It seems every Canadian political columnist passed judgment on the one-year anniversary of Harper’s majority government. But, oddly enough, the punditry on the man and his vision were all over the map. To some he is an authoritarian with a bully club in his right hand, but to others just a hard-nosed PM maintaining party unity. To some he’s a principled radical and to others a moderate populist.
I have a different take. If you want to understand Stephen Harper, think Pierre Trudeau.
It’s hard to believe that Harper was once a Liberal campaign volunteer, but, somewhere in the early 1980s, Harper embraced a political mission to undo the damage that Trudeau inflicted on the country and to destroy the Liberal party in the process.
Of course, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien got first crack, repudiating almost every Trudeau economic policy from unemployment insurance, runaway spending, hyper inflation, economic nationalism, and obscene levels of debt.
As a minority PM, Harper barely dented the Trudeau legacy, but in the most recent budget he was thinking about Trudeau. The funding for Katimavik, the national youth learning organization Trudeau helped establish in 1977, went from $15 million to zero in one fell swoop.
While Trudeau was instrumental in getting oilsands development off the ground, he decimated the oilpatch with the National Energy Program. He also tapped Justice Thomas Berger to head the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry in 1974, which killed the project. Harper is a vocal advocate of not one, but two pipelines: Keystone XL to the United States and a Pacific pipeline that would bring oil to the West coast for export to Asia. It’s a safe bet that Trudeau’s Mackenzie Valley Inquiry, which involved 14 full participant groups and produced 283 volumes of evidence, is not what Harper has in mind with his “one project-one review” environmental assessment process that was announced in the recent budget.
Trudeau was never happier than when pursuing a strong central government and invading areas of provincial jurisdiction. When told in 1983 that the proposed Canada Health Act would anger the provinces, he told his health minister “That’s a sure win.” As a prime minister with a majority government, Harper didn’t even bother to negotiate with provinces when the Canada Health Transfer recently came up for renewal.
Over his 15.5 years in office, Trudeau held 23 face-to-face meetings with his provincial counterparts. In over six years in office, Harper met first ministers only once, in private, and that was in 2008.
The Constitution was a Trudeau obsession from the time he served as a bureaucrat in the Privy Council Office in 1949 until the early 1990s, when he decisively intervened to defeat the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Harper would give up singing the Beatles before messing with the Constitution.
In some ways Trudeau was more comfortable in Moscow than in Washington. The animosity went both ways: Richard Nixon called Trudeau an “asshole,” and Trudeau called Ronald Reagan an “imbecile.” Harper understands there is nothing in it for Canada to insult our best customer and most important ally.
When the time comes, don’t expect Harper to attend Fidel Castro’s funeral just because the Cuban dictator was an honorary pallbearer for Trudeau. When Trudeau died, Cuba declared three days of public mourning and flags were flown at half-staff. A few weeks ago, Castro penned an 1,100-word column denouncing Harper’s policies.
Trudeau handed out taxpayer dollars to Liberal-friendly special interest and advocacy groups. Harper is cutting taxpayer-dependent advocacy groups loose, telling them to fend for themselves.
Trudeau loved the ballet and schmoozing with artsy types. Harper prefers hockey games and shuns the star-studded black-tie galas.
Trudeau moved our immigration policies away from labour and economic needs and towards “family reunification,” winning fidelity from ethnic communities in the process. Harper is shifting our immigration back toward meeting our economic needs.
Trudeau thought that unemployed Canadians should sit tight and wait for the jobs to come to them. In the most recent budget, the signal was sent by Harper that EI benefits could be impacted for those who refuse to widen their geographic job search.
Trudeau eviscerated the military. Harper restored both its pride and budget.
While the death penalty was given last rites under Trudeau, Harper has not exerted himself to patriate a Canadian on death row in the U.S.
Of course, there are similarities between the 15th and 22nd prime ministers. They are both highly political and as tough as nails. When reporters asked Trudeau if he was worried about internal dissension over his leadership he replied, “If I found in my own ranks that a certain number of guys wanted to cut my throat, I’d make sure I cut their throats first.” When Trudeau was asked about his political strategy of dividing opponents, he said, “If you couldn’t … you shouldn’t be in politics. If it’s called manipulative, then so be it.” On the desire to win, there is not much to choose between Harper and Trudeau.
Whatever remnants of the Trudeau legacy that remain are cemented in the Constitution, but, on the meaning of Constitution, a few more of Harper’s Supreme Court appointments can make a world of difference.
Bob Plamondon is the author of Blue Thunder; The truth about Conservatives from Macdonald to Harper.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Bob Plamondon
No comments:
Post a Comment