absolutely support the party and it's policies, regardless of how inane or anti-democratic they become.

I'm not threatening anything. I'm saying that Ontario and Quebec have to accept that a very likely outcome of their attempt to replace a western-based government with a government more friendly to Upper and Lower Canada without an election is going to have dire consequences for their confederation. It's pretty obvious that when you treat people badly, they are not going to like it. The greatest mistake a Canadian political analyst could make would be thinking that western discontent is in anyway similar to the French issues in Quebec. Milked? Shat upon? Ontario? You need to take your medication either more or less, I can't tell. Ask your doctor. I'm sorry, but there is no connection between the CPC's management of government and the coalition parties attempt to avoid an election enroute to taking power. If they truly respected the democratic principles enshrined in the constitution, they would welcome a chance to face the electorate. Instead, they have shown that they see the democratic will of the people as an obstacle to be subverted and overcome. So, since the Liberals selected an entirely unacceptable leader to the vast majority of voters, the voters should lose their democratic rights? Or that since the NDP are seen as generally being a group of left wing extremists led by the biggest left wing extremist of all, those voters should lose their democratic rights? I noticed that you're gibberish seemed stop short as it came time to note Layton and the NDP abandoning wholesale all of the principles that the NDP stood for. Remember that speech he gave during the last election where he said that if Canadians once again rejected the NDP as totally unsuitable to form government and they also rejected Dion and the Liberals as totally unsuitable to form government, he'd override their democratic choice and form a coalition? No? You don't? That might just be because he didn't mention that part of his hidden agenda to voters. Noted, you don't like democracy. I love how the loser parties claim that an election where they lost is somehow wasted money. Democracy is never a waste. Sorry, but they say it's for 2 years. That doesn't mean they won't be defeated on a confidence motion(If you read the text of the agreement, the Bloc won't introduce a motion or vote to to defeat the government. There is nothing stopping them from simply not showing up for the vote and the larger CPC majority defeating the coalition). As well, since they decieved the general public on their plans before the election, it's quite possible that their hidden agenda includes the total cancellation of all future pesky elections as well. Wow. I'm not surprised that Canadians voters rejected the NDP as a governing option. When you come out against motherhood as a policy, I'm not surprised that people don't like it. If you don't understand people or confederal politics enough to answer that question, I suspect that you lack even the basic knowledge to form a relevant opinion on it. Harper has no intention of governing beyond fall 2009 before throwing us into another election.

Well duh, that's because the global economy took a nosedive while they were in office. You're not one of those people who blame Harper for everything in the hope that if you make enough baseless accusations, one will eventually stick, are you? On the table? Oh WOW! On the table. That's a improvement from Ottawa's position under the Liberals(You know, those in the drivers seat of the coalition)which was "Ignore you British Columbians until you go away" policy on dealing with the pine beetle crisis. Nobody in BC cares about northern Ontario's forestry industry because it's tiny compared to BC's. You keep talking like there is any comparison in terms of scale between BC and Ontario's lumber industries. There isn't. To the BC economy, forestry is the equivilant to Ontario's auto manufacturing sector. The point here is that when Ontario is facing economic hard times, we're all called upon to defend the motherland like good little colonials summoned to die in the trenches of Flanders, but when BC is facing similar challenges, we're unwashed westerners that should be grateful to pay for the mistakes of Canada. It's the selective patroitism of Canadians and their confederation that always bugs me: You hate the west and all westerners as all being redneck racists from Camrose when you don't need us, but the minute you need our money, suddenly we're all one big family and we should be happy to bail out Ontario and Quebec. Considering they have more seats than anybody spread out across the country, it's not shocking to discover that there is federal spending in a cabinet minister's riding. Nice try at creating a scandal based on simple coincidence. You see it as a CPC failure to act, but only because you are ignoring history. The Martin and Chretien regimes both ignored the problem of the pine beetle and the CPC have been left to clean it up. The fact is also less important of which government in Ottawa failed to act, but more an indication that when Ontario or Quebec need help, it's a national issue, but when BC needs help, we get a snide response along the lines of "You're simply westerners and are therefore scum".

