We still have no reason to trust Stephen Harper

January 8, 2006

While the most likely outcome of the election is still a Liberal minority, Paul Martin’s weak performance and Harper’s unexpectedly positive campaign mean the situation is volatile. In case people get complacent and forgetful re: Harper, we need to give them a friendly reminder of who he is and what he stands for.

The message:

• “It would be tempting to vote for Stephen Harper if the only factor in deciding were a list of policy pronouncements. But we have to balance what Harper has said in the last three weeks with what he has said and done over a period of 17 years. I just don’t trust this man. He has given no explanation for his complete about-turn on a dozen policy areas.”
  
  
• Stephen Harper’s sudden transformation from a “small government” zealot to a “big government” advocate is just too much to believe.
  
  
• For fifteen years Stephen Harper attacked medicare and even worked for the National Citizens’ Coalition which was founded to fight public medicare. For him to now say he opposes the privatization of medicare is simply not credible. In the absence of any explanation of this dramatic about-face, we shouldn’t accept it. It’s too fishy/suspicious/self-serving/much to ask...
  
  
• How can we possibly accept that Stephen Harper is suddenly concerned about Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic - he wants patrols to keep an eye on US submarines - when for his whole political life he has worshipped all things American.
  
  
• Stephen Harper has stated in the recent past that he will sell parts of the CBC and/or commercialize them and implied big budget cuts. Is he still planning on selling off one of Canada’s most important public institutions?
  
  
• So Stephen Harper is suddenly pro-Canadian. I recall that he told the National Post (Dec. 8 2000) that “Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status…” When and why did he change his mind? Or did he?
  
  
• I haven’t heard much from Mr Harper on human rights. He told BC Report News magazine, on January 11, 1999, that "Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." Does he still believe this? If not, what changed his mind?
  
  
• Stephen Harper’s child care program is consistent with what he said some years ago about universal social programs. He boasted about the Reform Party’s influence in Parliament: "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…” That is why he wants to simply give money to parents to spend on child care - attempting to bribe people with their own money but avoiding a universal, high quality, national child care system.
  
  (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)
  
  
• Remember the Red Book of broken promises drafted by Paul Martin for the 1993 election? It sounded wonderful - and people voted for it. Now we have the equivalent from Stephen Harper. The Conservatives and Liberals will say and do anything to get power.

« back to index