Conservatives to Cut Public Funding For Political Parties

It seems that the Conservatives have found a way to turn Canada’s looming deficit to their partisan political advantage. The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Conservatives plan on gutting the $30 million public subsidy to political parties, which allocates $1.95 per vote.

Though the government is likely to tout this as a demonstration of restraint in difficult fiscal circumstances, the real motivation for the cuts is glaringly obvious:

Such a measure would cost the cash-strapped Liberals $7.7-million, the NDP $4.9-million, while the Bloc Québécois would take a $2.6-million hit and the fledgling Green party would be out $1.8-million.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, who won the most votes, stand to lose $10-million.

But proportional to revenues raised last year, the taxpayer subsidy represents 37 per cent of the totals raised by the Tories. That’s far less than the 63 per cent chop for Liberal coffers, 86 per cent for the Bloc and 57 per cent for the NDP. The Greens stand to lose 65 per cent of total revenues.

Any changes to the public financing system should be debated on their own merits. It’s cynical to hide the dissolution of the system amongst a number of other entirely symbolic cuts. Though most of these are designed to stem this government’s tanking credibility as fiscal managers, elimination of the public subsidy is a transparent attempt by the Conservatives to weaken their opponents through manipulation of the electoral financing system. Hopefully the media has jumped the gun on this one, but I have my doubts.

Update: Morton makes a good point here. If public funding is no longer available caps on personal and corporate donations should be removed to compensate for the shortfall. That won’t happen, of course, because it would undermine the advantage this maneuver is sure to grant the Conservatives.

We’re All Keynesians, Again

Or so Mr. Harper appears to be suggesting, as he ponders taking “unprecedented actions to stimulate the faltering economy.”

In other news, APEC says the economic crisis will be over in 18 months because, well, APEC deems it to be so.

Finally, APEC members claim to be chomping at the bit to restart the Doha Round again, so we can look forward to numerous dire prognostications from bicycle theorists following the new talks’ inevitable collapse.

On the plus side, it seems the dinner was exquisite.

Where are the fiscal conservatives?

I’ve long wondered about the disturbing tendency of conservative politicians to abandon their commitment to fiscal conservatism as soon as they enter government. The wildly irresponsible policies of George W Bush and the then Republican Congress are the most obvious examples. Though less extreme, it is now appropriate to ask when the Conservative Party of Canada decided to embrace their own brand of credit card conservatism. As the parliamentary budget officer pointed out today Canada’s looming deficit cannot be attributed to the current economic crisis alone:

Page says the deterioration of the federal government’s financial picture in the first nine months of 2008 is not so much the result of the weakened economy as Flaherty’s policies, particularly the latest reduction in the GST tax and reduced corporate income taxes. This has caused federal revenues to decline by $353 million in the first nine months of this year.

The budget office projects a budget deficit of $3.9 billion in 2009-10, although it adds that, if the economic downturn proves worse than expected, next year’s federal deficit could hit $14 billion.

The budget office was created in 2006 to provide independent fiscal forecasts for parliamentarians. This is Page’s first budgetary study.

So where are the real fiscal Conservatives?

Priorities for Canadian Diplomacy

Robin Sears has an interesting piece in today’s Globe and Mail on the state of Canada-US relations. In a nutshell, Sears argues that now is the time to forge a closer partnership with the United States and the incoming Obama administration.

“For Mr. Harper, the risks of becoming the first Canadian prime minister to have a real friendship with an American president since Brian Mulroney are smaller than they may appear. Mr. Obama is widely popular among Canadians, even Conservatives. For Mr. Obama, being able to demonstrate a shared agenda on energy, the environment and the economy with his most important partner on each is proof of his international skills — and with a leader with whom he needs to reach “across the political aisle.” Each man faces the same crisis: an economy heading fast for a deeper ditch than most of us can recall.

This crisis should be the foundation that permits two men with very different political values but very similar personal approaches to political leadership to find common ground. Each is a cool, disciplined intellectual. Each brings great strategic intelligence to their roles. Each relies on a very small group of devoted advisers and suffers the fools and drama queens of politics badly. Leaders with much less in common have built strong partnerships in similar circumstances. The difference in their partisan convictions can be left on the table while finding solutions to their shared economic nightmare.

It is a cliché to us that no two economies are more integrated. That reality is less well understood in Washington. Before the current turmoil sent economic engines on both sides of the border into a tailspin, the post-9/11 friction was doing a lot of damage to the successes Canadians and Americans had enjoyed since the original free-trade agreement went into effect two decades ago.

