A deeply flawed argument has slipped into the national election conversation.
It goes like this: there isn’t much policy difference between front-runners Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre, so it really comes down to who can best handle Donald Trump.
True, handling the U.S. president is job one and polls show Carney more trusted on this file. But the first part of the argument — that the two men have similar policies — is fundamentally wrong and dangerously misleading.
In fact, the policy differences between Prime Minister Carney and Conservative leader Poilievre are huge.
The media is highlighting superficial similarities — both men propose cutting the bottom tax rate and cancelling the carbon tax — while downplaying the huge gulf between their very different visions for the country.
Carney’s vision fits broadly within the “social contract” traditionally accepted by Canadian Liberals and Progressive Conservatives — that taxes should be progressive and should pay for social programs benefitting all Canadians.
It’s not clear exactly where Carney stands on this broad spectrum — how much progressivity he wants in the tax system and how much generosity in social programs — but he clearly accepts the basic concept.
Carney’s views are also in line with the traditional Canadian support for strong government — although Canadian governments have been weakened in recent years due to privatization.
This trend toward privatization will have to be reversed, if we’re going to be strong enough to withstand the Trump threat. Carney’s plan to revive the postwar strategy of government building affordable housing is a start.
By contrast, Poilievre is an anti-government extremist whose views are rooted in the radical libertarian economic vision — associated with U.S. economist Milton Friedman — which favours limited government, with a greatly expanded role for the market and corporate sector.
So, in responding to Trump, Poilievre’s main solution is bigger tax cuts for Canadians — which would further weaken the Canadian government, making Canadians more reliant on the marketplace.
Poilievre’s commitment to minimalist government is profound and enduring; it’s been the central focus and defining feature of his life. Mark Bourrie illustrates this well in Ripper, his new biography of the Conservative leader.
Poilievre became immersed in right-wing politics as a teenager when his mother, conservative activist Marlene Poilievre, took him to political meetings and sent him to seminars at the radical, right-wing Fraser Institute.
And, after tendinitis sidelined Poilievre from school sports, the lonely teen spent his formative years in the backrooms of Alberta’s budding, ultra-conservative protest movement, where he stood out for his ability to deliver snappy slogans during cold calls to voters.
“Poilievre is a man who was an outlier when his intellect and personality formed …,” writes Bourrie. “Poilievre’s intellect was locked in when he was a teenager, when he read the sociopathic rants of Ayn Rand and the cruel economic philosophy of Milton Friedman.”
But Poilievre is smart enough to know that, outside Alberta, most Canadians want more from government. So he avoids the subject, focusing instead on side issues like the carbon tax.
But, every now and then, he gives us a glimpse of his true vision for Canada. If only the media would pay attention!
In unscripted comments at a campaign stop at a Vancouver gas station about a year ago, Poilievre said:
“I’m very hesitant to spend taxpayers’ money on anything other than the core services of roads, bridges, police, military, border security and a safety net for those who can’t provide for themselves. That’s common sense. Let’s bring it home.”
Not a word about health care, education or pensions. This is the harsh, austere Canada envisioned by Poilievre — government limited to policing, defence, and a bare-bones safety net for the very poor.
It’s a vision Poilievre’s mother instilled in him, that the Fraser Institute nurtured and that he’s come alarmingly close to inflicting on Canadians — who mostly have no inkling that that’s what he’s all about.
This article was originally published in the Toronto Star.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
