Use the Summer Wisely

The Conservative Party can end Liberal hegemony by promoting the right policies
As has been well reported in recent weeks, Stephen Harper plans to use the summer recess to cook up a new image for himself while touring the barbecue circuit. Though Liberal fear-mongering has certainly taken its toll on Harper, the Conservative leader has far less of a need for an image makeover than his party does. Even after countless Liberal gaffes, the Conservative Party has thus far failed to make significant advances in the polls.

To borrow an oft-used phrase, Liberal corruption will only take them so far. To win the next election, the Conservative Party needs to present itself as a valid alternative to the Liberal Party. Canadian voters disinclined to vote for Layton-brand socialism need to be presented with a "positive" choice. In Quebec in particular, the choice for federalist voters should be better than a choice between corruption and separation.

It is fully within the Conservative Party's grasp to change the electoral landscape before a fall or winter election. Hopefully, by now, Mr. Harper has figured out that defining the Conservatives as the party adamantly opposed to gay marriage is a losing strategy. It is especially misguided for a party that needs to make breakthroughs in Ontario and Quebec in order to have any hope of winning the next election. Rather than focusing on a polarizing issue such as gay marriage, the Conservative platform should make itself accessible to swing voters while consolidating the party's electoral base. This can be done by exploiting the two biggest chinks in the Liberals' pockmarked armor: the democratic deficit and fiscal irresponsibility.

Lead the Renewal of Democracy
The democratic deficit is an issue that irks voters across many partisan lines - hardcore Liberal supporters excluded. Judging from the testimony heard at the inquiry, there is a very good chance that Judge Gomery's forthcoming report on the sponsorship scandal will be very damaging to the Liberals. In addition, the Liberals' farcically dubious conduct during this past session of parliament has cost them their credibility as democrats (See my article, I Hope You Were Paying Attention). Rather than presenting themselves as merely more trustworthy than the corruption-ridden Liberal Party, the Conservatives should - as a central pillar of their election platform - propose changes that would restore the battered system of checks and balances.

Ideally, the different branches of government (i.e. the House of Commons, the Senate and the judiciary branch) should act as checks and balances against one another and against the ruling cabinet. In reality, this insurance is sorely lacking; too much power is centralized in the Prime Minister's Office. Once elected, the Prime Minister can rule as a virtual autocrat. He has the power to appoint senators and judiciary officials (not to mention the personal power appoint the Governer General and to decide who will fill more than two thousand other federal positions).

The Conservatives should propose policies that would restore independence to the senate and the judiciary. They should emphasize the long-term mainstay of Conservative policy, to have senators elected rather than appointed. They should also make proposals that would make the process of judicial nominations more transparent. One such proposal, for example, could require that judicial nominees be approved by both the House and the Senate. (An interesting article on judicial reform can be found here.)

An assortment of other proposals can be made as well. For example, to prevent possible incidents of bribery (like those involving Belinda Stronach and nearly Gurmant Grewal), defecting MPs would only be allowed sit as independents, while those wishing to cross the floor would first have to submit to a byelection. Another proposal would be to hold elections at fixed dates rather than at the most opportune moment for the Prime Minister.

All these reforms can be presented as a coherent package that would dramatically improve the accountability of government. Such a package would be broadly appealing to a wide range of voters and would provide a firm basis for making inroads in Quebec.

Cut the Government Back Down to Size
While it is important to broaden the appeal of the party, it is also necessary to consolidate the core group of party supporters. Certainly, towards the end of the last parliamentary session, the Conservative Party was reaching out to its social conservative base. But the problem with pandering to the socially conservative base of support is that it tends to repel as many voters as it draws in. It especially deters young voters in Ontario (such as myself) or voters in socially-liberal Quebec.

A far better way to consolidate the party's base of support is to appeal to the fiscal conservatives and advocates of small government. As the second major pillar of their platform, the Conservatives should propose changes that would reduce the burgeoning size of government and devolve some of the constitutionally allocated powers back to the provinces. By advocating these types of reforms, the Conservative party can effectively distinguish itself from Liberal policy.

