So, I've been wracking my brains attempting to come up with a way to introduce what the issues are in this Canadian election, including calling up family currently living in Canada and asking them, but I still haven't found the right approach. I mean, not only am I writing for a USAmerican audience, which means a different national context, but I do believe that for a country so small in population compared to the USA, the politics are much harder to describe.
Perhaps this isn't fair, but I have an easier time discussing US politics with Canadians than Canadian politics with Canadians. Maybe it's just easier to paper over the real complexity in US politics, but I really do feel that Canadian politics are just more convoluted.
And how does this relate to the matter of "issues"? Because this election in Canada is first and foremost about whether Canada has judged Stephen Harper and his political movement to be worthy of being given unfettered access to the keys of government, given that they've had a couple of years worth of learner's permit time.
Now, USian readers might scratch their heads and wonder, well, when Canadians in general know that Stephen Harper is an unreconstructed 90s neocon, and when the results of such policies are so apparent south of the border, how could anyone even contemplate voting for him?
And that, of course, leads us right back to the problem: Canadian politics are really convoluted, and the issues in this election are very "meta", more so than usual, and relate in my estimation to the evolution of Canadian political movements all the way back to Pierre Trudeau's repatriation of the Constitution and the consequent debacle that was the Brian Mulroney government that followed. During this time, numerous political movements and phenomena have wafted in and out of existence at both a federal and provincial level (for example, the Mario Dumont/Action Démocratique phenomenon in Québec, which is a long story in itself, and the one-decade rise and fall of the Harris conservatives in Ontario), and all of the pent-up issues are seething under the surface on what may appear to US watchers as a tame and benign election on mundane pretexts.
And that requires quite a complicated series of history lessons in itself.
But the big ostensible issue in the Canadian election seems to be the environment, not only for the obvious reasons (hello! tar sands! global warming! Northwest Passage!), but because the opposition has long recognized that neocon Harper cannot but be weak on that issue, even as he has attempted to mask his radicalism while he's been under his learner's permit.
- Mandos's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
tell us about healthcare
and jobs, etc---go issue by issue.
is it true he (Still) wants to privatize it and stuff like that? has the health funding changed for better or worse under him? etc....
Health funding...
...is ultimately a provincial issue. Each province runs its own separate health insurance scheme. They merely must comply with the Canada Health Act. Canadian and foreign business by and large likes the Canadian model, especially since they generally aren't insurance companies. It's safe to say that health care is not a major issue this election.
There are ways in which it is under threat at provincial levels. The role of the federal government is to enforce the Canada Health Act. However, under the Liberal
governments the power to enforce it was eroded greatly. So now it depends on the good grace and sense of the provinces to keep it running. It did suffer from a lot of cutbacks in the 90s, and has often not recovered. More crucially, it suffers from a shortage of doctors created by governments capitulating to doctor's cartels who restricted admission to medical programs at universities.
Possibly the biggest threat to the system now is that the chief doctor's cartel, the Canadian Medical Association, is being run by a truculent libertarian whose objection to the system is precisely that a monopsony prevents doctors from charging the high prices that they would want to charge. Even though Canadian doctors are hardly poor.
is that CMA guy a Harper puppet or independent?
are provinces being squeezed/starved from Ottawa? are they given funding for health based on population or politics? ...
doctor shortage--i've read that
there are tons of immigrant doctors and health people not working in health at all-- but that they won't certify them--do you know anything about that?
I get emails from Maisonneuve with media/news links--it's great, i find-- MediaScout -- http://www.mediascout.ca/
Federal transfers and equalization
A lot of the squeezing had been done by the Liberals before already. There is the issue of equalization whereby the federal government transfers tax revenue from rich provinces and gives them to poorer provinces such as those Out East.
That has been an issue in the past, and it is one now, given that the Premier of Newfoundland, himself a Conservative
(a Progressive Conservative
from the original formation, not the Harpocons) vehemently opposes electing another Harper government and is prepared to campaign against him. Simply because Harper reneged on certain federal promises towards the Eastern provinces, which he considers to be welfare bums anyway.
ahh! that's very telling--
if he's seen as hostile to the East, doesn't that makes his chances of success less likely?
Or is it all about the coalition he can pull together in Parliament?
Underpopulated
The Canadian Far East is underpopulated and it's possible to form a government without them. However, it is also possible to form a government of Ontario+East, which is what the Liberals did for a decade.
i see Ontario as East--
sort of like how it's not really "midwest" till you get near Chicago and the Mississippi and Kansas/Nebraska/Indiana and all those places--the Northeast, Rust Belt, Mid Atlantic, Appalachia, etc = all "east", to me at least.
Canada needs people overall, no? They should make it easier for us to become citizens--tons of us would.
Canadian regions and immigration
Canadian regions are a little different. Ontario and Québec each count as a "region", but they're also both highly interrelated. I mean, it's not a long drive between the GTA and Montreal.
The West generally consists of everything Manitoba and westward, EXCEPT that often BC is considered to be quite distinct. But then, Alberta leans right and Saskatchewan leans left, and both have similar economies of agriculture and natural resources.
The East generally consists of everything New Brunswick and eastward, except that, once again, Newfoundland is often considered to be distinct from this group.
The north is the north and due to being unpopulated, doesn't figure much into the political equation.
