Tory Democratic Reform Falls Short
Tory Democratic Reform Falls Short
By Gregory D. Morrow
The Conservative plan for democratic reform was unveiled today and includes minor changes to the Senate (limiting terms to eight years, instead of serving until age 75) and the introduction of fixed election dates every four years. While there is room for optimism, the Conservative plan falls well short of what is necessary on democratic reform.
I like fixed election dates, but it should not be done in isolation. It is essential that fixed election dates be introduced together with more strigent campaign finance rules. Fixed election dates allow the government to plan its mandate with a real deadline in mind (and we all benefit from having deadlines!). It also takes away the ability of the governing party to time the election to their benefit. So, on these counts, fixed election dates are good. However, what fixed election dates also mean is a longer campaign. Anyone who follows U.S. politics knows that in some cases, re-election campaigns begin as early as two years ahead of time, and in virtually all cases, the campaign is in full swing a year ahead. At present in Canada, campaign finance rules only apply to the actual period after which the writ is dropped, typically 36 days. Any money raised and spent before that time does not need to be reported. This must change with fixed election dates. The Conservatives should consider an amendment to the bill that would change the Election Act to extend campaign finances rules to 12 months preceding the election date. To do otherwise will simply raise the cost of campaigns, and make our democratic choices more a function of how much money a given candidate has raised. A look at the re-election rates of incumbents in the U.S. — over 90% — illustrates how much an advantage the additional fund-raising matters. So, fixed election dates should be combined with an extension to 12-months of current campaign finance rules.
(more…)
The Americanization of Canadian Institutions
The Americanization of Canadian Institutions
By Gregory D. Morrow
Far from the “Made-in-Canada” solutions that the Conservatives have championed, there is ample evidence to suggest that Stephen Harper is undertaking a program to Americanize Canadian institutions:
- an elected Senate, with equal representation by region
- fixed election dates, based on a four-year cycle
- vetting/politicizing of Supreme Court appointees
- vetting/politicizing of Government Appointments
- shifting authority away from the federal government
- Prime Ministerial powers that mimic Presidential powers
- an executive branch that is removed from parliamentary and media scrutiny
- a justice system predicated on punishment not rehabilitation
- etc.
The theory, presumably, is that since the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, it must necessarily be the best institutional system to emulate. Unfortunately, this theory overlooks one thing: America succeeds despite its institutional framework, not because of it. Americans are, on balance, an enterprising people, where every now and then, a truly remarkable person comes along with a new idea that improves the world. Success in America is achieved not by the leadership of its governments, but by the individual pursuits of its people. It is the empowerment of this entrepreneurial spirit to which Canadians should aim, not a system of government that is beholden to the lobbying of special interest groups. Thus, in the U.S., while enterprising Americans succeed, a sizeable underclass is deprived of a high quality of life. A rising tide does not lift everyone up if they are anchored to the ocean floor by ineffective public health and educations systems.
The question Canadians face is: what is the appropriate balance between individual and collective pursuits? At one end of the scale, Scandinavian countries place high priority on collective pursuits, sometimes at the expense of individual ones. At the other end is the U.S., which places highest priority on individual pursuits, often at the expense of collective ones. Canada has traditionally fallen somewhere in the middle, seeking a balance between individual and collective goals. The Harper administration, however, seeks to shift that balance, to bring Canada in line with the United States — where, in the words of Friedrich Hayek, there are no collective goals other than the sum of individual goals.
Unfortunately, Harper’s radical reforms are masked by populist rhetoric that plays on Canadians’ most cherished institution: our family. Harper has convinced many people that collective programs that provide opportunities for everyone must necessarily operate in opposition to the family. I would argue the opposite: that opportunities for families and individuals are widened by having strong public institutions.
Canadians should embrace the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, to take better advantage of the opportunities afforded by Canada’s stronger collective pursuits (health, education, child care, etc). But doing so requires both individual and collective goals - a balance that is central to Canadian culture. To abandon our collective institutions in the pursuit of individual goals — that is, to Americanize Canadian institutions — mistakenly gives credit to American-style government, while overlooking the potential of individual success within a collective system that ensures a level playing field for all. We are led to believe that Harper has only five priorities. But, his highest priority is the one he will never reveal: his desire to re-shape Canadian institutions in the image of America. Whether Canadians want to Americanize their institutions could very well be the central ballot question for the next election.
