Taking political discourse down, step by toxic step

Just when Canada seemed to be over cultural and constitutional divisions, a new kind of conflict emerges. Instead of squabbling over Quebec’s role, language or the division of powers, now we wrangle over who gets what.

It’s a toxic trend: people seem intent on dividing the country into regions of virtuous “givers” in the West and parasitic “takers” in the East. Now, this wouldn’t come up if Canada were less diverse and every part had equal populations, resources and markets. But it’s not set up that way.

Let’s hear it for parliamentary gridlock

Oh dear. We seem to be having a Mussolini moment.

You remember Mussolini. Big guy. Bit of a bully. Had a thing for uniforms. Some people didn’t like how he did this or that but, hey, he made the trains run on time.

That’s the usual defence of hyper-centralized power. It may not be ideal but it sure gets things done. And when times are uncertain, that’s a lot better than the alternative.

And so we have government House Leader Peter Van Loan telling Canadians they’re lucky the federal government is the most centralized in the Western world, that Parliament has been emasculated, that one man runs the show. Look at the Europeans. Look at the Americans. They don’t have our “il Duce” model. And they’re circling the drain. The conclusion is obvious.

“Anybody who suggests that we shouldn’t be making decisions is really inviting the kind of political gridlock that you’ve seen elsewhere and is so harmful economically,” Van Loan told Canadian Press.

Gridlock. Is there any word more frightening? Let’s all cheer for the big man who makes the big decisions and keep the trains running on time.

The same theme emerged recently in National Post articles about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plan to reform the Senate.

The plan “would set a non-renewable nine-year time limit and prescribe a process where provinces and territories could elect senators who would then be considered for appointment,” reported Kathryn Blaze Carlson. “Some political analysts suggest ... Canada could well be headed for an American-style system characterized by gridlock and an unprecedented competition between two bodies that could be controlled by different parties.”

Hill Dispatches: Attack dog tactics trump an adult discussion of public transit

It's been a deadly few weeks for pedestrians and cyclists in Ottawa.

A week ago a cyclist was killed when a driver opened a door on her on a downtown street. This past weekend a pedestrian was killed by a motorist driving on the wrong side of a street. Meanwhile, there is a trial going on of a driver who wreaked havoc on a group of cyclists in suburban Kanata and then left the scene of the accident.

If nothing else, all of this serves to remind us that issues of traffic and transportation are not just crucial to cities; they can be matters of life and death.

Against this backdrop, the House of Commons Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Committee is currently studying the question of a public transit strategy for Canada. The Committee heard from two groups on Monday afternoon, and the session showed how a tenacious attachment to ideology and political gamesmanship can stop any constructive or useful dialogue in its tracks.