Canada's Future

You may or may not have noticed that a large portion of the criticism on this blog is directed at the Liberal Party of Canada. You might be wondering why I am so hard on them. Though I have raised a litany of complaints, I can summarize my position as follows; I believe that the future of Canada as a united and fully democratic country depends on an immediate change of government.

Canadian Democracy
The fundamental purpose of the democratic process is to hold politicians accountable. In both the French and English debates, the federal party leaders were asked whether they would enact legislation that would force politicians by law to keep their promises. This is not what is needed. What ought to keep politicians to their word is the knowledge that if they betray, they will be voted out of office. Meanwhile, it has become increasingly clear after all of the incidents of scandal and mismanagement that the Liberals have failed to uphold the third tenet of the constitution which requires "Peace, Order, and Good Government." Most notably, John Gomery's report has censured the Liberal government for its "culture of entitlement." If they are re-elected despite their misbehaviour, it sets a terrible precedent. Liberal politicians will understand that the public is willing to tolerate corruption. They will understand that the government can rule with impunity.

The Liberal Party has been in power for 12 years now. The question that Canadians should ask themselves is whether or not they want Canada to become a one-party state.

Canadian Unity
There is no denying that the sponsorship scandal has done a great deal of damage to federalism in Québec. A poll by Léger Marketing in May 2005 found that support for Québec separatism hit 54%, up from 40% in 2003 (See Graph). In the 2004 election, the separatist Bloc Québecois won 54 out of Québec's 75 seats. They did this even before anyone had heard any of the testimony from the Gomery Inquiry. Now that Justice Gomery has confirmed everyone's worst suspicions, the Bloc are sure to win even more seats this time around. In spite of this, Paul Martin has declared to Québeckers that they should consider this election as a referendum. It is a foolish and dangerous remark for him to make since he is sure to lose. Paul Martin offers Québeckers nothing more than a choice between corruption and separation, to the detriment of Canadian federalism.

Entrusting the Fire Extinguisher to the Pyromaniac
The Liberals claim to be the only one who can keep Canada united. It is an absurd proposition considering the fact that they are the root cause of the current resurgence in separatist support. They also claim that they will clean up politics and restore accountability. Their record on this is dismal. This last session of parliament saw the democratic deficit widen as opposition days were cancelled and rescheduled at the government's whim and as political cronies were appointed to the senate. The Liberals could not even get through the last week of their tenure without scandal; the RCMP is now investigating the possibility of illegal insider trading after a flurry of trade activity occured hours before the finance minister made a surprise announcement on income trusts, causing a spike in the market the next day. Clearly, the Liberals are not able to reform themselves, nor can they be trusted to do so.

My conclusions
So who will I be voting for? Certainly not the Liberals. Not this time. My opinion of the Liberal party was cemented last spring after witnessing their crass behaviour during a crisis of confidence (I repeatedly refer readers back to my article, I Hope You Were Paying Attention). The Liberals need to take a break from governing so that they can get their act together. The other three parties, on the hand, are all honest and respectable. But I am at complete philosophical odds with the socialist NDP and with the separatist Bloc, who anyhow are not running in my riding. So by a process of elimination, the Conservative Party won my vote, though, until recently, I wasn't sure whether I would be casting this vote with a smile or a cringe. It all depended on what Stephen Harper's priorities were. In July, I outlined exactly what I thought these priorities should be (See Use the Summer Wisely). I argued that Mr. Harper should stop pandering to social conservatives and should focus on economic policy and democratic reform.

Now, three weeks into the election campaign, I have decided that I will cast my vote enthusiastically. The Conservatives have been presenting a positive, cohesive vision for Canada's future, unlike last election where their focus was on why Canadians should not vote for the Liberals. Also, I am now convinced that Stephen Harper has his priorities straight. He announced that the first piece of legislation that a Conservative government would pass is the Federal Accountability Act, which, among other things, will impose tight new rules on political fundraising and will give more power to independent watchdogs of parliament like the auditor general and the ethics commissioner. He has also been speaking frequently about setting up a process by which senators will be democratically elected before the Prime Minister can appoint them to the senate, as opposed to the way it is now, where the PM can appoint whoever he wants. Reforms like these are essential for restoring credibility to politics in Ottawa.