I think that Martin was at best, a mediocre PM. He did follow after an even more mediocre PM in Chretien, but there is little to say that is very positive about either. He was an economy driven PM, but that's hardly surprising, all things considered. He also had to suffer the indignity of being subordinate to Chretien, whose sole claim to office was that he was simply more politically connected than Martin. Chretien had proven to be a loyal thug during the Trudeau years and cashed in on that heavily, both in actual favours and in terms of knowledge of how to work the system. Before I draw this comparison, let me make this very clear: There is simply no correlation in terms of degree of evil or actions undertaken between Chretien and the name I'm going to mention. In terms of rise to power, Chretien's career parallels that of Stalin. Just as Lenin used Stalin as an important enforcer in his cabinet, Trudeau used Chretien in a similar fashion. I'd suspect that both Lenin and Trudeau would have been reluctant to name their enforcers to the top position and Trudeau's lukewarm / pro forma support of Chretien spoke volumes. For Martin, who could actually get a real job in the private sector, being second fiddle to Chretien was not only humiliating, it ended up hurting his political career badly. He would have been wiser to do a Mulroney, get out of politics and simply let Chretien flounder around while he waited for him to fall. I think Martin was afraid of becoming another John Turner with that course of action. Unfortunately for him, he ended up being the Liberal Party's answer to Joe Clark instead. Martin's greatest strength was his economic management skills. Unlike Chretien or Trudeau before him, he actually understood the operation of economic principles and was able to apply them appropriately. The problem is that much of the economy is like the weather, in that you can adapt to the environment, but can do little to control it. As well, politics involves things that are beyond economic control. Overall grade as a PM, B. A good, solid, workman B.

Ah, the tried and true Canadian approach to a problem: Jam your head in the sand and pray that it will go away. Because we elect governments, not broker them. It is hard to argue that anything substantial changed in the 6 weeks after the election that led to the NDP and LPC abandoning and breaking all of their promises to their electorate. Not only is it antidemocratic for them to take power in this manner, I have serious concerns about turning over power to a group of people whose coalition is positive proof that they will abandon all of their policies for even a small amount of power. As well, if there is such support for this coalition, why are you afraid to put it to the people? Perhaps it's because the idea of Jack Layton, Minister of Defence or Minister of Justice scares the everloving bejeebers out of the vast majority of people? Governments should be afraid. They should exercise their power with restraint and with reluctance. Believe it or not, when a coalition of Upper and Lower Canadians throw out a western based government without benefit of even a sham election, you're going to piss off westerners a great deal. Reverse the situation: If the same circumstance had unfolded with a French guy hucked out of office for a westerner, you don't think that the French are going to go ballistic?

If you remove the spin from your statement, it doesn't change the fact that when the auto sector goes belly-up, Ottawa flings billions at them. When BC's forestry gets hit hard, there isn't so much as a token effort from Ottawa.

Sorry sunshine, but that's it. It doesn't make it even remotely impossible for a province to withdrawn from confederation. I'd rebt your argument at this point, but you appear to have neglected to make one. Actually, you've got it backwards. I'm the one suggesting that we follow the constitutional principles from which those laws flow. We're not some backwater failed colony where because some fop in the 16th century wrote something down, we blindly do it. We're a Westminster democracy with a constitutional tradition of democracy, federalism, rule of law and constitutionalism. That means that when the government changes, we do with an election, not a dance of lawyers. You're trying to introduce an element of absolute adherence to the letter of the law that even a legal positivist stance would find extremist in nature. We don't follow the law to absurd conclusions.

