Defining Stephen Harper

Successful politicians are often slippery figures, hard to pin down and adept at saying nothing while making it sound like they’re actually saying something deep and meaningful. It’s a requirement in the political arena. Men and women vying for political office don’t want to alienate any group or constituency because of potential repercussions at the ballot box. Stephen Harper is no exception, a large part of his success is due to his mastery of this essential skill.

One constituency with which Stephen Harper’s Conservatives did very well in our most recent election was with that of Christian voters. According to a Vancouver Sun story published December 17th 2008:

“Three-quarters of Canadian voters who attend evangelical churches (such as Baptist, Mennonite and Pentecostal) opted for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's the same proportion of white American evangelicals who supported the Republicans”.

The writer of this article found this fact somewhat surprising given that Harper basically refuses to speak about his own membership in an Evangelical Church. What’s also noteworthy is that Harper has been able to maintain this support despite doing nothing on issues important to Evangelical Christians, most notably Abortion and Same Sex Marriage. With that being said, Campaign Life Coalition, which defines itself as, “the political wing of the pro-life movement in Canada” did give Harper passing grades on his Party Leader Report Card, while the likes of Dion, Layton, and Duceppe all failed miserably.

The only hope Christian voters may have for seeing action on contentious moral issues is if the Conservatives are able to eventually win a majority of seats in Parliament. In Stephen Harper's party many Christian voters obviously see potential for a government which will address their concerns. If the Conservatives ever do intend to move on these issues (with most polls suggesting Canadians happy with the status quo) it would be nothing short of electoral suicide to speak about them prior to winning a majority mandate.

Pinning a politician of Harper’s skill down on issues like abortion though is bound to lead to frustration. Some are certain he’ll continue to govern in a pragmatic fashion, leaving moral issues alone. Others are equally certain that given a majority Harper would seek to appease his religiously minded base. But Stephen Harper hasn’t always been a politician, in a previous incarnation he was Vice President of Canada’s National Citizens Coalition. The NCC is basically a Libertarian Think Tank, one which favours less government involvement and proposes initiatives like movement toward Private Health Care.

In June of 1997, at a time when he was Vice President of the NCC, Stephen Harper gave a speech to the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank. While this speech tells us little about our Prime Minister’s views on issues like abortion, it does give us a glimpse into his views on other important issues.

Oh Canada

“First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it”.

On unemployed Canadians

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance".

On the NDP

"The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men".

On Liberals and their policies

"It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values".

On the old Progressive Conservative Party

"They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country".

On Preston Manning and the Reform Party

"Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it".

You can view the full text of the speech on CTV's website: HERE

Seeing some of those comments it might be tempting for some to hope that our Prime Minister's views have evolved, as they have on issues like stacking the Senate, Fixed Election Dates and the Tax Exempt Status of Income Trusts.

Perhaps they have, we'll likely be casting judgement in less than a year. Happy voting.

***Note To Readers***

I'm striving to make the content here both pertinent and valuable, as such I'm doing a lot more research. That means I'll likely be posting less, but when I do have something to say I hope its something very much worth reading.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Go To Canadian Soapbox Home

All Is Well - Canada Wins Gold!!!

Having just witnessed Canada winning its 5th consecutive Gold medal at the World Junoirs, I think I can safely proclaim that all is well with the world. In a country with so many divisions its gratifying to see us all come together, even if its for something as trite as chasing a rubber disk around on a sheet of ice. Something just doesn't feel right when our national teams fail to win the ultimate prize at a hockey tournament. Winters should be cold, politicians should not be counted on to tell the truth...and Canada should always win at hockey.

Its especially nice for people who live in and around Toronto given that we haven't had a hockey team to cheer for low these many many years.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Go To Canadian Soapbox Home

Should French Be A Mandatory Course?

I live in Ontario, and in this province most students are required to take one French credit during their high school years. That wasn’t the case when I was going to school. French was strictly optional at the secondary school level when I was a teenager. I would have gladly taken a pass, but my father, (God bless him) insisted I take at least one French course in grade 9, after that I was told, the choice would be mine. I say ‘thank God’ because I actually managed to pick up the language very well and have even been able to find employment based on my, (less than perfect) ability to speak French.