If Action on Climate Change is What Harper Wants, Where is it?
If Action on Climate Change is What Harper Wants, Where is it?
By Gregory D. Morrow
By now, Stephen Harper’s borrowing from the Republican playbook is not news. Each day is a new example. This fact may be lost on many Canadians who are not political geeks, but for those of us who follow both American and Canadian politics, Harper’s strategies have already been tried and tested in the United States by the Bush administration. Harper is counting on Canadians responding like Americans. And so far, they have.
The latest Bush mimickery, of course, is on climate change where Stephen Harper is counting on rhetoric to substitute for real action. What is the best way to make non-action credible? Well, you accuse your opponents of exacting that — of talking instead of doing. This is a brilliant deflection tactic since it puts your opponent on the defensive for the very thing that you are trying to conceal. Unfortunately, the strategy is deceptive - intended to mask the intentions of government. Thus, yesterday Harper said this in response to Jean Charest’s call to honour Kyoto: “There’s lot of people around the world who have bold and ambitious statements about limiting greenhouse gases, but I am more interested to see what actual effective actions are undertaken.” So, he prefers action to bold statements. OK, fine. So where’s the beef? Where is the action that Harper prefers? The current government is so obsessed with fulfilling its five priorities (accountability, tax relief, crack-down on crime, enhanced baby bonus, wait times health guarantee) and only its five priorities, that it has no plan for climate change. And I do mean no plan. They cancelled all the Liberal global warming programs, without replacing them with anything. The sum total of Harper’s environmental program is a tax credit for transit passes, which every self-respecting observer will tell you will have zero impact on greenhouse gases, because it is simply not enough to convince people to switch from driving to transit use. The fact that the Conservatives are trying to pass off transit tax credits as a credible action plan on global warming is shockingly naive.
(more…)
Gerard Kennedy Events
If you are interested in knowing more about Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy and are in Toronto the next couple of days, here are a couple of events of interest:
Toronto Rally for Gerard Kennedy
Join Gerard and his supporters for an evening of fun and excitement!
FRIDAY MAY 26 6-9pm
St. Lawrence Market - North Market - 92 Front Street East
Music - Food - Fun
Mix and Mingle with others who are working with Gerard to do politics differently!
Free admission - Everyone Welcome - Bring family and friends - An all-ages event
For more information call the Kennedy Campaign 800-622-9399
The Economic Club of Toronto presents:
Liberal Leadership Candidate
Gerard Kennedy
“Improving Economic Opportunity for All Canadians”
A must-attend major platform announcement
WHEN: 11:45am-1:30pm, Thursday, May 25, 2006
WHERE: Stop 33, Sutton Place Hotel, 955 Bay Street at Wellesley
TICKETS: $69 Individual with tables of 10 available, and $59 for
Economic Club members.
Lunch will be served.
Kerry … er, Ignatieff Walks Into Foreign Policy Trap
Kerry … er, Ignatieff Walks Into Foreign Policy Trap
By Gregory D. Morrow
Stephen Harper is nothing if not strategic, if entirely unoriginal. The sham vote on extending the Afghanistan mission was pure spectacle. For those that don’t know: the mission in Afghanistan is not set to expire until next spring. It was not necessary to spring a snap vote in parliament with only a few hours notice, despite the lame excuse that Taliban forces would be listening in and target Canadian troops to attempt to sway MPs.
Some wise MPs saw a trap and voted against Harper’s motion so that a genuine debate could be initiated with proper information about the nature of the new mission after next spring. Others, however, walked into the trap, fearing that Harper would label then as unpatriotic, and caving into Harper’s rhetoric that he would go to the voters over this issue. If this sounds familiar to you, it is exactly the same strategy used by Republicans on Democrats in the lead up to the 2004 Presidential election. One man, in particular, fell into the trap, and saw it thrown in his face during the campaign: John Kerry. His vote for the original Iraq War appropriation, and his subsequent vote against the supplemental bill was used to discredit him as a man who would send his troops to war then not vote for the equipment to carry out their mission.
(more…)
Made-In-Canada Climate Change Policies or Not?
Made-In-Canada Climate Change Policies or Not?
By Gregory D. Morrow
Cracks in the Tory spin machine are beginning to appear. Despite Stephen Harper’s autocratic grip on the government bureaucracy, or perhaps because of it, briefing notes of the Tories plan to scuttle Kyoto talks have been leaked to the press.
Beyond the obvious breach in government protocol, there are also signs of confusion more generally as to the direction the government plans to take on climate change. Is it the “made-in-Canada” solution that has become a substitute for real action? Or is it now that Harper’s government prefers the not-so-made-in-Canada proposal being forwarded by the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate? Made-in-Canada or not? One day the government is for made-in-Canada policies, the next day it is not.
The rogue nations of the Asia-Pacific Partnership (China, India, the U.S., Australia, Japan, South Korea) favour, not suprisingly, “voluntary measures”, which is code for no regulations.
That the debate is now being set up between Kyoto on the one hand (now being positioned as a failure by the Tory government) and voluntary measures on the other hand is deeply misleading and wrong-headed.
(more…)
Scrap the Long Gun Registry
For those of you who think that I am being harsh (even partisan) in my recent criticisms of Stephen Harper’s autocratic tactics, you might enjoy a post where I happen to agree, at least in part, with the direction of the Conservatives. The topic is the gun registry.
Revelations today that the Martin Liberals tried to cover-up the cost of the gun registry are disturbing. Canadians and parliament should know the true cost of the program - pure and simple. Which brings us to the question of whether we need it at all.
Our political system forces parties to stake out opposing positions in order to differentiate themselves from one another. Unfortunately, common-sense middle ground often is missed because of these partisan tactics. I’ve talked a number of times about how this is true with child care. The gun registry is yet another example. Those on the right want it scrapped, those on the left don’t.
(more…)
Liberal Leadership Candidates French Tested
University of Ottawa professor Helene Knoerr tested all 11 Liberal leadership candidates’ French. On the 1-4 scale, seven passed and four failed.
Those that passed:
* Bob Rae (4)
* Michael Ignatieff (4-)
* Stephane Dion (3+)
* Joe Volpe (3)
* Martha Hall Findlay (3-)
* Maurizio Bevilacqua (2-)
* Gerard Kennedy (2-)
And those who failed:
* Scott Brison (1+)
* Ken Dryden (1)
* Carolyn Bennett (1)
* Hedy Fry (incomplete)
Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff were the best. Gerard Kennedy’s score was low because he has a limited vocabulary in French, but Prof Knoerr said that can easily be improved in a few months. It is essential that Kennedy do so, because it is critical that the Liberal leader have a good command of both languages. Although Prime Minister Harper was not tested, Prof Knoerr said that having heard him speak, she said he would be in the 3 range.
(Edit: as Michael rightly notes in the comments, I was sloppy in my title. Of course Dion was tested in English since French is his first language).
Big Daddy Harper: Controller-in-Chief
Ian Brown’s “In Harper’s regime, Big Daddy knows best” in today’s Globe and Mail is a must-read for all Canadians. Remember the Globe and Mail endorsed Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Read it and then forward it to everyone you know. It is important that Canadians know how this government works.
The entire article is filled with evidence of Stephen Harper’s (aka Adam Sutler’s) lust for control, making it difficult to pick out only a few highlights. But here are some of the most appalling:
Instead of decentralizing power as promised, Mr. Harper has funnelled more and more control straight into the Prime Minister’s Office. The PMO now pre-approves everything Tory ministers and MPs do in their political lives. They’ve been ordered to speak less to the media, and banned from gassing about the government’s plans.
“Paul Martin was accused of micro-managing,” a government insider says. “But this guy micro-manages more. The business of government has ground to a halt on anything that isn’t a declared priority.”
When Mr. MacKay tried to hire Graham Fox, the clever son of Bill Fox, Brian Mulroney’s old pal, as his chief of staff, Mr. Harper vetoed the move — on the grounds that Mr. Fox once wrote an in-house critique of Mr. Harper’s performance in opposition.
Last month, Marc Tushingham, an Environment Canada scientist, published H otter Than Hell, a novel about global warming. He was instantly prohibited from promoting the book because Mr. Harper’s government was quietly cutting its Kyoto Accord budget by up to 80 per cent that week. “I obviously not only hope, but expect, that all elements of the bureaucracy will be working with us to achieve our objectives,” Mr. Harper replied.