On the other hand, I am now convinced that the social conservative pandering that I worried about is more talk than substance. In the English Debate, Harper declared unequivocally that he will not use the notwithstanding clause to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. Thus, his proposal to reopen a can of worms with another vote on the issue will amount to little more than pouting, since there would be no other legal way for him to overrule something designated by the Supreme Court as a minority right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Renewal of Democracy
My official endorsement: electing a Conservative government on January 23rd will have a long-lasting positive effect on Canadian democracy, even after the Conservatives leave office. On the one hand, voting the Liberals out of office will teach politicians that if they breach the public trust, the public will hold them to account. On the other, the Conservative Federal Accountability Act will provide transparancy that will prevent corruption and breaches of public trust from occuring in the first place, and an elected senate will decentralize power from the Prime Minister's Office and add a check and balance to the equation of government.

Democracy requires consistent maintenance or it will fall apart. I urge you to think long and hard before casting your vote. The future of Canada's democracy depends on it.

Hot Air

Paul Martin, in his capacity as Prime Minister, recently hosted the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Montreal. He had this to say to countries who had not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

"To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it."

And it was thus that the saintly Mr. Martin censured the petty Americans on their moral inferiority. Certainly, one of the biggest problems with the Kyoto accord is that the world's largest polluter has not ratified it (See Footnote**), but how on earth did Mr. Martin have the gall to say what he said? According to recent U.N. report, emissions in industrialized countries fell by an average of 5.9 percent between 1990 and 2003. Meanwhile, Canada's emissions increased by 24.2 percent! What moral ground was Martin standing on when he decided to lecture the Americans, who had a comparatively miniscule increase of 13.3 percent?

The Bush administration was obviously needled by the remarks. The White House's senior advisor on the environment, James Connaughton, expressed the administration's displeasure to Canada's ambassador, Frank McKenna.
"Any hopes of drawing Washington into the process have been dashed."

Today, Mr. Martin continued to show just how adept (inept) he is at convincing the American government to reduce emissions. He decided to hold a joint press conference with former president Bill Clinton on the issue of climate change. Said Stephen Harper, "...Mr. Martin is one president behind."

The whole episode is shameful. Paul Martin absurdly pretends to lead the world on the issue of climate change, all the while ignoring his party's dismal record on the issue during 12 years in power. And instead of constructivly engaging the Americans, he is trying to score cheap political points by showing himself to be confronting George Bush. I am no fan of the president, but he is the elected representative of the American people, and Canada's Prime Minister needs to deal with him as such. Unfortunately, Paul Martin choses to behave childishly, and, as a result, U.S.-Canada relations have needlessly hit a new low.


** The Americans are perhaps justified in their aversion to Kyoto, for it is a terribly flawed agreement. Countries are deemed to be either "developing" or "developed"; "developing" countries - like China, the world's second biggest pollluter - have no obligations to reduce emissions. On the other hand, I completely disagree with the Americans who reject Kyoto on the grounds that they do not believe the science. But I digress...

Pyromania

New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord had this to say regarding Prime Minister Paul Martin's declaration that this coming election will be a "referendum election" for Quebeckers:

"[Paul Martin is] approaching separatists in Quebec like a pyromaniac."

Personally, I prefer the 'chicken running around with its head cut off' metaphor, but that's not too far off. What's the point of declaring this as a "referendum election" when the Liberals are sure to lose even more of their seats in Quebec? Mr. Lord succinctly summed up the Liberal absurdity:

"I do not accept the proposition of the Liberals that only they can keep this country together when you realize that they're like pyromaniacs with the matches and gasoline in their hands. They lit the fire and say, 'Oh, let us put it out!'"

Faded Stripes

Paul Martin's reputation, upon replacing Jean Chrétien as Prime Minister in 2003, was that of a competent stewart of the public's finances, having presided over the federal government's return to balanced budgets as Finance Minister. What is left of that legacy now? If there is a disconnect between the reputation of Finance Minister Paul Martin and Prime Minister Paul Martin, it is that the Prime Minister has lost all sense of fiscal prudence. Program spending increased by a whopping 15.1 percent last year, after an increase of 5.8 percent the year before. I am hesitant to speculate what the figure will be next year, once expenses from the NDP budget amendment are factored into the equation along with the Liberals' regular planned spending increases.