So the gist of what you're saying is because you like something, anybody who disagrees is just whining? I come at it from a different perspective I suppose. The first thing they teach you in law school is that you are not to blindly accept what somebody wrote on a piece of paper, even if it says "Constitution" at the top. The reason our system of government has flourished through the centuries is because we have no sacred cows and we have the right to say that something might be right on paper, but it doesn't make it right in reality. If you read the constitution and study it indepth, you'll find that the last thing that the people that wrote wanted was for people to blindly support it and treat it like Scallia's "dead tree". The easiest way to see that is to look at s.1 of the Charter, the limitations clause that makes it clear that rights under the charter are not absolute. This section is interpreted under the Oakes test. Now that we have that in mind, if you stop and realize that s.1 applies to the WHOLE charter, unlike the notwithstanding issues of s.33, which only applies to ss.2, 7-15. This means that the anti-torture provisions of s.12 are also subject to limitation. In other words, read literally and with the case law applied, the charter and by extention the constitution says that there are possible circumstances where it would be permissible for the government to use torture on people. My point here is obvious: We cannot ever blindly follow the constitution. We have to challenge it, tug it, bend it and when it stops being relevant or becomes dangerous, get rid of the offending portion. Well, gee, thanks for the advice! Considering it arose from the Reference on Quebec Succession, it contains some interesting provisions, but is not an absolute prohibition on a province withdrawing from confederation. All it does is require a province to submit the question for ratification on clarity to the House of Commons. You'll also find that the reference case makes it clear that if a province opts to leave, they can do so and the other provinces and federal government must negotiate in good faith to do so.

That doesn't change the fact that this coalition is primarily driven by the usual Upper/Lower Canadian axis that defines the confederation's priorities. Right. Exactly how do you see western alienation being "fixed" any time soon? If at all? Heck, you'd first need to convince the Upper and Lower Canadians that there is even such a thing as a "westerner", let alone that they are alienated from Canada. What have you got against democracy and elections? If the support for this coalition is as widespread as you suggest, then it should welcome the election and the resulting legitimacy it would represent. Surely, if it is supported as broadly from coast to coast as you think, it should return a whalloping majority or at very least minority government? Perhaps the fear that the coalition has of facing the voters it lied to speaks the greatest volumes as to it's democratic legitimacy. I know. It would be as impossible as a Dominion no longer having it's affairs run by Westminster or even no longer being subjects of the British Empire.

No, they can grasp it quite easily. The problem is that they didn't articulate that as even a possibility to the electorate, only once they had been defeated did it suddenly become an option. In fact, both Layton and Dion made it quite clear that a coalition wasn't an option during the election. You aren't the leader of the NDP or LPC. Until you are, you don't get to set their agenda. Layton and Dion didn't make coalition out to be an option prior to the voting. It's funny how the proportional representation crowd seems to believe that it will fix all and deliver some form of electoral utopia. The fact is that proportional representation is fraught with disasterous consequences. Or are you unaware that it was the proportional representation model in the Wiemar republic that allowed Hitler to rise to power? If the Wiemar republic had a FPTP system, Hitler would have been a mere fringe player in a lunatic fringe party. I disagree with proportional representation for numerous reasons, the least of which is that it empowers the village idiots needlessly, plus makes lunatic fringe players on both ends of the spectrum viable. Worse, with a fractured parliament, those small parties can become absolutely critical in obtaining coalitions. The end result of this is that for every good piece of the agenda a small party like the Greens would add towards environmental responsibility, there will be agenda items from lunatics on the fringe suggesting that we roll tanks into Caledonia, allow the RCMP to execute enemies of the state or any other seriously flawed measures you can or can't imagine. I agree that reform is needed to the democratic and undemocratic institutions of the confederal government, but proportional representation will only entrench the power of fringe parties and ideas. I'd agree in principle for removing needless government. The fact is that we need to see the federal level of government evolve into more of a Commonwealth style organization rather than an actual governmental body. There are numerous reasons for this, the least of which are the inherent ethical superiority of a local government over a distant one and the fact that small countries cannot wage widespread war like large ones can. Provinces are actually a far more useful model for governance than a distant leviathan like Ottawa. While Ottawa works well for Upper and Lower Canada, it certainly has no relation to places like British Columbia. I think that is especially true for issues like First Nations. Ottawa is prone to hiring it's "local experts" on native issues in Ontario and Quebec and trying to mint one-size-fits-all solutions, ignoring the fact that the west coast first nations share zero significant commonality with culture, traditions and situation with those east of the Rockies or the Inuit or with those in the east for that matter. The attitude that I've often encountered with Canadian "experts" on native issues is that they believe that because they have determined the situation regarding a band in Ontario or Quebec, it automatically applies to a band in the Okanagan. To contrast, it would be like trying to make decisions on Russian culture and history based on speaking to a French peasant.