Each government is focused on deepening relations with new trading partners in Asia and Latin America. Canada is once again flirting with the European Union, as yet without being clear about how much more than showing a little ankle we will do. For Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama, no matter how successful they are in building relations elsewhere, each shares an implacable political reality: They will quickly restore the health of the North American economy or they will be replaced at the first electoral opportunity.

Canada has more at stake in developing this relationship, so we should put more on the table and soon. Environment Minister Jim Prentice has signalled a willingness to find common ground on climate change quickly, an excellent first step. But Ottawa should go further and appoint an eminent persons group to work with a similar team of Americans on “deepening North American economic integration.” If they wait until a protectionist Democrat demands that Mr. Obama act on his “reopening NAFTA” suggestion of mid-campaign, the discussions will begin on the wrong foot. If they can articulate an agenda than goes beyond the tit-for-tat exchange of NAFTA irritations, they will have established a stage where a far more positive set of new agreements can develop: on border security, on environmental and energy partnerships, and on continental defence.

The comparisons Sears draws between Obama and Harper are contrived. Obama has built his political success on a grand vision of change, while Harper has directly avoided that “vision thing.” I also remain unconvinced that the personal story really matters. Sears does make a good point about the need for Canada to be proactive in its relationship with the US. But our influence in Washington will be dictated much more by the practical policy proposals we provide than the personal relationship between our leaders.

There is also little reason to believe that our most pressing concern should be deeper North American integration. A certain section of Canadian commentators seems to react to every problem with calls for deeper ties with the US. I am not opposed in principle to initiatives like the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but it is glaringly obvious that the global economic crisis is not going to be solved in bilateral meetings between the Prime Minister and the President. Meaningful bilateral action on climate change is also unlikely in the midst of an economic downturn, particularly with the Conservatives boasting a clear mandate to do nothing on the file.

Action on these issues will increasingly be in multilateral ‘clubs’ such as the G20. The countries involved will not be determined by personal considerations, but by who comes to the table with a capacity to contribute to solutions. This is not the time to narrow our focus North America, but rather to broaden our foreign policy horizons.

As Travers argued yesterday:

Canadians, too, can now spy a different, less promising future. Even if masked by domestic media coverage, there’s no hiding this country’s fading influence in the expanded group of leading industrialized nations. With emerging economies getting more attention, Canada’s barely noticed U.S. presence was recorded there as among those countries that also attended the precedent-setting meeting.

Some slippage was inevitable for a country that must work harder than ever to punch above its international weight. Still, the process is being accelerated by the crisis and the impressions it leaves that a “me too” Ottawa is being carried along by events beyond its limited control, influence and sovereignty.

True, Canada’s fiscal and financial sector prudence provide useful global models while its utility as energy pump for the world’s largest economy justifies its place at Washington’s table. But more accurate measures of Conservative not-so-free political will and Canada’s manoeuvring room are found in the situational adjustments to the party’s economic principles and the federal government’s urgent new concerns with saving both the planet and Ontario’s auto industry.

It will take months, maybe years or even decades, to calculate the full impact of this financial calamity. In the meantime, its enormous power will continue tossing around national interests as effortlessly as party and personal aspirations.

Some of Canada’s declining influence is simply the result of power shifts in the global economy and is thus unlikely to change. But we’ve also brought little to the table. France and Britain have been punching above their international weight because they have been firmly behind a set of identifiable (if vague) solutions. Its unfortunate that Canada seems to have lost its long celebrated appetite for multilateralism just as it is becoming more important. Perhaps its time our Prime Minister started to seriously wrestle with that vision thing, which seems to make him so uncomfortable.

Some Questions on Ontario’s Proposed Young Driver Restrictions

Though the bill has not yet been tabled, the Ontario government’s proposal to increase restrictions on the province’s young drivers (those under 21) has already created much news and controversy. Quickly, the new law proposes to:

• Mandate a zero blood alcohol requirement for those under 21
• Limit to one the number of teenage passengers in a vehicle operated by a driver under 19 years of age
• Significantly increase sanctions on young drivers caught speeding, starting with a 30 day licence suspension for the first ticket.

I have no doubt that Dalton McGuinty’s heart is in the right place with these proposed restrictions. Nevertheless they are hugely problematic. First, using age as a criteria rather than driving experience (as is currently the case under the graduated licensing system) raises the issue of age discrimination. As outlined in section 15.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I cannot fathom why these restrictions are being foisted only on young drivers. It would certainly be more even handed to increase restrictions for all those with only their G2 licence. Of course, if these changes were aimed at all drivers within a certain stage of the graduated licence system, the Ontario government would face far more resistance. It seems they have taken the easy way out.

