The findings also suggest that new ConservativeParty of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's messaging is having an impact on local politics. During his leadership campaign, Poilievre took a novel approach to issues that have traditionally been the purview of city halls, promising to tie federal infrastructure spending to approval of high-density zoning. His forays into municipal territory looked to be warmly received in key urban locations such as Vancouver; Poilievre won the Conservative leadership vote in British Columbia. His campaign exceeded internal membership sales expectations, and thousands of new Conservative members attended his meet-and-greets in East Vancouver, which is not exactly a right-of-center bastion.Without missing a beat, Poilievre mentioned Vancouver's municipal election during last Monday's Question Period, calling the outcome a rejection of Justin Trudeau's "radical policies" and the city's NDP-affiliated mayor, Kennedy Stewart. He went on to praise Vancouver residents for voting to enact "commonsense laws to restore safe streets." These words suggest that Poilievre will continue to speak out on municipal matters as opposition leader, perhaps creating a rising tide for centrist and right-leaning municipal politicians across Canada.The election results in Vancouver, arguably Canada's most consistently left-leaning big city, should put every municipal hall in the country on alert. Vancouverites have signaled unequivocally that they will no longer tolerate a new-age progressive orthodoxy that prioritizes criminal liberties over public safety; an approach to metropolitan governing that has clearly failed. Municipal governments that fail to restore residents' sense of security may see their days numbered.
A seismic shift may be on the horizon for cities throughout Canada
If change can happen in Vancouver, it can happen anywhere, according to the song.Katy Merrifield & Rahim MohamedKaty Merrifield serves as Wellington Advocacy's Vice President for British Columbia. She was the British Columbia Lead for Pierre Poilievre's leadership campaign and the Director of Communications for former Premiers Christy Clark and Jason Kenney. Rahim Mohamed is a freelance writer residing in Calgary. He is an honors graduate.Read more.Recommended for you.Part I began by investigating the distinction between a nation and a province in response to Saskatchewan's recent white paper "Drawing the Line." This Part II explains why the Québécois are a country and Saskatchewan is not. Part III will show why the distinction is irrelevant to the effective functioning of Canadian federalism.Drawing the Line," the Government of Saskatchewan's recently published white paper that recommends a more aggressive assertion of provincial autonomy, repeats Premier Scott Moe's comment from last year that "Saskatchewan needs to be a nation within a nation." It's an interesting inclusion. Why isn't it enough to demand additional power for the province itself? Why bring up the contentious subject of nationality and nationhood? It must be because a nation is more than just a province (or a country), and the government believes that whatever this is strengthens its constitutional claim. It's correct on the first point, but not the second.
The idea that Saskatchewan must be
"a nation within a nation" subtly questions why we acknowledge the Québécois (or Quebec) as a nation but not Saskatchewan. It is an important question, if not very tough. The explanation is that there is something about how Québécois differ from other Canadians that goes beyond how people in other provinces differ from one another. In the case of Quebec, the options are apparent. You don't even have to believe that the concept of Two Founding Peoples1 is still relevant to understand that the Québécois (and, by extension, Quebec) are distinctively distinct within Canada.The idea that the Québécois have a qualitatively unique culture (or that Quebec has a distinct civilization) worthy of "national" status is inextricably linked to the existence of the French language. Charles Taylor has written extensively about how, in our post-Romantic society, the need for identity (and, more significantly, the recognition of one's identity) is an emancipatory effort.2 Writing on Quebec in particular, he explains that "the singling out of linguistic nationality as the paradigm pole of self-identity is part of this modern drive to emancipation."3 There is just no equivalent desire for creative self-creation in any other province.
However, while language differences are the most visible
they are not the only ones.4 While the French language is the central feature of Québécois nationalism, the fact that some provincial residents included among "the Québécois" speak French imperfectly and others not at all, while others just across the Ottawa and Restigouche rivers who speak fluent French are not included in the nation, implies that there must be a component of national identity other than language. For want of a better phrase, this extra-linguistic component of identity is culture, and specifically "culture" in a broad meaning that extends beyond what we mean when we say the culture of Calgary differs from the culture of Edmonton.For culture to be a definitive component of national identity, it must be based in and reinforced by circumstances that differ not just in degree but also in kind from what is experienced in other parts of the country. Where does Québécois culture come from? Once again, linguistic differences are important. The concept that the language we say effects how we think is not new. It is conceivable that simply speaking (and thinking in) another language causes a people to form a unique culture. The mostly French-speaking portions of Canada can thus be regarded to have a distinct culture, although no predominantly English-speaking region does.
Comments
Post a Comment