The spirit of devolving power to the provinces is more consistent with the ideals that founded Canada than any centralizing trends. To suggest that a strong central government is a "Canadian value" might hold traction if you disregarded all history. The Canadian confederation constitutionally arose from the idea of local, responsible government. As the founding nations were Crown Colonies, they all had the problem of a distant and what had become over time, essentially a foriegn government in Westminster. If you examine our shared constitutional history, the entire tidal direction has been to get rid of strong, central governments and replace them with local governments. If you take the arguments of the Ottawa imperialists of today and swap out the words "Canada" for "British Empire" and "Provinces" for "Dominions/Colonies", you end up with the exact same vitrol and arguments. The same is true for those who argue for autonomy and local government. The important point to recognize is that any claims of "Canadian" values, ideals and history clearly lay in the hands of those who argue on the side of local autonomy. The ones who drape themselves in a Maple Leaf and claim that the provinces are traitors are the same ones who would have been arguing against the Dominions being anything other than strictly British run operations.

I am. As for your opinions, every village has one I guess. Ah, but a MAJORITY of westerners hold opinions that are directly contrary to your MINORITY views. Why is when you are in the minority it is wrong, wrong, wrong to force you to accept the democratic wishes of the majority, but when the positions are reversed, you become the loud champion of democracy? The fact is that westerners see Harper as their Prime Minister as a result of the last two elections. Not all of them, of course, but the fact is that if Ontario and Quebec do not demand that the coalition face the electorate prior to taking office, the effects will likely be fatal to confederation.

That's my point. If Ontario and Quebec don't recognize the need to run even a sham election to at least give a scant layer of legitimacy, the blowback in the west could have fatal consequences for the confederation. Absolute democracy is contrary to every concept of civil and human rights. The fact is that Ontario and Quebec cannot ignore minority rights in order to install governments of their choosing to replace ones elected by the west. Of course westerners think of their provinces before they think of Canada. They don't get much, if any, say in Canada.

It isn't an issue for you or for the people in Upper/Lower Canada. For those of us outside of those areas, it is a big issue. While the rules are exactly as you say they are, the fact is that those rules don't give Upper/Lower Canada the right to set what the issues are. To the vast majority of westerners, evicting a western PM and installing a Upper/Lower Canada coalition without an election will be seen as a slap in the face. Dief was heavily harrangued by easterners for his entire career("Mr. Deeee-fin-bawker"). Clark was given a minority government that the eastern party of Liberals defeated at their first opportunity. Campbell was a temporary appointment to lead the party into an obviously coming defeat. Of course, putting up those three minor examples totally disproves the resonance that the Reform Party achieved in the west with "The West Wants In!". Sure it does. Trust me, I can probably explain to you in far greater detail than you can imagine as to the political process. If the coalition wants to take power, they should do so in a manner that involves a general election. They did not run as a coalition and in essence, decieved the electorate as to their intentions. The accepted practice for a government that has lost the confidence of the house is to be voted down and a new election called. Can you show me where and how Stephen Harper tried to turn the government into a dictatorship? Maybe if you took the baseless accusations out of the effort, it would gain more traction with the public.

