Sunday, September 20, 2015
It’s the home stretch of the federal election campaign and two leaders’ debates and endless commercials may have done more to blur lines between the parties and leaders than to clarify them. The Liberals and NDP may have even switched places, with Justin Trudeau being anxious to corral the anti-Conservative vote with ambitious talk of redistributive tax adjustment and deficit spending on infrastructure, and Mr. Mulcair striving to reassure centrist voters and buttressing the NDP’s “balanced budget” record. If it’s any help , here are three or four observations about what I think should happen both during and after the election.
First, the prime minister’s attempt to portray himself as a practical, sensible fellow who is only interested in being a good manager is highly misleading. He is far more ideological than that, and if re-elected his American-style neoconservatism will have consequences for democracy and health care and the environment that are potentially far-reaching. It is difficult to discern a large economic dividend from the government’s attempts to privilege the corporate sector, and the oil & gas sector in particular. But we need that dividend if we are to be persuaded that this government’s game is worth its candle.
Second, the NDP’s “balanced budget” mantra is genuine. Mr. Mulcair has latched onto the fact that, according to the historical record, NDP governments balanced budgets more often than either Liberal or Conservative governments did on average between 1980 and 2010 (although some spectacular exceptions do tend to stick in voters’ minds). This is a basis for fiscal respectability and marks a return to the fiscal tradition of Tommy Douglas. Of course, several of the Conservatives’ tax loopholes will need to be closed in order to afford this, and the corporate tax rate will need to be raised to something closer to the OECD average. But when you balance the negative impacts of raising corporate taxes to the still-competitive rate of 17% against the positive benefits of lower small business rates, a lower proportion of tax burden being borne by ordinary Canadians, and the economic benefits of more infrastructure and a million child care spaces—that should be OK.
Third, I like what Justin Trudeau has said about the importance of infrastructure spending when the need is great, the debt-to GDP ratio is low, and interest rates continue to be rock-bottom. Although Conservative infrastructure spending is large in absolute terms and has risen sharply (to over 4 per cent of GDP), under the circumstances we should have had more, especially on transit and transportation of various kinds, and less on advertising and political spending in Tory ridings.
With any luck, the next Parliament will have a fresh approach to democratic reform, the environment, science, health, refugees and infrastructure, within a framework that is still fiscally responsible.
Mark Crawford is a former public servant and a professor of political science at Athabasca University.
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Of course he rejects the Statistics Canada report concerning the definition of a recession. Just like he and other conservatives reject the ICPP reports on climate change, United Nations and Amnesty International reports on Palestine, unanimous verdicts of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning criminal justice and the rule of law, the concerns of Sheila Fraser and Marc Mayrand about the Fair Elections Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer on C-35s, the leading legal experts on Bil C-51 and the leading trade experts on FIPPA, and scientists on just about anything...the scary thing about this government and the constellation of interests and ideas that it represents is that they do not respect any authority other than their own.