Second, this from my colleague Damien Gillis just back from looking at carnage of the Chilean Farmed Fish collapse:

And so it was to my horror that I read Mary Ellen Walling’s callous take on the Chilean Crisis I had just witnessed. Walling [said]: “Prices are up 10 to 15 per cent over the past six months because of the lack of product in the marketplace…It’s good for the B.C. industry because we’ve got good, solid prices moving forward…There’s a significant lack of Chilean product in the U.S. market. It’s a great opportunity [for B.C. salmon farmers]” Rather like a spokesman for undertakers praising Hurricane Katrina as being good for business! Nice guys these fish farmers!

One cuddly cat, our Prime Minister.

I took a whirlwind trip to Toronto a week ago and, as always, airplane rides are for contemplation and I began to wonder a wonder – why do we like some politicians and detest others? And how come we tolerate a system where the leader’s wishes trump parliamentary power?

Those who belong to one team or another tend to extend the hand of forgiveness to their leaders’ peccadilloes especially when they’re in government. When a government goes badly wrong though, as Glen Clark’s did, love can shift to hate overnight. The NDP are especially cruel to their fallen angels as Mr. Clark, Ujjal Dosanj, can no doubt attest.

Why, for example do I dislike the Prime Minister; have a gut feeling of negativity towards Mr. Ignatieff; think Jack what’s-his-name from the NDP is OK and rather like Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc.

And why should liking or disliking a leader matter?

Re Harper, maybe it’s because he was always late for my talk show though he knew that a guestless host closely resembles a fish flopping around in the bottom of the boat.

I don’t care for Mr. Ignatieff because he’s shown a massive disinterest in British Columbia and for me that’s fatal.

Mr. what’s-his-name is a decent sort of bloke and his only real failing is that he acts as if he were important?

I like Mr. Duceppe because he’s given me a standing invitation to go with him to a Hab’s game next time I’m in Montreal. He does an excellent job of keeping the country together by reason of being an official separatist. As long as he and the Bloc exist, Quebeckers can vote BQ to protest, secure in the knowledge that the bribes will continue thus they can safely go about their business of being Canadians without loving Canada.

Our  “fuehrer prinzip” reflects a system where all power reposes in the Prime Minister who acts not on the advice of MPs but unelected power brokers. We’ve come to look upon our elections as being 3 leaders plus Duceppe and vote accordingly. I know that will bring the cry “I vote for the person, not the party” to which I must reply “obviously you have no idea how the system works and you should confine your political action to electing directors of your golf club where the candidate’s ability may have some bearing on how the place is run.

The National Media understand this leader worship and tells us not what the party stands for but what the leader will do. If you vote for “the man” not the party your choice is about as important as your preference in ice cream flavours. Canada’s best journalists, an oxymoron if there ever was one, make the leaders’ debates look like a session of a Youth Parliament where only proper questions are asked and decorum outscores debate every time. Think about it, when was the last time an issue from BC, was put to the leaders during the debates? When was the question of the Pacific fisheries ever asked? Or Forestry? The plain fact is that British Columbia is as important to our political leaders as the Scilly Isles are to London.

Very little difference can be found where a leader’s response to issues invariably boils down to “me too but I’d do it this way not that way”. There isn’t a large “C” Conservative Party in the land except that hideous lot running things in Victoria. There certainly isn’t a socialist party and the Liberal philosophy has always been nice and simple – do what it takes to get elected then stay elected.

On issue of national unity nothing has changed in my lifetime. Quebec has fits of separatism like recurring bouts of poison ivy, but gets goodies like the child threatening to run away gets his Popsicle. Every election we’re told how important “The West” is indication the Central Canadians refusal to understand of the reality that there are three very distinct regions in Western Canada which only unite when Ottawa power brokers pisses them all off at once.

The winning formula never changes – get your votes in Ontario and Quebec and you’re high and dry. It would be different if we had some sort of Proportional Representation where MPs have some power but that won’t happen unless and until electoral reform becomes an issue of the people, not just university professors.

There’s a curious dichotomy playing out in this country at present – we’re all told and indeed tell ourselves that we don’t want or need yet another election yet we’re also told and believe that minority governments are terrible so we must avoid all forms of PR! Which is it to be, a five year dictatorship by a leader who has parliament in his pocket or a prime minister whose control of the purse and policy, depends upon Parliamentary consent?

There are of course other options such as the American “checks and balance” system where the executive, elective and juridical branches check each other’s power. It’s the best system I know – on paper. The perfect becomes imperfect because the elective branch can’t stanch the flow of money from interest groups to those they want to interest – and influence. But that’s not the product of the system but the lack of will to use that system appropriately. The US system – endorsed by no less an authority than constitutional expert Dr Edward (Ted) McWhinney, – has no buzz in Canada where those who profit from the system have no incentive to change it. We prefer the Canadian way – bitch over our beer only rousing ourselves to get another.