Even without the spectre of overt age discrimination, however, the proposed law is flawed. I take no issue with restricting a new driver’s blood alcohol level to zero, but mandating only one passenger per vehicle is going to cause enormous problems. If this law is passed, a group of five 19 year olds would have to take three cars to the movies. Forget carpooling to school, church, sports or other activities. Such restrictions certainly contradict the government’s supposed commitment to the environment.

Moreover, they are contemptibly urban-centric. While young drivers in Toronto may a number of alternatives to cars, those in rural communities will be significantly disadvantaged. It is not hard to imagine the dilemma faced by a group of three young people in rural Ontario in the middle of January, trying to decide whose turn it is to hike home when it’s 30 below.

Finally, I don’t see the justification for increasing speeding sanctions exclusively for young drivers. Are we suggesting that speeding becomes less of a crime as you age?

 The Premier has in the past rejected calls for the restrictions contained in this bill, but appears to have been persuaded by the lobbying efforts of MADD and others. Increasing road safety is certainly a noble cause, and it is easy to understand why those who have lost loved ones want to see these changes introduced.  But our efforts must be practical. Crucially, they must also respect the individual equality rights enshrined in the Charter. This is a bad bill, and the McGuinty government needs to rethink introducing it.

The Endorsement Goes to…

Reading my blog’s site meter is generally a humbling experience, so I’m not under any illusions that my endorsement is a highly sought after prize. Nevertheless, given that the Liberal leadership field is now set, an endorsement seems both the fashionable and appropriate thing to do.

But first, a brief preamble. The Grit race boasts three exceptional candidates, any of whom should be able to challenge the Conservatives in the next election. For all its recent struggles, the Liberal Party can still field a serious and impressive array of individuals. But it is also a shame that so many other qualified people elected to sit this one out.

With that said, my endorsement goes to Dominic LeBlanc.

Of all the candidates, LeBlanc is best suited to carry the Liberal Party forward into the next decade. He is a clear and compelling communicator in both official languages. He has the ability to unite rather than factionalize the Party. And he brings much needed energy and the prospect of generational change to the race. Indeed, if the other two candidates, both in their sixties, lose the next election, the Liberal Party could well find itself in yet another leadership contest in the near future. LeBlanc has the capacity to begin the much needed rebuilding of the Liberal Party over the longer term. Moreover, he seems the candidate most likely not only to consolidate the Liberal base, but also to expand in areas such as the West, where the Party has not had a viable presence for decades. On the defensive side, LeBlanc is not plagued by the same liabilities as the two other candidates.

Most of the pundits have already written off LeBlanc. These are, of course, the same great political minds who predicted an Ignatieff victory in 2006. The odds of a surprise victory are indeed longer this time, particularly given the inability of the previous third place candidate to consolidate his support after a surprise convention win. But if the American primary season demonstrated anything, it is the perils of assuming that the front-runner is predestined to take the prize.

For more on Dominic in his own words, check out his piece in Macleans.

The Big Three

Not the car companies, the leadership candidates. In the least surprising move of the race Michael Ignatieff announced his candidacy today. That he is now the clear front-runner goes without saying.

I don’t really have much to add here. My feelings about Ignatieff are mixed. I’m hoping to take a closer look at the prospect of an Ignatieff foreign policy for Canada in the next week, but as of right now the work is piling up around my ears.

So, in lieu of meaningful analysis, here is a clip from question period.

Let the Navel Gazing Begin

With the election of a new American president, it seems Canadians can look forward to large and diverse concerns about whether he and our Prime Minister are likely to “get along.” Here is the most recent example.

We’ve seen this movie before. On one side, Brian Mulroney was chastised for being too close with Ronald Reagan. Jean Chretien famously hid his close relationship with Bill Clinton for fear of being viewed as America’s puppet. On the flip side, the rocky relationship between Chretien/Martin and President Bush was said to for-tell doom for the bilateral relationship and our national interests.

These displays of collective insecurity notwithstanding, it isn’t particularly important whether or not the US and Canada are chummy at the executive level. For one, many of the decisions that concern us north of the border are within the purview of Congress, rather than the President, suggesting that a well-developed lobbying strategy is considerably more important than whether the President and PM share similar hobbies. Moreover, to the extent that the US ’sees’ Canada in a particular way, this is going to be dictated much more by our attributes and resources (i.e. ability to commit meaningfully to solving collective problems) than by personal feelings. Finally, the whole of our bilateral relationship with the United States encompasses a host of entities other than the executive branch, from government departments to individuals. It is these networks which determine our relationship with the US.

