Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: reform party of canad
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: can
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:56:52 GMT

WARNING: if you followed the Reform Party free-for-all that went on a
month or so back, you might want to hit the 'n' key now as this will
probably just be a replay.

alan pickersgill (alan.pickersgill@canrem.com) wrote:
> -=> On 12-23-92  14:32, Jim Robinson wrote to All <=-

> JR> Please elaborate on how the RP has made itself "deliberately"
> JR> "attractive to bigots". That is a strong statement and one should
> JR> really provide some evidence if one is going to make it.

> I am thinking of policies on immigration, multi-culturalism, rcmp
> uniforms, bilingualism. They are doing nothing to discourage bigotry.

This is my understanding of RP policies on the above:

immigration: the RP wants to de-emphasize the family class immigrant and
emphasize the independent class immigrant; the idea being that immigrants
with skills and education benefit Canada more than immigrants who happen
to have the right relatives. I do not see anything bigoted about such a
policy.

MC: the RP would scrap government funded MC and leave it to the individual
to maintain his or her culture as he or she sees fit. An argument can be
made that to continue government funding of European based cultural
activities (e.g., Xmas lights on Parliament Hill) would be ethnocentric.
However, my understanding of the RP is that even this type of government
funding would be, at minimum, severely reduced. Personally, I think the
federal government is trying to be everything to everyone with little
success and I would rather it just vacate a number of areas, such as
culture, and concentrate on providing proper health and educations systems
in order to empower (I actually don't like that word, but it does fit) the
individual. Sorry, but I tend to view culture as an unaffordable frill -
talk to me when the debt is zero.

RCMP uniforms: I *disagree* with the RP position on this one. However, a
non-racist argument in support of their position is this: Canada is an
incredibly diverse country with few national icons. The Mountie uniform is
one such symbol that in a small way does bind the country together. Thus,
by altering the uniform one is also removing one of the strands of
nationhood, and this is something that should be avoided, especially now
given the tenuous state of the country. Like I said, I disagree with the
RP on this one, and I will not attempt to defend/explain it further.

Bilingualism: I believe that the RP thinks that language policy should be
the domain of the provinces. Thus, Quebec should be uniligually French if
that is what it wants; NB should be bilingual if that is what it wants, and
BC should be uniligually English if that is what that province wants. As
well, only a few federal institutions would be truly bilingual (e.g.,
Parliament). This would probably mean that the *vast* majority of federal
government positions in Quebec would only require a candidate to be an
unilingual francohone; and the vast majority of federal government
positions in CHQ (with the probable exception of NB) would only require a
candidate to be an unilingual anglophone. As well, this would possibly mean
that an anglophone in Quebec would not be able to interact with the federal
government in English; and a francophone in CHQ would possibly not be able
to obtain federal services in French. I have my own reservations about such
a policy, but I do see it as a legitimate alternative, especially given the
less than glowing results of the present language policy. BTW, as I
understand it, this is quite similar to the Swiss' language policy, and
that country seems to have a heck of a lot more language peace than does
Canada.

All in all, the only RP policy that I would consider possibly bigoted is
the RCMP uniform policy. However, IMHO, this greatly pales in comparison to
the establishment of gender and racial quotas as put forward by NDP
governments in Ontario and possibly BC; these policies are by definition
racist and sexist. 

> JR> The RP "Mulroney Deal" ad was offensive. However, most of the
> JR> pro-accord ads were offensive as well - they either played to people's
> JR> emotions and fears (e.g., the kettle ad), or assumed we were incredibly
> JR> stupid. *Nobody* has anything to be proud about as far as campaigning
> JR> in the referendum goes.
> 
> It is important to note, though, that the RP had been promoting itself
> as being different, and as the answer for Canadians who have become
> cynical about politicians. In its first major campaign, it showed itself
> to be the same as the rest.

Agreed.

> JR> My *current* prediction is that the Reform Party will take 20 to 30
> JR> seats in the next election. How they do after that is up to how they
> JR> perform in Parliament.

> A prediction I have heard, and which has some currency, is that Reform
> could take that many seats in Western Canada, the Bloc Quebecois could
> run away with Quebec's seats, and the Conservatives come out a close third
> in a three-way split of the other seats. The tories then make a deal with
> the RP & BQ, form a government, and we are back with Mulroney for a
> third term.

I've seen this scenario tossed around as well. However, I have a difficult
time believing that Canadians would accept a separatist party being a de
facto junior member of the federal government. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics