WOULD A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT BE GOOD OR BAD FOR CANADA?
By Gregory D. Morrow

Would a Conservative government be good or bad for Canada? That’s the question that is on everyone’s minds in the post-Gomery world. With the Liberals sinking (at least temporarily) in the polls, several voting blocs are seriously debating the question. Soft NDPers are thinking about it because they need to decide whether it is better to increase the number of NDP MPs or whether to shift their vote to the Liberals (to ensure NDP votes count – i.e. to ensure a Liberal-NDP alliance) and moderates are thinking about the question in order to decide whether to shift their vote towards the Conservatives.

If you run the range of possible scenarios, as I have, it seems unlikely that either Liberals or Conservatives can get a majority any time soon, which might explain why Canadians, despite their annoyance at the Liberals, are not keen to head back to the polls. Liberals and Conservatives are unlikely to cooperate nor are NDPers and Conservatives (and the combined vote here is unlikely to be enough anyway), nor are the Liberals and the Bloc (given their rivalry in Quebec). So, whenever it comes, now or in the spring, will likely have one of two possible outcomes: 1) a Conservative minority, propped up by the Bloc Quebecois or 2) a Liberal minority, propped up by the NDP.

The Liberal-NDP alliance, as we’ve seen in the past year, is the ‘safe’ bet, revolving around maintaining the status quo as to the basic Federalist structure and making incremental advances on social issues. The Conservative-Bloc alliance, due to their positions on the opposite ends of the social political spectrum makes for strange bedfellows indeed. But, there is a set of key economic issues that both the Conservatives and Bloc can unite around, namely, a re-structuring of Federalism (i.e. the economic and legal relationship between the Federal and Provincial governments). Thus, it is a ‘higher risk’ proposition, in that it seeks a greater change in the status quo. Clearly, the Conservatives and Bloc want less Fed and more Province. The Liberal-NDP alliance, on the other hand, sees a stronger Federal role as essential to ensuring that all regions have more-or-less equal opportunity.

So, the upcoming election could come down to a substantial debate on Federal/Provincial relations vis-à-vis economic issues, or it could simple be a re-hash of the 2004 election where the Conservatives and Bloc play the corruption card and the Liberals and NDP play the unity and social conservatism card. And so, the election comes down to whether the parties themselves and the Canadian public generally want to engage the tough questions about our Federal model.

Up to now, the Conservatives have been afraid to take a strong position on securing more power and money for the Provinces, for fear of being accused of damaging national unity. Yet, with the gulf between the Federal surpluses and Provincial deficits widening, especially in Ontario, there is a growing appreciation with mainstream voters of the “fiscal imbalance”. Yet, the Conservatives could make a strong case for why the delivery of social services (or at least more money for them) at the Provincial level makes more sense. And, given Adscam, there is a strong case for de-centralizing power away from Ottawa and towards the Provinces. More resources at the Provincial level could also very well mean more resources for cities, which is undoubtedly long overdue. There is also a strong case to make for promoting entrepreneurial activity through middle-income tax cuts and promoting not only higher education but vocational training. So, if the Conservatives avoid socially conservative issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) and instead focus on giving the Provinces, cities and middle-income earners more financial resources, they might sway Ontarians and suburban voters to vote with their pocketbooks. While this strategy will surely disappoint their rural, western Christian base, it is the only way to get the most seats, but also, it is the only way to govern once elected (since they have few allies in Parliament on socially conservative issues – and certainly not with their only realistic partners, the Bloc Quebecois).

If, on the other hand, the Conservative strategy is to pander to their base, they open the opportunity for the Liberals to exploit Canadians’ fear of social conservativism (especially in vote-rich Ontario, but also suburban areas generally). Not only will this discourage many moderates from voting Conservative, it will cause more NDPers to strategically vote for the Liberals. Moreover, if they campaign on social issues, and are unable to deliver them, they will quickly fall in a non-confidence vote. While this strategy still leaves the Liberals to play the unity card, that assumes that Canadian nationalism is based solely on the Federal government’s ‘equalization’ payments. Surely, we have matured as a nation that ‘Canada’ represents more than the sum of a few Federal programs. Given the disaster of the Sponsorship program, there is ample evidence to take the position that nationalism is either there or it isn’t. It cannot be bought. It must be freely chosen by the different regions. No amount of Federalism can achieve that. If this is true, then surely giving the Provinces more power and money wouldn’t weaken national unity – that Canada will go along just fine if taxes are split 50/50 between Ottawa and your Province, instead of the current 65/35 in favour of Ottawa.

To sum, given that majority government is unlikely, and that the default Conservative-Bloc alliance can only reach agreement on Federal/Provincial arrangements, we can re-frame my original question “would a Conservative government be good or bad for Canada?” as “is it time to re-frame the Federal/Provincial relationship to divert more resources away from Ottawa and more towards the Provinces and localities?” If yes, voting Conservative can achieve that goal. If you think things are best left in the hands of Ottawa, then don’t vote Conservative. That’s what it boils down to (or at least it should, if the parties choose to focus on real choices instead of playing fear-mongering games).