All of these reasons explain why Canada/US relations have maintained a similar tenor regardless of the feelings of the people in the White House and 24 Sussex. A close personal relationship between the PM and the President may yield some limited gains, but conducting a mature foreign policy with our neighbour (and with everyone else, for that matter) is infinitely more important.

So let me suggest we attempt to turn over a new leaf with the Obama administration. Lets worry less about how the Americans feel about us, and worry more about Canada’s place in the world. If we want to keep our seat at the table, it won’t be through the grace of someone else’s charity. It will be because of our capacity to act meaningfully on a host of issues, whether they be reform of the global financial system or security in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Eras of successful Canadian foreign policy, where the country has “punched above its weight” internationally, have come from our willingness to devote resources – both material and intellectual – to pressing global problems, and to focus on areas where we have a comparative advantage.But we seem to have lost any inclination to have a serious debate in this country about foreign affairs, and the Conservative government proved disappointingly inept on this portfolio during their first term. As the financial crisis conclusively demonstrated, the world’s problems are more than ever Canada’s problems. So it is only sensible for Canada to consider how it wants to deal with the world.

Disappointing News

Martha Hall Findlay announced today she will not make a bid for the Liberal leadership. I can sympathize with her reasons. She would have been a long shot for the leadership, particularly with the party in no mood for a Dion-esque convention surprise. She is also still burdened by a large leadership debt from 2006. Still I am disappointed by her decision, having told many people privately about my hopes for her candidacy. I am now searching for second choices.

Hopefully in her absence another strong female candidate will emerge . The Liberal Party is the only major national party which has never had a woman in the top job, and indeed has never even had a realistic female contender. It is well past time for this to change.

With MHF, John Manley, and Frank McKenna out of contention, the race is shaping up to be a two (or possibly three, depending on the strength of LeBlanc’s candidacy) way contest between familiar faces. All of these men have strengths and weaknesses, but none is the saviour the party appears to be searching for. I fear some still hold the myopic illusion that if either Rae or Ignatieff had been chosen in 2006 the Liberal Party would be back in government by now.

There is no reason to believe this. The next Liberal Leader will be blitzed by the same smear campaign which demolished Mr. Dion’s reputation, and I can’t see either of the front runners faring any much better than he did. Ignatieff has certain qualities, but he is neither Pierre Trudeau nor Barack Obama and wishing will not make it so. He may become a great party leader, but he may equally prove the anglophone version of Mr. Dion. Following one aloof academic with another doesn’t seem particularly wise (though, as a sometimes aloof academic-type myself, I retain some sympathy for his position).

As for Bob Rae, I am still not convinced that the people of Canada are going to trust him with a government in the context of a recession, financial crisis, and federal deficit. The economy is both today’s most crucial issue and his weakest point. He time as Ontario Premier may have been judged with unfair harshness, but things don’t get fairer at the federal level. Couple that with the Premier curse (no Provincial Premier has ever become Prime Minister), and we’d be better off begging Paul Martin to come back.

Mr. Dion won his surprise victory in 2006 largely because the top contenders failed to inspire. This time the field will be smaller and such an outcome less likely.  But that doesn’t make the contenders any more appealing. At this point, however, I am still hoping to be surprised.

Update: Gerard Kennedy is expected to announce today that he will also not make a bid for the Liberal leadership. This is pretty unsurprising, given his role in Dion’s 2006 victory. Still, I thought his convention speech in 2006 was the best of all the contenders, so his voice in this contest will be missed.

A Damper on the Party…

I’m not going to comment on the substance of the American election, because anything I add at this point will be redundant. Sufficed to say, like most Canadians, I was happy to see Obama win.

But if Canadians take one thing from the American election, it should not be elation that their preferred candidate emerged the victor.  It should be a sense of profound humility. With historic levels of voter participation, despite long lines and a host of irregularities and inconveniences, the citizens of the United States showed us something about democracy yesterday. As Americans reflect with pride this morning on the vibrancy and growth of civic engagement in their country, we should consider why our last election, less than a month past, brought the polar opposite response. While their citizens have become more engaged and active in the political process, ours have become more content with apathy, seemingly willing to participate in the democratic process only vicariously through CNN.

I am quite often a vocal (and sometimes derisive) critic of the American political system. I find the dialogue of their politics often dysfunctional and crass, and believe firmly in the superiority of parliamentary government. That said, I am humbled this morning by the willingness of Americans to engage with their politics despite its flaws. If the opposing trends of engagement and apathy continue on their present course, there is little doubt that American will be the better, Canada will be the worse, for it.