The chattering classes and pundits have been fixated on the idea that Harper is shifting Canada ideologically to the right.  However, there are other more fundamental assumptions that he has already begun to reshape.  Assumptions that are at the very heart of Canada's fabric as a nation.

Ideological influences in many cases are short term.  The character of nations is the result of history and rarely changes with any one government.  The views of Canadians on issues are currently colored more by the tenuous economic situation than a hard ideological shift.  Even the most profligate spender will moderate their personal behavior when faced with a job at risk - but will return to his or her core character over time.  The same holds true for Canadians and politics: when faced with economic uncertainty, it should not be a surprise that Canadians currently are more likely to embrace cuts and restraint than in the past.

While Harper's ideological influence will likely be fleeting in terms of historical impact, at this juncture he can have a long term impact that redefines the nature of two fundamental relationships that have shaped Canada since Confederation:  our relationship the United States and the relationship between federal and provincial governments.

It should not be a surprise that a Prime Minister with life experiences in Ontario and Alberta should consider the United States as a natural economic partner.  At the start of the Harper mandate, it was clear that his view of Canada and the world were still colored by the belief that America was a key part of our prosperity and strategy on the world stage.  Fast forward to today and we see a Harper who is respectful of our historic friendship with the US but is looking towards Asia with growing interest in diversifying our market for exports and reducing our reliance on the US. Whether it be his views on opening Asian markets to Canadian energy through the Northern Gateway Pipeline or his work to get Canada inside the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP), we are witnessing a deliberate attempt to reorient Canada's focus more toward the Pacific.  This is in stark contrast to Canada's traditional historic focus on the North Atlantic and our southern neighbor.

Looking domestically, the Harper’s interpretation of the federal role within confederation seems to be one where -- in a number of policy areas that profoundly touch the lives of Canadians -- the federal government is a minority shareholder.  It is interested in ensuring that its investment is well spent and produces results.  The federal approach to the latest Health Accord is a case in point.  Harper has carefully and strategically engaged - not leading the charge for healthcare transformation but setting clear financial boundaries for federal engagement.  In this paradigm the federal government is not a leader but more of a passive steward.  Past Conservative and Liberal federal governments have strived to engage in self defined nation-building initiatives such as universal healthcare or unemployment insurance even if they were areas led by the provinces.  However, this government appears committed to a vision of Canada which is more of a federation.

Whether these changes are good or bad is beyond the point - they represent structural departures from the past and set Canada on a new course.  Harper's most lasting legacy may not relate to ideology but the remaking and reshaping of Canada into a federation of provinces who look beyond the United States for their prosperity and future.

Nik Nanos is the President of Nanos Research, a research associate professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo and the official pollster for CTV News and The Globe and Mail.

The recent round of elections has witnessed a decline in voter turnout. Much has been made of the possible causes, ranging from the increase in high-velocity political mudslinging, through to election fatigue or general ambivalence toward the political menu in terms of leaders and policies.

Whereas the diagnosis may be political disconnectedness, any analysis of possible causes should include a broader look at how Canadians trust their government. To that end, Nanos commissioned some original research on how much Canadians trust government. Canadians were asked to rate their trust scores from 1 to 10, where 1 was no trust at all and 10 was complete trust, on a series of elements including procuring contracts, enforcing regulations, working in the public interest and appointing non-elected public officials.

Canadians give their governments, both provincial and federal, poor or failing grades on almost all the measures. Looking across all the data, on any given trust score, only between seven and fourteen percent of Canadians rate their government with a good trust score of 8, 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale.

In the province of Quebec, one moves from black to pitch black, with lower provincial trust scores compared to other regions. The fact remains, however, that Quebecers trust their provincial government only marginally less compared to Canadians in other parts of Canada. It is not the huge chasm one might expect.

Among Canadians as a whole, trust scores for their governments were weak, but comparatively stronger on factors such as enforcement of government regulations and working in the public interest. However, the question remains as to whether a score of about 5 out of 10 for enforcing government regulations should be considered acceptable or good. Probably not.

One must remember, however, that this is a benchmark. Tracking changes over time will be the true benefit of the research: is trust on the increase or is it on the decline?

If trust in government is one of the canaries in the coal mine in terms of voter engagement, this is one that clearly merits closer scrutiny.

Incumbency, already a powerful force in Canadian politics, is getting a boost on two fronts.

On paper, one would think that long serving governments, ruling in uncertain economic times with a record to defend, would hit turbulence. Every government has a political "best before date".

We are witnessing a combination of structural and short term effects in Canada, as voters are tuned-out of traditional democratic engagement and jittery about the economy.

Whether it was the recent federal election or the provincial elections in Ontario, Manitoba, and PEI -- each showed a decline in voter turnout. The big structural challenge is that alternative democratic engagement are increasingly moving outside of our traditional institutions. Why sign a paper petition or vote when you can instantly join a Facebook Group to register your disdain or support for a political cause? Want to have a chat about politics -- why join a party when you can engage in dialogue with like-minded virtual friends and link to rich content through a news site or political blog? The political hook-up through non-traditional web based platforms is easy, fast and has potential. Not saying everything out there is quality -- but the potential is there.

The end result is that our political parties as facilitators of policy are becoming less relevant. More significantly, voting as an expression of democratic participation is being undermined as more and more voters believe that non-traditional online democratic participation can be fulfilling.

After all, if voters don't think they can make a difference at the ballot box - they might as well look to our virtual democracy where they can cast an idea or view for immediate public exposure, recognition or possible response.

Compound this with economic jitters and you get a short term second factor which helps incumbents. When the economy is in the tank, it's usually time for voters to lash out at incumbents. However, economic limbo -- where things are not great but could be worse - is the messaging sweet spot for any incumbent. Leaders can play on the uncertainty of the future and look to cast change and their opponents as risky alternatives. The overall mood of voters suggests that they act thinking about the relative risks of the choices before them. In this environment, the opportunity for change presents itself, but in the booth the perception of risk tilts the decision in the favor of the incumbent. Staring down at the ballot, voters are likely thinking "I can't believe I'm voting for this guy/gal". But they are. The only exception will likely be incumbent campaigns with glaring political blunders.

So there you have it.

Until the economy either recovers or dives and until our political system truly re-engages voters -- expect the reign of incumbents to continue.

Nik Nanos is the President of Nanos Research, a research associate professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo and the official pollster for CTV News and The Globe and Mail.