Today, Martin made his first announcement of the election campaign. He promised to make his national childcare program a permanent part of the Canadian benefits system by committing $6 billion from 2009 through to 2015, which will be in addition to the $5 billion already promised for the program for 2004 to 2009. This is exactly what Canada needs: another expensive social program that will be an engine for growth - not economic growth, but spending growth.

Paul Martin cites Quebec's provincial childcare program as a model for his nationwide, institutionalized daycare system, so it is instructive to compare Martin's future plans with Quebec's present reality. Quebec spent $1.4 billion this year on its childcare program, while Martin's proposal would spend $1 billion per year on a nationwide program. No, that is not a typo. He would spend less on a national program than it currently costs for the same program to be implemented in a single province. This implies one of two things; either the program will be woefully underfunded, or the provinces are expected to pick up most of the tab. If the latter is true, then Martin's plan would be putting added financial pressures on the provinces who - with the exception of Alberta - are all already in deficit. In any event, the former is also likely to be true as well. Quebec spent only $297 million on the program in 1997. The CBC reports that even after the wild growth in Quebec's expenditure towards it, "...still the program is seen as underfunded."

At best, this proposal will create a permanent sinkhole for public money, if it succeeds in creating anything at all. If he has not done so already, Paul Martin the Prime Minister has officially shed what was once seen as Paul Martin the Finance Minister's greatest strength.

News Item: NDP will not close private clinics

Yesterday Jack Layton, self-declared slayer of private healthcare, said that his party would not act to close private health clinics that already exist, it would merely ensure that they do not receive any public money.

I have to admit that I am confused. Is this a sign that the Supreme Court's Chaoulli decision is starting to permeate through national politics?

Layton's Tough Rhetoric

Jack Layton has recently suggested that Canada should retaliate against the American tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber by imposing levies on Canadian exports of oil and gas. I, for one, think that this is a stupid idea.

Here is why Canada should not start a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber:

Reason #1: We would lose.
Exports account for roughly one third of Canada's GDP, with about 85% of exports going to the United States. In 2004, bilateral trade between the two countries (i.e. total imports plus total exports) was equal to 43% of Canada's GDP, compared to 3.8% of America's GDP. Who do you think could hold out longer in a trade stalemate?

Reason #2: Even if we didn't lose, we would still lose.
Suppose that after a long protracted battle, America relented and removed tariffs on softwood. Would the money regained for the softwood lumber industry negate the billions of lost revenue for the oil and gas industry caused by artificially raising prices for those south of the border? That's extremely unlikely. Even if somehow it did make up for it (it won't, but let's say), do we want to risk cutting off Western Canada's prime revenue source? As if they were not alienated enough already...

The Ridiculousness Dissipates

During her speech at the National Press Gallery Dinner in October, newly-installed Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, leaned over the podium with a slightly inebriated look on her face and described what she had told Adrienne Clarkson after being sworn in. "Darling, I'm the Governor General now, not you."

Of course, Jean's relaxed demeanour can be attributed the forum where she spoke. The National Press Gallery Dinner is an annual forum for politicians to poke fun at themselves and each other. As Stephen Harper described it during his speech, it's a night where "people who aren't funny tell jokes to people with no sense of humour." Despite Harper's quip, the general consensus was that she was pretty funny. The lighthearted mood was a far cry from the tense days of summer, when Michaëlle Jean and her husband Daniel Lafond were facing relentless accusations of ties to Quebec separatists and even FLQ members (See my aritcle, The Ridiculousness Festers).

A week before the dinner, Jean had given her first public interview as Governor General to the National Post. In the interview, she said that her daughter was a source of strength during the difficult period of harsh criticism that followed the announcement of her nomination. Indeed, she must have felt isolated as a clip from 1991 circulated on the evening news showing her toasting to Quebec's independence.

So what changed between then and now that cleared the air? In Jean's inaugural speech, she spoke of Canadian unity, saying that the time of Canada's "two solitudes" has ended. But she never gave an assurance that she did not vote to break up the country in the 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum. In the National Post interview:

"You want to know how I voted in '95? [Pauses] In the voting booth, like every Quebecer, this is how I voted. As a citizen, with clear ideas about where she belongs and who she is and what she wants. That's all. And there was no way that I was going to just break that fundamental principle of secrecy of vote. It's something that's very personal to everyone. And it's a civic responsibility."

So what changed that made the controversy go away?

