uni.ca - 2006 Federal Election and unity

2006 FEDERAL ELECTION AND UNITY

uni.ca Rates rates the leaders on unity

18 January, 2006

OTTAWA - Unity is one of the most important issues in the federal election. In 50 years (when there is, or is not a Canada), unity is the only issue on which the current politicians will be judged. We therefore decided to rate the leaders on this issue. In so doing, we use 3 criteria - Track Record, Leadership, and Vision.

A
Actively engaging in significant nation-building exercises and the execution of major policies that have had a noteworthy positive effect. Evidence of A level would be a direct connection between a parties activities and a decline in separatist sentiment or general feelings of regional alienation. The highest marks of A+ are reserved for parties directly involved with activities that result in Quebec signing the Constitution.
B
Parties that have developed a comprehensive and realistic "Plan A" for Canadian unity and have made sincere efforts to execute the plan. B + for those whose activities have had a discernible positive effect on nation-building.
C
Parties that acknowledge the importance of Canadian unity and have made some attempts at formulating a cohesive policy platform, even if flawed. Parties with a general Plan A orientation earn the C+. Those who are over-focused on "Plan B" and post-referendum loss strategies earn the C-.
D
Parties that recognize that others feel that Canadian unity is important but who seem insincere in their willingness to engage a sustained solution. This includes the "lip service" parties, those that are engaged mostly in rhetoric, and those whose interest in Canadian unity issues are intermittent and follow the polls. If your party is in this category, there are no pluses.
E
Parties that have their head in the sand and deny that there is any work to be done to support Canadian unity. Those who are formally federalists but who have actually harmed Canadian unity inadvertantly are also included in this category. Supposed federalists who have actually harmed Cana! dian unity with policies that were to provide their party with political or other benefit slide down to E -.
F
Parties who have clearly indicated that they do not see value in the continued unity of Canada. Those who support the break-up of Canada are the lowliest of low, F - for lack of a lower grade. For those who actually achieve the break-up of Canada, however remote that seems now, along with the other curses and sadnesses they will suffer from a guilt for destroying the beautiful and for which they can never atone, they are eternally bestowed the unholy Z -.

The results:

Track Record Leadership Vision

Harper
D+ C+ B

Martin
C C D-

Layton
N/A D+ C

Duceppe
F F F

The details of our non-partisan rating are presented below.

STEPHEN HARPER
RANK: #1 SCORE

Track Record: Harper is no Captain Canada, let's just put it that way. He has said some nasty things about the country. But he has positions and has stood by them. His track record on unity is one of taking a hard line opposition to anything separatist. That opposition is not a bad thing; if one is ambivalent about the separatist agenda, one is unlikely to engage the issue and do anything about it.

D+

Leadership: He does not have the skills of former leader Jean Charest. But Harper has shown through two elections that his party will include every province, the French and the English, and has leadership qualities that we hope will be put to good use on unity.

C+

Vision: As the campaign moved along, Harper actually released a good platform on unity. It touches on the Constitution, the Senate, the Charter. We still view Harper himself as a potentially scary headwaiter to the provinces, but in fairness, the policies do look like a good start. Of course, "fiscal imbalance" is code language, firewall-type stuff. But the Senate itself is in our White Paper, and overall this is a good mix of what the West wants, and what the former PCs could swallow. In fact some of it may be good for Canada.

B

PAUL MARTIN
RANK: #2 SCORE

Track Record: Martin was under Chretien's wings so long he did not have a track record of his own on this most important issue. He certainly bears part of the blame for the RII fiasco, and the sponsorship scandal, whether his self-appointed Justice said so or not. But his time as PM saw no further action on unity to speak of. It was merely a continuation of a strategy that saw separatism in Quebec flourish.

C

Leadership: Martin made deals on social programmes that got some ink on the paper from the provinces. This shows leadership, but in the narrow window of federalist government in Quebec, it isn't all that difficult when you are flush with cash. Real leadership would be to plot a course for the country through the separatist problem, and talk about the Constitution, and reforms. There was none of that.

C

Vision: The Liberals struck out long ago. Having squandered the window of opportunity after Chrétien and Dion moved along, the party has done nothing to stem the systemic tide of disunity. With no policy at all, we drift. With no vision, we'll stumble along unable to muster pan-Canadian majorities and unlikely to move the Constitution into the 21st Century. The platform is hardly a platform - they only mention unity twice in quotes, and promise to "stand against the separatists". Talk about out of steam.

D-

JACK LAYTON
RANK: #3 SCORE

Track Record: Almost none. Was Layton worried on October 30th 1995? What has he done since becoming leader to get into the game? Nothing yet.

