From the Toronto Star (with a h/t)
“Ultimately, there will have to be constitutional changes, not just to accommodate Quebec but also to accommodate demands we have from the West and from other parts of the country â€â€? and from the population of Canada,” Harper said.
Ok, let me see if I get this straight. Harper wants to re-open the constitutional debate. I figured he would do something as anal and stupid. And he will want to put property rights into it too. That way he can keep the pinko-nazi-left-wing-hippy-free-sex-tree-hugging-facist-commies at bay. That way he can say “It’s in the constitution. Sorry, my hands are tied.” Always forgetting that he forced any change that could be opposed.
But that is not my major qualm here. It is his wording. He refers to Quebec, the West, and other parts of the country. Basically he is referring to all of Canada. But then he adds “and from the population of Canada.”
There are several things wrong here. First of all, he appears to seperate the government from the people. That is Quebec, the West and “other parts of the country” are being addressed apart from the population. Last time I checked we have a representative democracy in Canada. This means that those in “government” are speaking for the constituents. This means that there should be no difference from the population than from the government. Or at least a minimal difference.
Government should be an extension of the population. But we do not have that in Canada. It appears that Harper understands this. But he is not addressing this problem. He is perpetuating it.
The problem of Quebec is my second problem with Harper’s choice of words. It appears that he does not see the Quebec issue as a problem the people of Quebec have with the idea of Canada but a problem with the governance of Quebec. He, so it seems, has to address the Quebec government seperately from the people.
I may be reading into his words a little much. But I feel that he would want to do for Quebec only what he would want for Alberta. And when he speaks of “the West” I believe he only is referring to Alberta. I have never felt that he has any feelings for BC, Saskachewan or Manitoba. The problem is that he wants only to help Quebec insofar as he can do what he wants for Alberta. A two birds with one stone type idea.
My third issue with Harper’s quote is that he included the population of Canada as an after-thought. As if the people of Canada do not make of Quebec, the West and other parts of the country. Without the population where would government fit in. Is this how he sees issues such as health-care and child-care? The fact that it is the population that uses health-care and pays for it but the government governs it should be some sort of tip-off. I mean, if Harper sees health-care as an issue in which the federal government takes to the provincial authorities but considers the population as an afterthought then it is all dollars and cents without human bodies to get in the way.
For an economist this is a pretty natural way to look at things. For someone with a bent to look at the social aspects of literature, history, and political science this is the antithesis of good government. (I studied the social history of Canada, Shakespeare in context and political science.)
Harper’s distinction is not one between church and state but between government and the population. Harper may not pay attention to polls but he claims to have his finger on the pulse of Canadian society. The thing is, he is using his thumb to take the pulse and all he is getting is his own pulse. And dollar signs and numbers do not have pulses anyway.