There being no will to reform, there’s no way to have it.

I believe that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will go to the people this Fall mainly because he doesn’t want to have to bring down a budget in early 2010 knowing that it will be chock-a-block full of bad news. We in BC always think that our votes are critical but that’s not always so. If a party can get either Ontario with a reasonable number of MPs from Quebec or vice versa it’s a slam dunk. I don’t believe that Mr. Harper can get that combo so will be heavily reliant on the Atlantic Provinces, the Prairies and BC.

Likewise Mr. Ignatieff will need votes outside the “golden triangle” if he’s to become Prime Minister and he knows it.

High on Mr. Harper’s never-to-be-mentioned concerns is that Mr. Ignatieff is already is and will be more popular than he. A good part of this is because the PM has the personality of a discarded Barbie Doll and really is a hard person to like much less love. Unloved politicians can win – as Bill Bennett showed Dave Barrett in their times at each others’ throats – but it’s better to be liked. It’s sort of like Damon Runyan’s statement that “the race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong – but that’s the way to bet”.

Mr. Ignatieff has that “something” that Pierre Trudeau had. Hard to define, some people can, through force of intellect, or perhaps a better way of connecting with people, develop charisma. A good example is the speeches at Gettysburg on November 19, 1863 where two men spoke, long time Senator and Harvard president, the respected Edward Everett, and Abraham Lincoln.

As the most prominent orator of his day, Everett gave the keynote address at the dedication of the new national cemetery and connected the heroic struggle for freedom in the classical and modern worlds with the valor and sacrifice demonstrated on America’s battlefields justifying the Union cause. He predicted a reconciliation that would lead to a restored and stronger Union. Everett’s speech lasted two hours and was much praised in the newspapers of the day.

Abraham Lincoln, using two minutes and 272 words, said in part, “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here” – a world class false prediction!– finishing with the memorable words … we here highly resolve …  that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

The press excoriated his brief effort but we all knew which speech stood the test of time.

Though Harper is no Edward Everett and Ignatieff certainly no Lincoln the comparison is apt because it demonstrates that charisma and large concepts compressed into compact phrases will often trump quantity imply quality.

Let us suppose that there is a Fall election and that things stay much as they are except Harper makes up some ground in Quebec meaning that both parties are competitive. (I leave out the NDP because except in a few seats they are irrelevant). British Columbia’s seats will be important, even, perhaps, the difference between election or not, majority or not.

Mr. Ignatieff must do three things and if he does them he will carry this province.

1.   He has to understand that BC is not part of “the West” but is properly described by the title of Jean Barman’s wonderful book, The West Beyond The West”. Any who doubt the truth in this should hearken back to December 1995 when then Prime Minister Chretien in coming up with a constitutional amendment formula, included BC with the Prairie provinces and learned plainly and graphically what British Columbians thought of that idea!

2.   He must promise to beef up Fisheries enforcement by taking back authority over salmon as mandated by the Alexandra Morton case, ordering all fish farms to be self contained giving a reasonable but not a long time for those in existence to convert. He will revive Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) moribund since the days of the Mulroney government and his distinctly un-environmental (OK Merriam-Webster, so I made the word up myself) Fisheries Minister, Tom Siddon. This is long overdue and despite British Columbian distaste for Ottawa and its rules, most would welcome with enthusiasm a return to enthusiastic protection of our fish and their rivers.

3.   Insisting, under the federal environmental jurisdiction, that all policies meaning a disruption of  any river must be preceded by a public hearing process that allows citizens the right to debate the need for such a project; in short the merits of the project itself, as well as the environmental concerns.

Mr. Ignatieff will look at the BC election results and see that where these concerns were very real, the NDP won. He should know that NDP seats will go Liberal if their issues are recognized. (Those of a certain age will remember when Vancouver East went Liberal.)

There are risks involved to be sure. If Mr. Ignatieff wins, he must deal with Premier Gordon Campbell and many powerful provincial Liberals are also federal Liberals. He will have to choose between promising what British Columbians want and peaceful relations with Mr. Campbell. The first choice wins him 24 Sussex Drive, the second doesn’t. Mr. Ignatieff is a smart man and can do elementary number work.

It’s been said (attributed to many) that in politics 6 weeks is an eternity. We can, however, narrow the federal election down to two possibilities with the nuisance value of the NDP in the mix. The next election will the last chance those of us who want to save our rivers and our fish will have to save the province from the evil face of Campbell style capitalism. Evidently British Columbians were unwilling to vote NDP to win this fight and stayed at home rather than voting; this time there will be no specter of a NDP government and true environmentalists not those who’ve traded their principles for other considerations, will be able to begin the slow restoration of our province to what it once was and can be again.

http://thetyee.ca/