Mark
Crawford teaches Canadian Government and Democratic Theory at Athabasca
University. He was also employed for five years as a public servant both
federally and provincially in the areas of trade and labour policy.
As surely as the receding tide slowly unveils a submerged
coastline, the current juncture in Canadian public affairs is revealing a long
familiar pattern, almost as old as Canada itself: the gradual de-radicalization
of a Liberal election platform.
Seasoned progressives saw it coming, of course. Assigning
wily veteran John McCallum the task of walking back promises on the timing of
Syrian refugee settlement and on Temporary Foreign Workers was just the first,
and most deliberate, step. Now, they brace themselves for the release of the
Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE). The prime
minister’s vow to make 2015 “the last first-past-the -post election in Canadian
history” never sounded convincing, unless he were saddled with a minority government and therefore had to keep
this promise as a condition of remaining in power. Any sincere preference on
the prime minister’s part was premised upon the possibility of a majoritarian
ranked ballot, or Alternative Vote system being adopted, not any form of
proportional representation, with the power-sharing coalitions that they would
almost certainly entail.
The biggest obstacle in this regard may not be
cynical self-serving calculation as much as sincere self-delusion. Many
politicians simply refuse to believe the (counter-intuitive) truth that they
would generally make better decisions if they were more constrained by the need
to maintain support by representatives of an actual majority. This belief that greater discretion
or agency on the part of the political executive equals better policy is
contradicted by both the most serious cross-national research and the Liberals’
own sterling record of productive, activist minority governments. Yet it
remains the unreflective default position of most political leaders in this country.
No doubt Justin Trudeau and Trade Minister Chrystia
Freeland are convinced that their dramatic rescue of the Comprehensive Economic
and Trade Agreement with the EU would have been impossible if the Liberals had
been forced to work with coalition partners. Leaving aside the logical
possibility of forming a true majoritarian coalition with the Conservatives
around this and other economic issues--a last-ditch resort to be sure--it should be remembered
that enlightened Greens and New Democrats are not simply “protectionists”. Many would love to see genuine reciprocal
exchange of goods and services, instead of governments holding market access
hostage in return for enhanced rights of corporations to sue governments for
such “regulatory takings” as public auto insurance, environmental laws and
low-priced generic drugs. When strong resistance to investor-state provisions
arose in Germany, France, Belgium and elsewhere, and the EU’s bargaining
position on behalf of its pharmaceutical giants weakened after the Brexit vote,
a window of opportunity opened to negotiate a genuine free trade deal that
would benefit all consumers, not just consumers of beef and autos at the
expense of consumers of medicines and public goods. Inserting some new
language about health and the
environment for investment lawyers to argue about in secretive trade tribunals
didn’t turn CETA into a “progressive trade agreement,” any more than labour or
environmental side deals and a so-called
Social Services Reservation turned NAFTA into one. It is even more doubtful
that Ottawa’s offer to “re-negotiate” NAFTA with President-Elect Trump will do
anything to curtail Chapter 11.
And what about the Liberals’ ambitious new infrastructure
plan, which hopes to leverage billions in new private investment dollars by
expanding the categories of P3s to include equity investment-in-exchange for
“negotiated returns”? If “negotiated return” sounds like something that is both
sheltered from competition and legally guaranteed (i.e. litigable), then you
probably already have a hint of what some of the problems will be--especially
in the context of myriad international investment treaties. Yet there is a
considerable body of scholarship in economics departments and schools of public
management across the country that is critical of P3s (what the late urban thinker Jane Jacobs called
“monstrous hybrids”); a progressive coalition would draw upon that knowledge and
exercise greater caution and discretion in awarding public contracts on this
basis.
The Liberals now look set to side with the
Conservatives on both of the most critical structural issues currently facing
our democracy: the persistence of an unfair voting system and the scope of
corporations’ rights to privately challenge public policy. So while Mr. Trudeau may be understandably
loathe to make New Democrats and Greens seem more relevant and influential in
Parliament by making all of their votes count, he should also realize that, if
he doesn’t, he will probably make them more relevant and influential
anyway: by ceding to them the mantle of
authentic progressive politics.