N/A

Leadership: Layton was born in Quebec. This and a buck gets you a cup of coffee unless you start talking about the things that would make Canada more united and speak of where you think the federalists should take the country.

D+

Vision: The NDP have not fleshed out details in their unity policy. But at least this election they are talking about it. Jack Layton also flip-flopped on the Clarity Act, which is an ironic topic to be unclear on. The party is hung up on ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution in their policy, and chalk it all up to economics. This is not very visionary. Unity is more than the right/left economic spectrum. Until the NDP speaks Quebec's political language, they're doomed there. And until they have a more comprehensive policy on Canadian unity, they are a special interest party. This platform is a start, but someone in their party has to put the NDP out front in talking about real reforms to keep Canada united.

C

GILLES DUCEPPE
RANK: #4 SCORE

Track Record:
F

Leadership: Separatist Leader

F

Vision: Obviously an F. But for 75% of the campaign they were the only party with an idea on the issue. We do not fall into the trap of liking Duceppe because he is socially in synch with so many Canadians. He's a dangerous separatist who should be opposed and whose raison d'être should be eliminated with reforms and good federalist policy.

F

uni.ca
Email us

STEPHEN HARPER	RANK: #1	SCORE
Track Record: Harper is no Captain Canada, let's just put it that way. He has said some nasty things about the country. But he has positions and has stood by them. His track record on unity is one of taking a hard line opposition to anything separatist. That opposition is not a bad thing; if one is ambivalent about the separatist agenda, one is unlikely to engage the issue and do anything about it.		D+
Leadership: He does not have the skills of former leader Jean Charest. But Harper has shown through two elections that his party will include every province, the French and the English, and has leadership qualities that we hope will be put to good use on unity.		C+
Vision: As the campaign moved along, Harper actually released a good platform on unity. It touches on the Constitution, the Senate, the Charter. We still view Harper himself as a potentially scary headwaiter to the provinces, but in fairness, the policies do look like a good start. Of course, "fiscal imbalance" is code language, firewall-type stuff. But the Senate itself is in our White Paper, and overall this is a good mix of what the West wants, and what the former PCs could swallow. In fact some of it may be good for Canada.		B

PAUL MARTIN	RANK: #2	SCORE
Track Record: Martin was under Chretien's wings so long he did not have a track record of his own on this most important issue. He certainly bears part of the blame for the RII fiasco, and the sponsorship scandal, whether his self-appointed Justice said so or not. But his time as PM saw no further action on unity to speak of. It was merely a continuation of a strategy that saw separatism in Quebec flourish.		C
Leadership: Martin made deals on social programmes that got some ink on the paper from the provinces. This shows leadership, but in the narrow window of federalist government in Quebec, it isn't all that difficult when you are flush with cash. Real leadership would be to plot a course for the country through the separatist problem, and talk about the Constitution, and reforms. There was none of that.		C
Vision: The Liberals struck out long ago. Having squandered the window of opportunity after Chrétien and Dion moved along, the party has done nothing to stem the systemic tide of disunity. With no policy at all, we drift. With no vision, we'll stumble along unable to muster pan-Canadian majorities and unlikely to move the Constitution into the 21st Century. The platform is hardly a platform - they only mention unity twice in quotes, and promise to "stand against the separatists". Talk about out of steam.		D-

JACK LAYTON	RANK: #3	SCORE
Track Record: Almost none. Was Layton worried on October 30th 1995? What has he done since becoming leader to get into the game? Nothing yet.		N/A
Leadership: Layton was born in Quebec. This and a buck gets you a cup of coffee unless you start talking about the things that would make Canada more united and speak of where you think the federalists should take the country.		D+
Vision: The NDP have not fleshed out details in their unity policy. But at least this election they are talking about it. Jack Layton also flip-flopped on the Clarity Act, which is an ironic topic to be unclear on. The party is hung up on ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution in their policy, and chalk it all up to economics. This is not very visionary. Unity is more than the right/left economic spectrum. Until the NDP speaks Quebec's political language, they're doomed there. And until they have a more comprehensive policy on Canadian unity, they are a special interest party. This platform is a start, but someone in their party has to put the NDP out front in talking about real reforms to keep Canada united.		C

GILLES DUCEPPE	RANK: #4	SCORE
Track Record:		F
Leadership: Separatist Leader		F
Vision: Obviously an F. But for 75% of the campaign they were the only party with an idea on the issue. We do not fall into the trap of liking Duceppe because he is socially in synch with so many Canadians. He's a dangerous separatist who should be opposed and whose raison d'être should be eliminated with reforms and good federalist policy.		F