The answer is, of course, nothing. The public simply lost interest because there was nothing that anyone could have done about the appointment anyways. Paul Martin could have introduced Lucien Bouchard as the next Governor General and it would have been so. No checks. No balances.

Useless Tidbits

In honour of the shining exuberance Stephen Harper is striving to project during this campaign, journalists have decided to name his airplane "Mr. Happy's Flying Circus", a reference to the 1970's British comedy series, Monty Python's Flying Circus. BEWILDERBEEST INC. fully endorses this nomenclature. In fact, the name for this site is borrowed from a rather silly sketch about cats...

New Members @ BEWILDERBEEST

It is with great pleasure that I am announcing two new members to BEWILDERBEEST, just in time for the latest election. "The Contrarian", a.k.a. my friend Jack who is also in Toronto, and "Pax Historica", a.k.a. my friend Joseph in Ottawa. As always, I will be posting as "Sgt Peppers".

-Danny

One More For the Road: The Latest Liberal Scandal

Sensing that the end was nigh before this Monday's vote on the Conservative no-confidence motion, the Liberals took care to make the most of what was left of their tenure in office. They made spending announcements at a rate of a billion dollars a day, most of which was not included in any of the 3 budgets from the last six months (i.e. the original budget, the NDP amendment, and finance minister Ralph Goodale's economic update from this month), and managed once again to mire themselves in scandal. I refer to Wednesday's sudden finale to the suspense surrounding the fate of income trusts.

An income trust is a form of investment containing income-producing assets, and whose shares are traded publicly like stocks. Income trusts have been popular because they can provide a steady stream of revenue for the trustees and because they are tax-free. In September, Ralph Goodale made investors nervous by announcing a review of the tax-status of income trusts. As late as two weeks ago, Goodale was telling the media to expect results of the review to be announced in January. But on Wednesday, November 23rd at 6 p.m., Goodale unexpectedly announced that no new taxes would be imposed on income trusts. The next day saw a huge spike in the S&P/TSX Capped Trust Index as the cloud over the heads of income trust investors was removed.

The whole episode seemed like another example of incompetent bungling by the Liberals, unnecessarily skewing market forces by loudly toying with the idea of a new tax. Upon closer inspection, there may be more at play than mere negligance. As reported in the National Post, the Capped Trust Index was up 3.6% for the week by the close of trading on Wednesday, before Goodale's announcement. There was no news to account for investors' sudden enthusiasm, yet whoever was wise enough to purchase shares that week profitted immensely from Thursday's spike. This raises the possibility that Goodale's office may have leaked information about the announcement, tipping off some investors. The RCMP is now investigating to determine whether there was any illegal insider trading.

It is befitting that the Liberal government should expire in such circumstances. Many pundits point out that the opposition can only carry anger over the sponsorship scandal for so long, especially since it occured under a different leader. This viewpoint errs in assuming that Paul Martin has run a clean ship, and that the sponsorship scandal is the only blemish on an otherwise clean record. Evidence suggests that this isn't the case. For example, there is the CSL scandal which I wrote about a while ago. Not to mention the Gun Registry scandal, the Dingwall affair, and several crony appointments to the senate.

Canada deserves better.

News Item: Grewal Not Seeking Re-election

Gurmant Grewal, the Conservative MP who secretly taped converations with Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff Tim Murphy, will not be seeking re-election in the riding of Newton-North Delta in British Columbia. The Grewal tapes, as they are now known, were recorded in the run up to the confidence vote last spring that the Liberals were narrowly able to survive thanks to Belinda Stronach, who defected from the Conservatives in exchange for a Cabinet seat (the tie vote on the motion had to be broken by the House Speaker, who voted to continue the government).

On the tapes, Dosanjh and Murphy are heard negotiating with Grewal over the reward he could expect for defecting. The incident tarnished the reputation of everyone involved -- not only Dosanjh and Murphy who were caught trying to bribe an opposition MP, but Grewal as well. Grewal claims that he was just pretending to go along with the negotiations in order to gather incriminating evidence on the Liberals, that the whole thing was just a sting operation. The more likely explanation is that he was genuinely interested in accepting a bribe, just not happy with what was being offered.

So in response to today's news that Grewal is retiring from politics, I say "Good riddance." I'll say the same to Dosanjh, Murphy and Stronach when their political careers fade into the sunset.