Sure there is. The current bailout of the auto sector highlights that in extremely exquisite detail. Go tell the forestry workers in BC how they feel about the bailout of the auto workers. You might also note the issues surrounding the exclusionary hiring/promotion practices in government involving French creating a bias against westerners and the federal government's habit of lumping all of the west into one pile. A Manitoban can't be considered representative of British Columbian culture or vice versa. Not only is it a little dishonest for Canadians to claim that there is no anti-westerner bias in Canada, the fact is that both Upper and Lower Canada are quite comfortable with it. Chretien ran on and won three straight majority governments based on running in Ontario on an anti-western platform. Boy, it's a good thing Mike Pearson was running things when he was presented by similar feelings of alienation by the French. He brought in the "Three Wise Men" in the theory that the best way to combat anti-confederation sentiment in Lower Canada was to entrench French leadership into Ottawa's political infrastructure. Despite the general dislike that it caused in the west, the fact is that it was the smart move and Pearson isn't given half as much credit for it as he deserves. No matter what you think, the fact is that the four western provinces are and have been historically mistreated by the Canadians. It's also how the people in the four western provinces tend to see their treatment from Ottawa. If it makes it difficult for your political position to have westerners feel that way, the solution to claim that they don't is ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Thank you for the original posting. It serves as an interesting insight into the position taken in Ontario. That said, did the discussion cover how the idea of a coalition government dominated by Ontario and Quebec kicking out a Western based government without an election is going to play in the west? While that might not seem to be too important to a pair of provinces that have enough seats to form majorities in the House of Commons themselves and nearly do so in the Senate, I'd suggest that it become a large part of the decision that all Canadians make, both Upper and Lower. The simple fact is that Harper is seen in the west as being a westerner. The fact is that westerners do not see themselves as full members of your confederation. While there have been some small steps to address the institutional bias in the confederation against westerners, the fact is that Canada and it's government is viewed with mistrust by the western provinces. A big part of that western alienation is driven by the perception that Canadians would never allow a westerner to really be in charge of anything. The way that this coalition of Ontario and Quebec seizing power from a western based government without even bothering to hold an election will be seen is nothing short of a kick in the groin towards the west. Without ratcheting up the drama needlessly, this action could be the very last crisis your confederation faces if you do this. If you don't like Harper's government, fine, nobody is suggesting that you have to vote for his government. The point is, however, that if Ontario and Quebec try to reverse the outcome of the last election without actually even holding a new election, the backlash they will face will quite likely include trying to bail out their collapsing economies without western petro-dollars.

Every procurement in a modern military is fraught with almost comical challenges. When you bring together the best and brightest from military and government services, there are bound to be snags and glitches. The bigger problem is that the best and brightest in the military don't work in supply and the best and brightest in the government don't work in defence. I'd agree that "better" is needed, both in terms of equipment and in how that equipment is procured. That said, the government had a choice of a few bucks back and average helicopters in 2010 or above average helicopters for a few bucks more in 2010. Either way, they get the helicopters in 2010. While an argument could eventually be constructed about throwing good money after bad, at this point it makes good sense to grab a beneficial deal.

Nope. But when I see Layton's signature on a coalition document like he did with Dion, I'll be the first to say it.

Sorry, I wasn't referencing dollars spent. My reference was more towards the actual deployments and access to equipment. To sort of explain, Canada operates in an extremely exclusive club of countries. We can pretty much have our choice of equipment and purchase options. We could literally source any level of technology to supply our troops and our only limitation is our internal budget. We can get the stuff that the senior NATO countries will only share with each other(France, UK, Britain, Germany, US), as well as the gear the second tier NATO guys have. As well, the fact that we're the NATO country actually operating out in the boonies with the British and the Americans carries a certain degree of weight. This means that what we can get is usually the best available in terms of cost and performance. That means that how we procure is of interest to the rest of the world.

What kind of immediate compensation? I think if the matter is dug into, you'll find that there isn't much that the contractor could deliver now that could help the CF. The government doesn't need to send a message like you're suggesting in any case. Canada is a top rank NATO power and as such, the entire world watches how the CF's military procurement performs. The contractor isn't getting a free ride for this. Wanna bet the next RFP they respond to they get a question back asking "Why did you fail to deliver to Canada on time and why is it going to be different for us?"? I'd rather look gullible and snag a smart deal than look good and lose out.

There is nothing wrong with compromise. There is everything wrong with failing to disclose to those voting for you and your party that you intend to subvert their democratic will. If people wanted Dion or the Liberals in general as the government, they'd have voted for them, not the NDP. You can offer up every justification in the book, but at the end of the day, Layton's stunt proved that a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Liberals.

In all fairness, it sounds like the Conservatives managed to negotiate a better solution than mere cash payment. In the grand scheme of things, getting $36 million back is small potatoes if we get better equipment and service of the units after the sale. Think of it like buying a car from a dealership. You were promised the car would be delivered on January 1st, but due to a problem at the factory, it won't be ready on time. So the dealer is now having them install the better speakers, AC and put a factory sunroof in, free of charge. If they had enforced the penalty clause, they'd have gotten $36 million and lesser choppers at a later time. This way, they got better choppers on the same day they were going to get them anyway. You'll also note that they didn't waive the penalty clause, they merely postponed it.

