First, a sincere congratulations to Nathan Giede on the first anniversary of his column. I know that such weekly production is not easy, and, indeed, can strain the energy and time needed to be clear and accurate on the real facts behind complex public policy issues. I do find it bitterly amusing he marks this occasion focusing on Stephen Harper's "unapologetic" disposition. Ironically, this was the Prime Minister once famous for his showy, highly-orchestrated and ultimately shallow apology to residential school survivors, preceded by his gutting of the Kelowna Accord which could have begun to undo the Indian Act, and followed, up a year later with a speech to the G20 in Pittsburgh claiming that Canada had "no history of colonialism." Yup, a true straight shooter is our PM!
Nathan wants us to admire Harper's unapologetic partisanship as if this were some innovation in Canadian political life. The columnist may be too young and/or uniformed to remember Trudeau or Chretien from whose lips apologies for their frequent and dramatically aggressive political acts were virtually non-existent. Like 'em or not, they were no shrinking violets on any topic.
As for the litany of issues from an era that Nathan labels the " 'good old days' of polite parliamentary debate and less partisan attacks"... to make such generalizations about developments like Trudeau's National Energy Policy, healthcare, gun legislation, and the Indian Act, only further proves that physically or mentally, this columnist was simply not around for those dogfights. No, the main distinction between Harper and past occupants of 24 Sussex Drive has very little to do with being "unapologetically partisan," and everything to do with a pathologically secretive leader wanting to covertly destroy what the majority of Canadians value -- all to be done below the radar screen of public awareness.
Norman Dale
Prince George
