We were reviled as -spendthrifts insensitive to a people enduring recession. Without precedent, we were summoned before a parliamentary committee in mid-process to answer for high crimes … or at least high spending. We faced entrenched cynicism as suspected stooges of an unpopular government. At the start, there was massive distrust and anger directed at politicians, governments, bureaucrats and the media, and to us it seemed we had become an instant lightning rod for them all.
In the early weeks, devising as we were implementing, we faced hostile, uncomprehending media unaccustomed to the unorthodox, sometimes experimental nature of the Forum. We were criticized when the media were not allowed in some discussion groups, a citizens’ right that was built into the process. Most groups were eager for the media to cover their discussions, but a few opted for intimate, private discussions. The Forum was not an easy story to cover.
Heh. I’d sum it up thusly: “The mood of the people is cranky.”
Well, the populace was tired of being meddled with. As was demonstrated in the 1992 referendum.
Update:
Oh, wait, this was just a bunch of cranky lefties. Evidence:
Free Trade Agreement
A high degree of interest and concern was manifested concerning the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, with very little positive comment coming forward except in Quebec where the agreement is more positively perceived. “Withdraw from Free Trade agreement which only benefits international bankers and companies,” said a group in British Columbia. Participants thought that too many businesses are locating outside Canada; water resources were not specifically excluded from the FTA; the US was given an unacceptable level of access to Canadian energy resources; the FIA is costing Canadians too many jobs; and, the US benefits disproportionately or solely from the agreement: “Free trade is killing Canadians with plants closing and moving to the cheaper U.S. markets. The deal needs to be renegotiated to level out the playing field. It is too much to the advantage of the U.S.” was a typical comment.
Participants expressed their concern and anger that the dislocations they perceive to be resulting from the agreement have not been addressed by government. A group in Southwestern Ontario told us that, for them, a major issue of concern “is that of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and its effects on a region where the Canadian automotive industry is heavily concentrated, such as Windsor. The region must be strengthened by the government, to help alleviate (the damage) which will be caused by the Free Trade Agreement.”
If the view is that English Canada was very anti-FTA, well, that shows right there who actually was responding.
A current-day Spicer Commission would have known to use that, together with public opinion polls, to figure out how representative was the sample they were getting.
Of course, the current PM knows well enough NOT to convene a body like this — the proper way to canvass public opinion is for MPs to talk to their constituents, to use pollsters, and (in extremis) to call a general election and fight out a campaign on an issue.
I worked on the Spicer Commission. I was the youth delegate from mainland NS – otherwise known as “the other island” according to the national youth delegate coordinator. It was a weird process. I recall my job was to get information packages out to NS communities to hold gatherings to discuss the idea of Canada’s Future and report back to Commission central in Ottawa. I got the job because every executive member of the student union of NS passed it up. I was doing some task for them as an employee on the day the request for nominations for the position came in and think I was the only name put forward. I do recall being very put off with the prohibited areas of discourse. It was expressly stated that Quebec has special status that could neither be questioned or compared to the experience of any other part of Canada. When I pointed out that Newfoundland was its own dominion until 1949, I was met with looks like I was a traitor to the cause.
The year zero mentality — of which they’re exemplars — is actively dangerous!
Didn’t know what they didn’t know.
I think it could be an interesting exercise if it were not so closely tied to movements like separatism or political issues like constitutional amendment. If it was an examination of culture (and not just of the artistic sort), say, or the meaning of the scope and utility of social welfare it would be good to canvass the public. Having political parties pretend they reflect the public generally and not their constituency is pretty thin gruel.
It’s useful to chat from time to time, sure.
Mind you, we kinda do this informally within the national political parties, anyway…
And if you’re a responsible citizen, you do this over a beer from time to time with those who aren’t like-minded.
OT, but only by a bit: I remember you put up links to the complete BBC coverage of British election nights – going on for hours. I loved it. Do you, or does anyone else reading this, know of any site that stores the complete election night coverage (or for that matter, complete referendum-night coverage from ’92, or the Quebec referenda) from CBC, CTV, or so on?
I wish.
Looked for it — I’d love full-night coverage for the post-’88 elections…
Anyone?
Sent from my iPad