Under the Liberal party, fiscal restraint has been thrown into the wind. Yes, balanced budgets were an important achievement (though they are no longer certain after the Liberal spending spree this past year), but that is only half of the story. Under Liberal rule, spending increases have far outpaced inflation and population growth combined, rising some 20 percent in the last five years. Balanced budgets are important, but this type of spending growth is unsustainable and unnecessary.

The Conservative Party should emphasize policies that would carefully reverse the trend of wild spending growth while maintaining a balanced budget. A great example could be found in the Conservative proposal from the 2004 election platform to gradually replace corporate subsidies with corporate tax cuts. This type of approach is the responsible one - entirely unlike President Bush’s unaffordable tax cuts - where cuts in federal funding correspond directly in cuts in the tax burden. Another good Conservative proposal of this type would be to replace a federally run childcare program with a program of tax cuts for families so that parents can decide for themselves what is best for their children.

Also, the Conservatives should advocate giving power back to the provinces where it is due. It is, after all, the provinces that are constitutionally responsible for delivering social programs. Rather than having the federal government negotiate individual deals with each province for cash handovers, the federal government should devolve some tax powers back to the provinces. These types of policies would surely enthuse the small government advocates but would not deter potential swing voters - devolving powers to the provinces would not mean an end to the Canadian welfare state; rather, it would accommodate a range of views across the provinces as to how generous the Canadian welfare state should be.

A New Look at Federalism
All of this adds up to a bright and refreshing vision for Canada's future. Right now, Canadian federalism is showing its strains. The West is still alienated, Quebec's separatist movement is resurfacing, and Ontario is clamouring for a fairer shair of the budgetary pie. But this state of affairs does not have to continue indefinitely. The Conservatives can offer Canada a better option than clumsy Liberal statism; they can offer Canadians a new federalism, one that is accountable, flexible, and fair.

It is all up to Stephen Harper now. He should not get too preoccupied with dispensing hamburgers. He must position the Conservative ship so that it can start to win the battle of ideas. It's not too late.

Sanity Prevails

There's a fine line between legitimate strike action and blackmail. Thankfully, recent court decisions have prevented the line from blurring.

The court decisions that I refer to concern two recent incidents of labour dispute. On June 20th, taxi and limousine drivers involved in a dispute with the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) blockaded roads leading up to Toronto's Pearson International Airport. Traffic on Highway 427 ground to a halt as outraged travellers were forced to get out of their cars and walk several kilometers - suitcases in hand - to catch flights. The other incident involves about a thousand workers from Hydro One, the company that handles provincial energy distribution, on strike since early June. On June 27th, the striking workers picketed at the Nanticoke coal-fired power plant. Employees of the generating station were blocked from going to work, forcing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to close down six of the 4000 megawatt station's 500 megawatt units.

After the first day of the airport strike, the GTAA was able to obtain a 24-hour court injunction that barred the picketers from obstructing other motorists, on the grounds that the obstruction was a danger to public safety. A deal was later struck between the GTAA and the drivers to allow the demonstrations to take place within designated areas of the airport. In the case of the Hydro One strikers, OPG obtained an injunction against the picketing at Nanticoke. Today, an Ontario judge banned the Hydro One workers from blocking entrances to any generating plant in the province, citing the risk to the entire power system.

In both these cases, I am glad to see that sanity has prevailed. The right to strike - that is, the right to withdraw one's labour - is an essential protection against potential abuses by employers. It is a right that should be enshrined in law. The right to withdraw one's labour is, however, the only thing that the right to strike implies. An employee only has the right to withdraw his or her own labour, not to disrupt someone else's. Regardless of the maladies that afflict the taxi and limo drivers and the Hydro One workers, they do not have the right to harry other workers who have no part in the quarrel (namely the employees who run Pearson International Airport or those who run the Nanticoke generating plant). Attempting to garner attention for their cause by unjustifiably inflicting major inconveniences upon the general public amounts to little more than thuggery.

As Sir Wilfred Laurier once said, "the rights of each man end precisely at the point where they encroach upon the rights of others."