The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
The old phrase "where you stand depends on where you sit" was never more apt than when applied to the federal election results. While many Canadians will likely respond to the results primarily in partisan terms, some will also respond through their regional location and identities. It is in this latter context that the election results are troubling for Western Canadians, and ultimately, for the rest of Canada. Am I being too alarmist? Perhaps, and none of this might matter once the election dust settles. Unfortunately, things may get worse before they get better. Now, admittedly, the West is not homogeneous; for example, the regional bookends of Vancouver and Winnipeg stand apart politically from the rest of the West. As well, the not insignificant number of Liberal voters across the West are undoubtedly delighted at the outcome. Nevertheless, and for reasons that go well beyond partisan disappointment, the election results will likely stoke rather than moderate Western discontent. The frustrating thing is that it could have been so different. Last fall, Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke with conviction about his determination to address Western Canadian discontent, even going so far as to suggest that this file would be the test of his leadership. However, when the polls went soft this spring, the Liberal strategists played the regional card. They portrayed Stephen Harper as a Western leader dangerously out of touch with Canadian values. Monday night's regionally divided country was the product of a Liberal campaign that set out to drive a wedge between Ontario and the West. Some may argue that stigmatizing the Conservative Leader was not an attack on the West; the region, it will be argued, was only an innocent bystander of legitimate policy criticism. Unfortunately, the campaign message was nonetheless clear: Mr. Harper fell outside the national tent because his political roots were in Alberta, a province that supposedly embodies everything destructive to "true" Canadian values. Why else refer to their opponents as the "Alliance/ Conservatives," if not to drive the new Conservative Party back to its Alberta roots? A Harper government, we were told, threatens basic Canadian values and institutions. The ad portraying the fraying and fading of the Canadian flag drove this message home: People who support the Conservative Party are enemies of the state. The potentially negative consequences of the Conservatives seizing national power were so inflated that it is not surprising that voters in the rest of Canada put aside concerns about such "niggling" things as the sponsorship scandal. It was, after all, time for all good men, and particularly all good women, to come to the aid of their country. How might things get worse before they get better, if they get better? When Mr. Martin meets with the provincial premiers to discuss a new health accord, Alberta and its Premier will again be used to epitomize the threat to public health care. If Mr. Martin is to "stand up for Canada, and stand up for the Canada Health Act," an enemy must be found. It is also likely that the minority government, pushed by the New Democrats, will seek rapid implementation of the Kyoto Accord, to the consternation of the Alberta oil patch. Moreover, Mr. Martin will shortly fill Senate vacancies in the West, and will likely do so in a conventional manner that forecloses any prospect for institutional reform. How, then, can bridges be built between the West and the rest of Canada after those bridges were deliberately bombed in the campaign? This will not be an easy task. See 'Skeptical' P.# Con't from P.# First, Mr. Martin's credibility and that of his strong team of Western ministers will not be easy to restore. The Prime Minister can return to the promise of reconciliation made late last year, and again on election night, but he will confront a skeptical audience, bruised by the election campaign. Second, there is little question that the Liberals' negative campaign was a success, and thus there will be a strong temptation to use the same approach next time around. Third, and most troubling, many Western Canadians may simply throw in the towel and refuse to participate in the drive for reconciliation. In Alberta, some will drift off to the firewall camp in provincial politics, thus adding fuel to the argument that Albertans are at odds with national values. Others may simply disengage from the national political process. They will withdraw not in anger, but in resignation. As long as the economy remains strong, they will turn increasingly to the private sector and community life, refusing to keep beating their heads against the stump of national political reform. If a solution to Western discontent is to be found, it will require a determined effort from the national leadership of all parties, and above all from the Prime Minister. On this score, the recent election campaign can only be a source of concern.
