In fact, Martin's quest for a democratic surplus will make him more presidential than any modern Canadian prime minister with a majority has ever been — while Chrétien's "friendly dictatorship" was much more prime ministerial.
|
|
| Back to Web Version |
OTTAWA—When he was asked what he had been reading recently, Prime Minister Paul Martin mentioned Michael Adams' book "Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values."
It was an intriguing choice — a study by the president of the polling firm Environics that describes how Canadian and American society are headed in different directions in terms of values.
In a nutshell, Adams argues that, despite our embrace of American commerce and popular culture, Canadians have adopted a different set of values, and those differences are increasing rather than decreasing with economic integration.
Adams' research finds that Americans are both more individualist and more conformist, and more likely than Canadians to resist changing their ways; Canadians are more skeptical of the claims of advertisers, less competitive and less stressed.
Canadians have embraced diversity: in 1992, Canada was the only country among 44 polled where a strong majority (77 per cent) said that immigrants have a good influence on the country, while only a minority of Americans feel that way.
Adams characterizes minivans as the symbol of what he calls "familism" — "an acceptance that children and their world are now at the centre of one's life" — and SUVs as the symbol of rugged individualism, conspicuous consumption, and environmental abuse.
"In Canada, minivans outsell SUVs by a ratio of two to one. In the United States, SUVs outsell minivans two to one," Adams writes. "This is a stark difference whose roots can be traced directly to the differing values of our two countries."
He also observes that in both countries, regions that represent extremes in social values have helped drive the two countries in different directions.
The southern United States is still characterized by what he calls "traditional, patriarchal and chauvinistic values." Evangelical religion is strong, support for the U.S. military is greater than in other parts of the U.S., and traditional family values predominate.
And Quebec is at the cutting edge of liberal values: support for same-sex marriage is significant, "xenophobia is lower in Quebec than in any other Canadian region, with the exception of the Maritimes," and there is a strong anti-militarist tradition.
Both regions have disproportionate political clout in their own countries.
Martin seems to be embracing the paradox that Adams describes, endorsing greater economic integration with the United States, and assuming that Canada's cultural distinctiveness will flourish. But he is also promising a more American style of governing.
Indeed, in his flurry of activities after taking office, Martin threw out some intriguing, if contradictory hints.
He has shown his determination to improve Canada's relations with the United States, creating a cabinet committee to address the issue and naming the most conservative of ex-Tories, Scott Brison, as his parliamentary secretary with responsibilities for the file.
He made a symbolic visit to National Defence Headquarters, implying a new tilt toward military spending, long a U.S. agenda item for Canada.
And, as Ed Broadbent pointed out when he announced his candidacy for the NDP, the social democrats in the Chrétien government — Sheila Copps and Lloyd Axworthy — have not been replaced at the Martin cabinet table, which tilts to the right.
On the other hand, Martin has insisted on the need to respect the Canadian passport, has reiterated support for Jean Chrétien's decision not to have Canada participate in the war in Iraq, and has said he is going to reintroduce legislation to decriminalize possession of marijuana.
It is unclear how this two-track strategy of engagement with and divergence from the Americans will actually work out.
For one of the consequences of Martin's ideas is, in fact, a significant increase in Canadian political uncertainty where parliamentary predictability has been the rule.
The item on Martin's agenda that would most challenge Canadian traditions and resemble the American model is his desire to give more power to members of Parliament.
This would certainly be more democratic, more lively, more interesting and more engaging. But it would introduce the kind of bargaining, negotiating and deal-making that so characterizes the American legislative system and is so foreign to the Canadian parliamentary tradition.
Presidents are constrained by democracy. A U.S. president needs the consent of Congress to act, while a prime minister with a parliamentary majority is all-powerful.
Martin's suggestion of having federal appointments questioned by a parliamentary committee would be a dramatic and very American change to the Canadian parliamentary system, just as the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was, two decades ago.
In fact, Martin's quest for a democratic surplus will make him more presidential than any modern Canadian prime minister with a majority has ever been — while Chrétien's "friendly dictatorship" was much more prime ministerial.
|