But I view myself as the exception, not the rule. Most students who learn French in school, (even if they take it all the way through) just a few short years after graduation all they often remember is ‘ca va’ and ‘ca va bien’. Are we really providing a service to our students by forcing them to learn something that will have little or no application in their daily lives? Sure its nice to be able to travel to Quebec and ask people how they’re doing, and be able to answer back ‘I’m fine’. But does it really require a mandatory credit in our educational system?

Given the technological nature of the world we live in, wouldn’t it be of greater benefit to be teaching a programming language instead? Are we really providing a service to students by loading them down with skills that will have little application in our digital age? I’m not talking about removing French from the curriculum entirely, merely about having it as a mandatory subject. In Ontario parents can enroll their children in French Immersion schools where they’re able to become fluently bilingual. Forcing students to take a high school credit in French strikes me as overkill.

Some view education as a means to an end, believing our school system should focus on areas which will translate into marketable skills in the work force. Others think education is a means in of itself, and that teaching Liberal Arts is essential to develop citizens capable of critical thought. Surely both points of view have merit, but I don’t think our educational system is doing enough to give our youth the knowledge they’re going to need in our competitive world.

With limited resources educators need to do both. Wouldn’t it be nice to see every classroom desk fitted with an up to date computer? Perhaps we can get there, but it will be hard if we continue to focus on courses and programs which bring few benefits to students. French is a wonderful language, and for those able to master it there are many benefits. But why not make it strictly an elective, leaving students and their parents to decide if they wish to pursue it or study something else.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.

Is Canada Still a Progressive Nation?

Most people I know see Canada as a very progressive nation. We see ourselves as strong on issues that involve human rights, allowing same sex marriages and protecting the rights of disadvantaged groups. We have health care services available to basically all residents, and while it’s not perfect by any stretch we're justifiably proud that we provide at least some level of medial care to all our citizens. We sort through our garbage, setting aside recyclable materials to ease environmental damage. We even endure smelly green bins for compost. But is the pendulum beginning to swing in the other direction? Are we becoming, as Stephen Harper recently noted, a more conservative and ergo less progressive nation?

On the environmental front we’ve failed abysmally when it comes to meeting the Kyoto protocols on green house gas emissions. In our most recent federal election we soundly rejected the notion of a carbon tax, even if it involved off setting tax cuts in the areas of income and investment. Of course we want to be more environmentally friendly, but we’re also very worried about the associated price tag.

Obviously concerns about cost are holding us back from being more progressive. Its not that we’re not progressive minded, its just that we’re cost conscious. But any progressive policy has a dollar figure attached; our health care system increases the tax burden, and human rights initiatives like equal pay for work of equal value also impact our wallets. As we move deeper into the 21st century it’s looking more and more like Canadians are fixated on cost when it comes to taking a progressive or conservative stance on the issues we face.

We still have the ‘Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ of course, which citizens or groups can use to ensure the protections guaranteed by our Constitution. There used to be funding provided for those who couldn’t afford to launch challenges to fight to have their rights upheld. But that program was axed by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government during their last mandate. The rationale provided was that special interest groups, (Gays? Women’s Groups?) were hijacking the system to advance their own vested interests. Harper’s did later relent, but only when it came to funding those seeking to protect language rights, an obvious nod to Quebec in his ongoing effort to woo the soft separatist vote.

At the time there was angry rhetoric flying about, with many claiming the issue of funding court challenges would prove Harper’s Waterloo. Stories began hitting newswires about cases like that of Kevin Rollason. He had used the program to obtain EI parental leave benefits after being denied because he hadn’t taken them during the time his disabled child was in hospital. But in the end there was hardly a whimper of meaningful protest. While the program was costing us less than $6 million per year, it seems Canadians were happy to see our government cutting expenses.

Perhaps Stephen Harper is right after all. Perhaps we are becoming a more Conservative nation, one cut back at a time. With the problems facing our economy might it be reasonable to expect this trend to continue? What savings might we be able to derive by cutting back on other socially progressive programs? We haven’t protested in any meaningful way over cut backs to Court Challenges or Women’s advocacy groups. What might be next? Tax cuts are wonderful, but it also impacts the government's ability to fund progressive iniatives.

Being progressive costs money, it involves having a government willing to stick its nose in and protect those who are less able to protect themselves. If money weren’t an issue I’m sure Canada would be one of the most progressive nations on Earth. But with concern mounting over individual finances and the finances of the nation as a whole, perhaps progressive issues are no longer a priority for Canadians. I hope not.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Go To Canadian Soapbox Home