Yours is the most reasoned comment here, thank you. And you're right to point the finger at both major parties.
While I agree that there's no single definition of Canadian, I do think there's a particular Canadian sickness that seems to think that policy that benefits and protects existing established interests is good policy.
Example: local rural zoning laws here in Hamilton area were being revisited some years ago. I live on a small farm so went to the sessions and read the documents, etc. And I have an interest in the wine industry, so noticed that in the bylaws they went out of their way to explicitly forbid winery development in any area but an area east of the city (towards Niagara.) Why? When I asked the zoning officer at a public meeting, she just stared at me blankly: "Because that's where the wineries already are."
She wasn't corrupt. She wasn't stupid. She didn't care about the issue. But the thought that you might want to craft regulation in such a way to leave things open for new entrants and possibilities was ... confusing to her. But why would you close off a whole agricultural area to new developments like that? I don't get the mindset, but I see it all the time. Maybe because we're so used to being squashed by the US that we feel we have to protect the successes that we have? Bizarrely though we have very intense internal protectionism.
I see examples of this all over the place. From Alberta's recent moves against the burgeoning renewable energy sector, to Ontario wine regulations, to the way the telecomms sector is run nationally, to the way grants and incubators etc are set up.
While I agree that there's no single definition of Canadian, I do think there's a particular Canadian sickness that seems to think that policy that benefits and protects existing established interests is good policy.
Example: local rural zoning laws here in Hamilton area were being revisited some years ago. I live on a small farm so went to the sessions and read the documents, etc. And I have an interest in the wine industry, so noticed that in the bylaws they went out of their way to explicitly forbid winery development in any area but an area east of the city (towards Niagara.) Why? When I asked the zoning officer at a public meeting, she just stared at me blankly: "Because that's where the wineries already are."
She wasn't corrupt. She wasn't stupid. She didn't care about the issue. But the thought that you might want to craft regulation in such a way to leave things open for new entrants and possibilities was ... confusing to her. But why would you close off a whole agricultural area to new developments like that? I don't get the mindset, but I see it all the time. Maybe because we're so used to being squashed by the US that we feel we have to protect the successes that we have? Bizarrely though we have very intense internal protectionism.
I see examples of this all over the place. From Alberta's recent moves against the burgeoning renewable energy sector, to Ontario wine regulations, to the way the telecomms sector is run nationally, to the way grants and incubators etc are set up.