Think of Pierre Trudeau and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes to mind, along with the patriation of our Constitution and an official policy of multiculturalism. Brian Mulroney conjures up the GST, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and failed attempts to amend the Constitution that have nonetheless basically become the law of the land today. Jean Chrétien balanced Canada’s federal budget for the first time in thirty years and led the federalist forces in a tight battle over national unity.
And Harper? Presumably, his legacy would be a signature policy achievement that would allow Conservatives to do a little chest-thumping. But I can’t seem to think of what it would be. Let’s look at the three major facets of policy: economic, social and foreign.
Economic policy is supposedly this government’s strong suit — or so they keep reminding us. Yet our steady sailing through the recession was largely due to strong banking regulations and debt reduction achieved by the Liberals under Chrétien and Martin.
Harper’s party is the only one that made an appeal to Canadians’ pocketbooks in the last election — it’s the reason they won. Some claim that since the economy will remain the number one issue on voters’ minds in 2015, the Conservatives are destined to win the next election as well. In fact, it’s precisely because the economy is still a hot-button topic that the Conservatives are vulnerable.
Canada’s growth rate is expected to be lower this year than that of any other developed economy outside the EU. Having deprived the government of billions of dollars in annual revenue through a two-point GST cut, the Conservatives now face a structural deficit that might prevent them from balancing the books before the next election. Attempts to trim the bureaucracy have been ineffective. The American economy, meanwhile, is recovering, and Washington is set to post its first annual deficit below $1 trillion in years.
So how about social policy? The elimination of the long-gun registry is too small an issue to represent a legacy. But how about crime policy, a signature policy front for this government? Didn’t Stephen Harper get into politics to shift the balance in our criminal justice system toward the victim? Perhaps, but his omnibus crime bill will face significant judicial scrutiny. Judges have already refused to implement some of its provisions on the grounds that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Other social policy issues? The environment and aboriginal issues have been disasters for the PM. And Harper refuses to take national leadership on health care reform, despite the fact that the soon-to-expire six per cent annual increase in health transfers doesn’t cover annual increases in provincial spending in this area.
On to foreign policy. Keystone XL has taken far longer than expected to be approved by the White House, and even now its approval is in doubt. Canada still doesn’t have a free trade agreement in place with either the European Union or India, despite promises to have had the former wrapped up with 2012 and the latter by 2013. Canada has yet to even approve the investment protection and promotion act it signed with India back in 2007.
It took two years longer than expected to get Canada a seat at the negotiating table for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And when it comes to two of Canada’s important strategic partners for the 21st century — China and Russia — the Harper government’s record is horrendous. There has been no progress at all on the issue of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. And Harper’s government completely ignored China for its first six years in office, undermining Canada’s best shot at a viable energy export alternative to Keystone XL.
Harper’s government is also the first majority since the conscription crisis of 1917 to be elected with such a low level of support from Quebecers. Moreover, it is the most centralizing government in Canadian history, thus violating a key Reform party platform plank of providing more power to MPs.
If Stephen Harper resigned today, he’d be leaving behind a country that is more indebted, more high-spending, more divided, more vulnerable, less democratic and no more strategically-minded than the one he found in 2006. These aren’t just grounds for Canadians to vote him out. They’re grounds for conservatives to vote him out.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Zach Paikin
No comments:
Post a Comment