The PMO no longer advertises the time and location of cabinet meetings, which means reporters can no longer scrum ministers as they leave the weekly brain mash. As a result, they’ve resorted to buttonholing ministers as they climb into their limos. The PMO recently volleyed back by asking cabinet ministers not to park their limos near the members entrance to the House of Commons, so as not to tip reporters that a cabinet meeting is in session. Mr. Harper himself has allegedly resorted to sneaking up to the meeting on a freight elevator. All these antics make the nation’s business look like a high-level game of sardines.
The Prime Minister now tries to limit the numbers and kinds of questions reporters ask, and has adopted the Bush White House strategy of favouring friendly questioners.
Mr. Muttart was the brain behind the recent rebranding of the official government of Canada website — the huge and traditionally non-partisan source of government information that now looks like a Tory party recruiting ad, “true Tory blue, with a real maple leaf, instead of that fake one on the flag,” as one PMO intimate describes it.
Mr. Harper is still cool and aloof and uncomfortable in groups: “Stephen likes humanity,” a former aide says, borrowing a punchline from a Peanuts cartoon — “it’s people he can’t stand.”
In recent days, rumours have begun to circulate that Mr. Harper has even limited his ministers’ opportunities to speak in cabinet meetings. Instead, he has begun to meet them privately beforehand, hear their proposals and then make their presentations himself.
But in Harperville, it isn’t where you talk that’s a problem: it’s talking, period. Talking invites debate; debate implies uncertainty; uncertainty is not prime ministerial. The name of this show is Big Daddy Knows Best.
“But what does that say about how Harper sees the Canadian public?” [Ottawa Sun columnist Greg] Weston counters. “They can’t be trusted with information? It has to be a fait accompli, and then I’ll tell you about it.”
His cabinet is junior and inexperienced and needs to be schooled; the media are an obstacle that needs to be overcome; absolute control is the only answer.
The prime minister’s intimidating aura derives from his sharp tongue and mind, his “temper, which can go to 5,000 degrees instantly,” according to a Tory insider, and from his intellectual combativeness, which can verge on the vindictive.
Meetings, according to a Tory close to the Prime Minister, are “intellectually elbows up. He talks over you. He can ignore you. When you push back at him, he can be okay. But no one does. It is a controlling atmosphere. PMO’s a very unhappy place to work, very stressful, because of the control.”
“We were routinely instructed to phone them and say, ‘Shut your mouth,’” a veteran says. “In the old days, under the Progressive Conservatives, if you did that, they’d say, ‘Bite me,’ and hang up. But that’s not the Reform way. Still, to call an MP, and say, ‘You’re a goddamn idiot’ before he’d said anything — that was weird.”
“It’s a way of controlling things,” a senior Harperite explains. “Harper’s very message oriented, as we all are. But that’s one of the great ironies of this: Political discourse has gone all to hell around here as a result. The bandwidth of political discussion in Canada and Ottawa is now extremely narrow — in the sense that all of the messaging that comes out of the PMO is written by a very small number of people. It destroys political discourse, because all the rest of us are doing is repeating bullets.” Dissatisfaction in the back benches is growing.
The Politics of the Fiscal Imbalance, Harper Style
The Politics of the Fiscal Imbalance, Harper Style
By Gregory D. Morrow
There is a lot of confusion out there about what is being called the “fiscal imbalance” between the Canadian federal government and the provinces. The first kind of “fiscal imbalance” is the relative equalization and transfer payments that Ottawa gives the provinces each year (the argument that some provinces receive more than their fair share). The second kind of “fiscal imbalance” has to do with the large surpluses that Ottawa has relative to the provinces (some of which, including Ontario, are running deficits).
The “fiscal imbalance” that Stephen Harper really wants to solve is the latter, not the former. To accomplish this, Harper is cutting federal taxes so that Ottawa doesn’t have surpluses — in effect giving the surplus back to the people. Harper’s believes, quite correctly, that the federal government should collect only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally-declared duties (defense, foreign affairs, infrastructure, etc). It is then up to provinces to determine whether they should raise provincial taxes to cover their constitutional duties (health, education, social programs, etc). Harper is a constitutionalist and a federalist. And he will spend only in areas that are spelled out in the constitution. Unfortunately, Harper also appears to be modeling his actions on the U.S., not Canadian constitution.
(more…)