I think you're confusing ability to cooperate with ability to be bribed. While they share some features and aspects, they are not the same thing. He came to support it because represented literally the only chance he would ever have at being more than an MP in a fringe party. The fact is that Layton realized the same thing that Dosanjh and Rae did: The only way for an NDP leader to get their hands on federal power was to defect to the Liberals. That means that he was destined to be the de facto leader of a group of MPs. To paraphrase Trudeau on the point of being an MP, "They are nobodies". There is a profound difference in being able to arrive at a consensus within a group as a large inclusive party and simply abandoning all principles in a power grab. In the election a bare six weeks before the attempt, Layton and his entire party were very clear that they were running against the Liberals as much as the Conservatives. If Layton and the NDP had stood up with Dion and made it clear to their electorate that they felt that merging was an option if they failed to take office themselves, it would be fair to call that a case of cooperation. They made it clear, however, that there was no coalition option prior to the election. They didn't make an honest accounting of their intentions to the electorate however and it makes all of the difference in the world. Do we all remember Layton loudly proclaiming "I'm running for Prime Minister"? Where does that fit in with his hidden agenda by handing all of the people's votes for the NDP over to the Liberal Party? Can you cite me the speech where Layton told voters that if they voted for him and he didn't become PM, he'd hand all of their votes over to Stephane Dion? The fact is that Layton either concealed his intentions of being Liberal Party Junior or he's prone to making 180 degree reversals in fundamental policy right after an election. Neither quality makes him a comforting candidate to be anywhere near the levers of power.

I'd suggest that where they have suggested things like hope, reason and ideology, they are far too often simply addendums to the principle of fear of the other. As well, if you note what I said, it is our only common feature. There are individual nuances of the features you suggested and others as well, but at the end of the day, the only thing that binds the provinces from coast to coast is and has always been fear. We didn't confederate and stay confederated because of shared identity, we did so to protect ourselves from being annexed from the south. In the most basic terms, we only banded together because our fear of the US was slightly greater than our fear of the others. You don't have to go any further than the original Charlottetown conference to see the fear that each province had of the others, writ large. The Canadians weren't even invited and the big fear of the other colonies was only barely surpassed by their fear of the US. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI were more afraid of being socially and politically dominated by the Canadians than anything else. Nor is this "policy of fear" a simple quaint notion from the distant past. The entire French movement of "maitre chez nous" was driven by what most would agree is a fear on the part of the French that there is some grand plot to subjugate and convert the French to English in Quebec. It would probably disappoint the French to discover that the vast majority of people outside of Quebec simply do not care about what language they speak or do not speak in their homes or work. The validity of that fear isn't relevant to the point at hand, but by creating the idea that the French were both opressed and in danger, a very successful political movement arose. Not that rationality has ever been required in creating these fears, but the left was very successful in it's on-going election strategies about Harper and the "hidden agenda" of the "Christian zealots". The fact that there was little evidence or that the successive Liberal leaders Chretien and Martin were both hardcore Catholic zealots as well wasn't an issue, but merely the fear that they operated with. The common factor in any political platform, both incumbent and candidate, tends to be of the "Look at the other guy! Be afraid!" variety. We are often challenged to "Define Canadian" by literature and our own woeful cries. We often thrash around efforts to define that, but all are easily rejected when viewed in the harsh light of reality. We're not "Bi-anything"; French is a local custom in parts of Quebec and New Brunswick that has little relevant application outside of those areas. We're not a "Nation of Peacekeepers", ask a couple of natives elders about that idea. Any idea that our "Human Rights Values of the Charter" are equally laughable when you examine the implications of s.1(I have numerous criticisms of it for another time, but suffice to say, due to this clause, it actually indicates there are times where it could be acceptable for a government to torture to achieve it's own ends). Case examples of fear being our only defining feature also abound at every provincial level in all of our histories, so it's not just the federal government that operates on this principle. Fear binds us and defines us. Nothing else.

It's what drives our political system. I refer to it as the politics of demonization. While it's done in varying degrees everywhere, it pretty much defines Canadian politics. Part of it is a media-driven creation of the modern age, but I also feel it's tied to the fact that prehaps our only defining cultural feature as Canadians is the "fear of the other".