Good article. I fully agree with it:
A Conservative majority serves Canada's needs
National Post Editorial Board: A Conservative majority serves Canada's needs
Posted: October 08, 2008, 9:30 AM by Kelly McParland
Editorial, Full Comment, canadian election
Last month, Stéphane Dion called the upcoming federal election ?among the most important in the history of our country.? He may be right. Next week?s vote will determine whether Canada?s tax system is overhauled through the imposition of a massive levy on carbon-based fuels; the nature of our continuing presence in Afghanistan; and how our government will respond to the historic meltdown unfolding in financial markets. Faced with these high stakes, we believe, Canada would be best served if Stephen Harper?s Conservative government were to receive a second mandate, this time in majority form.
We have no illusions that Mr. Harper?s government has been perfect. It?s decision to tax income trusts, in particular, stands as a bald-faced betrayal of its earlier promise on the issue. Moreover, Mr. Harper did not make any serious attempt to clean up some of the more appalling residue left behind by previous governments -- the gun registry, the gag law, Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. We also have been disillusioned by the Conservatives? continual spending increases, Mr. Harper?s flouting of his own fixed election date, and the petty, partisan spirit that often has pervaded Parliament under the Tories? watch.
But given the huge range of other activities undertaken in the course of leading Canada, it must be said that Mr. Harper has governed the country well overall. He has stuck by Canada?s mission in Afghanistan, provided sound stewardship for the economy (notwithstanding the inevitable buffeting we are now taking thanks to Wall Street?s meltdown), managed the Quebec file well, returned Canada-U.S. relations to their normal level of amity, lowered taxes, and implemented a number of welcome tweaks to our criminal justice system.
Most importantly of all, Mr. Harper has avoided the temptation to impose any large-scale Trudeauvian social-engineering schemes on the country, of the type the Liberals seem to cook up every few years. Yesterday?s Tory platform, largely a rehash of previous announcements, is admirable stingy. It contains no multi-billion-dollar pharmacare program, no federally micromanaged daycare, no new National Energy Program. And for that, Canadians should be thankful.
This brings us to the main reason why we cannot endorse the Liberals. Putting aside Stéphane Dion?s reflexive leftward tilt on everything from foreign affairs to social issues, his ?Green Shift? carbon-tax scheme is, by itself, enough to persuade us that he is the wrong man to be running this country. As our banking and financial-services sectors become strained by the worldwide credit crunch, this country is increasingly dependant on our oil and gas sector to sustain us through rough waters. Yet these are exactly the industries Mr. Dion wants to soak.
We also are not impressed by Mr. Dion?s plan -- and general attitude -- in regard to Canada?s economic challenges. In recent days, he truly has sounded like a hysteric, trying to convince Canadians that our relatively sound economy is on the brink of a cataclysmic depression. There is no evidence of this: Indeed, the latest economic numbers on jobs and growth are excellent. And as a stack of reports from our major banks attest, the fundamentals of our real estate market bear no comparison to America?s sub-prime mess. Indeed, the only thing that could tip this country into full-blown depression is wide-scale investor panic of the type Mr. Dion seems intent on fomenting.
Nor are we impressed with Mr. Dion?s grandly announced economic plan -- which is not a plan at all, but rather a pledge to consult with the country?s leading economists, and do as they say. Consultation of this nature is something that Mr. Harper?s government -- like all governments -- does on a regular basis. The former professor?s take on this issue seems to betray a basic ignorance of how government works, not to mention a disturbing penchant for outsourcing his own leadership.
In this regard, we are reminded of Mr. Dion?s handling of former Winnipeg-area Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes, who advocated the bizarre and hateful notion that the U.S. and Israeli governments were in on the 9/11 attacks. Rather than act on principle and sack her at once, Mr. Dion initially announced that he had referred the issue to an ethnic lobby group -- the Canadian Jewish Congress ? and would do as they instructed. It was a small but stunning abdication of true leadership, and a microcosm for why most Canadians, including members of this editorial board, don?t believe he has the right stuff to lead a country.
As for the three other parties, fairly obvious deficiencies prevent us from endorsing them:
? The Bloc Québécois seeks to break up the country ? and is immediately disqualified on that basis.
? The Greens have an energetic leader in Elizabeth May. But she has already endorsed Mr. Dion for prime minister. Given that much of her party?s platform is similar, if not identical, to Mr. Dion?s, her Green party essentially resembles nothing more than an off-label Liberal subsidiary.
? The NDP have made a strong push in this campaign. And when this editorial board recently sat down with Jack Layton, we saw why: The NDP leader is a charismatic, articulate spokesman for Canadian unions and affiliated leftists. But his prescription for Canada -- an increased tax load on corporations -- is precisely wrong. We are also disturbed by his party?s? tolerance for a Quebec candidate with links to Islamists, and a B.C. candidate with Lesley Hughes-like ideas about the 9/11 attacks.
Like all elections, this one presents Canadians with a choice between imperfect options. But on balance, the Conservatives are clearly the best choice for this country. We urge our readers to vote accordingly on Oct. 14.
Facebook
Twitter