Email
PrintAn opposition worth its salt will make census restoration primary electoral pledge
Harper's census moves set the stage for a diminution in government's ability to be involved in ordinary lives and limit the government's capacity to make clear choices for the common good.
Whoever dreamed the census could be the dividing line that defines the next election?
Certainly not the prime minister. That explains why he stubbornly stuck to his guns in the face of near unanimous opposition to the dilution of accurate statistical data in Canada.
Like most of us, Stephen Harper thought that the weakening of personal data collection could be accomplished with no political pushback.
What is puzzling however is Harper's refusal to back down when his original political calculation proved so wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time a prime minister has responded rapidly to a public outcry to avoid controversy. Why, Harper himself exercised a deft volte-face when he quickly killed the controversy surrounding the rewriting of the national anthem.
The fact that he won't reverse himself on this one indicates the storm gathering around the census problem is reflective of a much deeper division.
True neo-cons see the government as an agent of social engineering, interfering in the lives of ordinary people. True liberals see the government as an agent for good, building on collective values in a way that no individual can do.
Unlike rabid neo-cons, the majority of Canadians actually situate themselves on the liberal side of the spectrum. That does not necessarily mean Liberal with a capital 'L,' as the results of the last couple of elections have shown. However, even in the former Progressive Conservative Party, there were a significant number of members who classified themselves as Red Tories, fiscally conservative with a social liberal conscience.
Many of those progressives have either gone silent in their party or migrated to other political homes. People like Scott Brison and Keith Martin changed their party of choice because they could not stomach the neo-cons. And while Harper himself spent his interregnum away from politics with the ultra conservative National Citizens Coalition, he was astute enough to abandon that theology in pursuit of power.
Almost erased from public memory are the views of private citizen Harper about building a firewall around Alberta. Neo-con wedge politics are very effective in mobilizing a certain segment of the population. Narrow segments can be crucial to a minority election effort, as they are likely to devote considerable effort for a cause. But the same antipathy to government is not widespread enough to inspire a majority of Canadians.
Compare the firewall to a liberal view espoused by the Father of Canadian Liberalism, Sir Wilfred Laurier. His words, uttered in a speech on June 26, 1877, are eerily relevant today.
"For my part, I am one of those who think that always and everywhere in human beings, there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up and new forces to be developed. ... Our means are limited but our nature is perfectible and we have the infinite for our arena. ... Where there is compression, there will be explosion, violence and ruin. I do not excuse revolutions. But I am less inclined to cast responsibility on those who carry them out than on those who provoke them by their blind obstinacy...you wish to organize Catholics into one party, without other bond, without other basis than common religion; have you not reflected that by the very fact, you will organize the Protestant politicians into a single party and then, you throw the door open to war, a religious war, the most terrible of all wars."
Laurier's words send a veritable chill down the spine of those committed to the role of government as a force for good.
Neo-cons sense a different chill, that of the long arm of government, interfering in their libertarian freedoms.
Harper's census moves set the stage for a diminution in government's ability to be involved in ordinary lives. The census changes actually limit the capacity of government to make clear choices for the common good.
If statistics on the living standard of aboriginal people, visible minorities and francophones outside Quebec are no longer kept, how can government craft good social policy? If the division of household labour is no longer quantified, how will decisions about child care support and poverty reduction be shaped?
The long-term effect of the census changes will be to hinder successive governments in the construction of effective, collective social policy. Any opposition worth its salt should make the restoration of the census a primary electoral pledge.
For the followers of Laurier, the census question is clear. Is government a force for good or evil? In a country that still reveres medicare, the answer should be obvious.
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and deputy prime minister.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
- 1
An opposition worth its salt will make census restoration primary electoral pledge
Harper's census moves set the stage for a diminution in government's ability to be involved in ordinary lives and limit the government's capacity to make clear choices for the common good.
Whoever dreamed the census could be the dividing line that defines the next election?
Certainly not the prime minister. That explains why he stubbornly stuck to his guns in the face of near unanimous opposition to the dilution of accurate statistical data in Canada.
Like most of us, Stephen Harper thought that the weakening of personal data collection could be accomplished with no political pushback.
What is puzzling however is Harper's refusal to back down when his original political calculation proved so wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time a prime minister has responded rapidly to a public outcry to avoid controversy. Why, Harper himself exercised a deft volte-face when he quickly killed the controversy surrounding the rewriting of the national anthem.
The fact that he won't reverse himself on this one indicates the storm gathering around the census problem is reflective of a much deeper division.
True neo-cons see the government as an agent of social engineering, interfering in the lives of ordinary people. True liberals see the government as an agent for good, building on collective values in a way that no individual can do.
Unlike rabid neo-cons, the majority of Canadians actually situate themselves on the liberal side of the spectrum. That does not necessarily mean Liberal with a capital 'L,' as the results of the last couple of elections have shown. However, even in the former Progressive Conservative Party, there were a significant number of members who classified themselves as Red Tories, fiscally conservative with a social liberal conscience.
Many of those progressives have either gone silent in their party or migrated to other political homes. People like Scott Brison and Keith Martin changed their party of choice because they could not stomach the neo-cons. And while Harper himself spent his interregnum away from politics with the ultra conservative National Citizens Coalition, he was astute enough to abandon that theology in pursuit of power.
Almost erased from public memory are the views of private citizen Harper about building a firewall around Alberta. Neo-con wedge politics are very effective in mobilizing a certain segment of the population. Narrow segments can be crucial to a minority election effort, as they are likely to devote considerable effort for a cause. But the same antipathy to government is not widespread enough to inspire a majority of Canadians.
Compare the firewall to a liberal view espoused by the Father of Canadian Liberalism, Sir Wilfred Laurier. His words, uttered in a speech on June 26, 1877, are eerily relevant today.
"For my part, I am one of those who think that always and everywhere in human beings, there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up and new forces to be developed. ... Our means are limited but our nature is perfectible and we have the infinite for our arena. ... Where there is compression, there will be explosion, violence and ruin. I do not excuse revolutions. But I am less inclined to cast responsibility on those who carry them out than on those who provoke them by their blind obstinacy...you wish to organize Catholics into one party, without other bond, without other basis than common religion; have you not reflected that by the very fact, you will organize the Protestant politicians into a single party and then, you throw the door open to war, a religious war, the most terrible of all wars."
Laurier's words send a veritable chill down the spine of those committed to the role of government as a force for good.
Neo-cons sense a different chill, that of the long arm of government, interfering in their libertarian freedoms.
Harper's census moves set the stage for a diminution in government's ability to be involved in ordinary lives. The census changes actually limit the capacity of government to make clear choices for the common good.
If statistics on the living standard of aboriginal people, visible minorities and francophones outside Quebec are no longer kept, how can government craft good social policy? If the division of household labour is no longer quantified, how will decisions about child care support and poverty reduction be shaped?
The long-term effect of the census changes will be to hinder successive governments in the construction of effective, collective social policy. Any opposition worth its salt should make the restoration of the census a primary electoral pledge.
For the followers of Laurier, the census question is clear. Is government a force for good or evil? In a country that still reveres medicare, the answer should be obvious.
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and deputy prime minister.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
