In this election, Canadians should take some time to ask themselves which federal leader, party and candidate is offering the most balanced view on public issues, says Preston Manning.
In a recent op-ed in the C2C Journal, the founder of Canada’s Reform Party said that Canadians generally choose to balance over extreme measures in resolving public issues. He said it raises the question of “what could be a more balanced approach” to the management of issues such as the COVID-19 economic recovery, environmental protection and health care reform offered by the Trudeau government.
For example, on the issue of the balance between the economy and the environment, Manning stated that there is a need for environmental assessment of major development projects, but “economic impact assessments” to measure the negative economic impacts of measures such as introducing carbon pricing schemes. should also be done together. Or joining the Paris Agreement.
“We are in grave danger of oscillating between only two extremes – from the historical situation in which economic development proceeded with a rare respect for its environmental impacts, to the current situation where a one-minded focus on environmental protection is often for economic Rare proceeds with respect. Consequences and the damage it may cause to Canadians,” he wrote.
On the response to COVID-19, Manning said the federal and provincial governments charged with designing and implementing health safeguards, while aimed at understanding the effects of those measures on the economy, were charter-guaranteed. have failed to provide assessments aimed at protecting liberty, and on providing health care to people awaiting treatment for non-COVID-19 related illnesses.
The result of this approach is the introduction of public health safeguards that destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses, violated many charter rights and freedoms, and added more Canadians to “sometimes long health care wait lines and spikes”. Death toll awaiting treatment.”
Manning also noted that the federal government’s unilateral and repeated interference in areas of provincial or joint jurisdiction has caused “serious federal-provincial tensions and imbalances that threaten national unity”.
He said that in order to better balance federal-provincial relations, Canada needed a constitutional amendment aimed at “preventing the federal government from making laws, spending, taxing, or making treaties” in areas of provincial jurisdiction. – such as natural resources – or joint jurisdiction – such as health or environmental protection.
Manning also suggests that the federal government avoid giving specific attention to a particular region of the country, as each region has its own concerns and aspirations that demand recognition of the federal government.
“When the specific concerns and aspirations of only one province – such as Quebec – are given official recognition and special attention by the federal government, this imbalance is not only resented by the people of the other provinces, it can cause material harm to those others. regions, and this places major strain on federal-provincial relations,” he wrote.
“When the specific concerns and aspirations of many Western provinces are consistently and systematically ignored by the federal government and the rest of Canada, this imbalance also threatens the unity of the Union itself.”
‘Politics of identity’ on ‘politics of unity’
Manning noted that Canadian politics is “increasingly fragmented along half a dozen fault lines defined and accentuated by so-called identity politics,” which undermines the national consensus needed to fulfill key policy positions initiated by the federal government. Makes it more difficult to obtain. leaders and their parties.
According to Manning, state-supported identity politics can be recognized when “a group of voters whose political support a political party seeks in court is identified by some fundamental personal characteristics” such as ethnicity, gender, age or sexual orientation.
The political party, often in power, promises members of identity groups certain rights or benefits in exchange for their political support, and withdraws the promise if members turn to support the other party.
Manning wrote, “It is certainly essential in criticizing identity politics that there are many Canadians who have been marginalized, victimized, and treated partisan by most Canadians with the consent of the state on the basis of certain characteristics, Manning wrote, adding that people with religious beliefs have recently become a victim group, in addition to women and children, indigenous peoples and immigrants.
“Justice and compassion demand that such mistakes be recognized and rectified,” he wrote. “The challenge, however, is to do so by ways and means to promote acceptance of the members of such groups at the most fundamental level: that human beings deserve respect and fair treatment, regardless of their distinct individual characteristics. “
Manning noted that the danger of the state-supported identity politics now practiced by the Liberal government is that it “divides the population and the growing number of minority groups primarily distinguished by their differences rather than their similarities,” which Only “reconciliation” will do. conflicting interests and the achievement of a national consensus on anything that is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.”
To achieve national consensus on key issues, Canada must replace identity politics with Manning “unity politics”, which focuses on the values or aspirations that the vast majority of Canadians share—such as acceptance, independence, security. , and opportunity—and by advocating for policies that strengthen the bonds of Canadians.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times