As for needing people, well, that depends. The East wouldn't mind having more people, but the GTA is pretty crowded these days. A lot of Canada uninhabitable. However, immigration to Canada is much easier than, eg, immigration to the USA.
i investigated--
it's having $10,000 in the bank that kills me (prob a bunch of others too)--otherwise i qualify, pointswise.
i don't know how hard it is now to get here, but we seem to do amnesties often enough to legalize people (i'd actually sneak in here if i was trying, and then have a kid or fake-marry or something, i guess)
Jobs
Jobs are an issue this election as Canadians are feeling a chill wind blowing from the south, unemployment is rising in the industrial areas of Ontario outside the GTA, and of course, the Harper conservatives are suspected (read: known) of not doing anything to protect the Canadian economy from US trouble. By, eg, diversifying. In fact, if anything the Harper government has been working to integrate the Canadian state further with the US one.
This policy is easier to sell Out West than it is in Ontario.
is the west still booming?
there was all sorts of talk about Calgary/Alberta/etc is doing really well bec of oil and stuff--is that still so?
Yes, and...
...Saskatoon, of all places, is now an expensive city, apparently. The fact that Ontario and the West suffer alternately is reflected in the divisions in Canadian politics.
how is power/funding set up?
is it just dependent on which province's politicians are better and louder, or are there equitable formulas and stuff?
most of us here see Canada as being more about equity and equality and more respecting of needs, i'd say.
and most people are still in Ontario/Quebec/East, no?
isn't the population still all lopsided?
Not quite
The bulk of the population is, yes, in the belt between Windsor (a suburb of Detroit, as I understand it---never been there) and Québec City. The East, by which I mean New Brunswick to Newfoundland, does not have a large population.
Towards the West, these are medium-sized provinces, and Alberta and BC are actually quite well-populated, if in narrow bands.
Equalization
There is a very complicated equalization formula that is intended to transfer money from provinces that are rich to those that are poor based on factors like population and cost of living, so that a uniformity of services can be approximated without the federal government intruding on provincial jurisdictions.
The formula is often a matter of bitter contest between provinces, but it is so arcane that it doesn't often end up being an issue that decides elections.
Actually, the Québec sovereignty movement's last gambit was to make federal-provincial transfers into an issue. It didn't inspire as a matter of national identity, and they are still paying the price.
so now Vancouver/Rockies/etc are richer or
is Ontario/Quebec still on top?
And i know Vancouver's doing well because of money from Asia--private money. Who do they usually side with? How do they vote?
Ontario is just so big
Ontario will always be the richest province as a whole because it's 1/3rd of the population and an even bigger chunk of the Industrial Base, and has a very diverse economy that includes farming, technology, giant universities, und so weiter. Blackberry devices, for instance, are designed in Southwestern Ontario, in the general vicinity of traditional Mennonites.
Alberta has become very rich per capita due to the runup in oil prices so much so that many of its own residents are screaming "ENOUGH!!!"
BC is a strange economy that fluctuates. It's definitely not more rich than Ontario or Alberta.
ahh
where's Harper's powerbase? Is it Ontario?
is it Ontario for all bigtime pols? (besides the Quebec ones that used to have power)
Alberta
Harper's powerbase was and has always been Calgary, the home of the Canadian oil industry in their corporate aspect.
oh--i didn't know
i thought he was Ontario...
Ontario boy
He is an Ontario boy, but the base of movement conservatism in Canada is Calgary, particularly the "Calgary School" of intellectuals headed by Tom Flanagan at the U of C.
thanks!
(i could ask questions about this stuff endlessly) : >
It's because the issues are metric, right?
And that's what makes them harder to understand?
As far as population, am I right in thinking that most of Canada's population is very near the US border?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
yup--"aboot" 90%, i've read--
; >
most people live within 100 miles of our border is what they always say.
with warming, that'll change, for sure.
What makes Canada harder to explain
It's a combination of issues, but maybe it's just because it's a smaller population spread out over a larger area. So political movements spawn, boil up, and subside in a much shorter time than American ones do.
I mean, the main political parties in the USA are old. In Canada, only the Liberal
Party is that old, in the sense of being a historically contiguous political movement. The Conservatives of today are not the patrician Progressive Conservatives even of Brian Mulroney. They're the Western-based Reform Party of Preston Manning plus Ontario provincial Harris Tories who fled the collapse of their movement with a soupçon of latent Québec Social-Creditism (also goes for the Reform segment).
(It's a pretty fragile coalition as the Harris Tories are cosmopolitan Torontonians from the finance sector and the Reformists often have religious crazies.)
The other answer may be that the USA was forged in two wars (Revolutionary and Civil). That has a simplifying effect on politics. Canadians are much more likely to paper over differences and snipe passive-aggressively at each other. Sort of like a 50s picture-perfect family under which seethes all kinds of resentments.
what are the "3rd-rail" issues that are sacred?
isn't healthcare one?
and strong provincial power maybe?
and then--who/which parties try to weaken those things? which fight to strengthen them?
Mandos, Where Are you From, BTW?
I only ask because if a Windsorite ever heard you describe their city as a 'surburb of Detroit', they'd correct you before you were even able to end the phrase. lol They'll let you know just how few people commute between the two for work (the way we measure the size of "metropolitan areas" down here in the states).
The Detroit-Windsor relation is an interesting one. While they aren't particularly keen on Detroit's since its plummet, they also feel like they are treated as the red-headed step-child of Ontario, and they complain about Toronto to no end. It's a very complicated relationship down in these parts.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
WIndsor: I knew I risked that
I've never been to Windsor and I knew I risked the wrath of Windsorites :)
I'm an Albertan turned Ottawan. ie, lived in Edmonton, Calgary, until my parents decided to take me to Ottawa for decades. Now I live in the You Ess Eh.