I agree with the removing the ability of non-voting entities, such as corporations and unions, from being able to contribute to political parties. Essentially, if you can't vote in an election, you should not be allowed to influence through other means. It was a great decision. It does introduce another problem though.
Unlike corporations, people base their funding decisions on their emotions as much as a rational analysis of each party. As our federal political parties have shown, it is easer to get money out of people by appealing to their base emotions: anger, frustration, worry about dark conspiracies, and so on. Unless such emotions act as a spur to build or develop something better, they can be twisted into a darker, more nihilistic view of the world.
The unfortunate side of this trend in party fundraising is that the electorate tends to be fed a diet of stories that tell us how bad the other side is, rather than a series of policy proposals for making things better. Coupled with negative effects of social media, we end up with the political environment we have now: constant "gotcha" attacks and cute little sound bites disparaging the other side. This is not a good environment for rational policy development.
What is unfortunate is the unwillingness of the electorate to view the information flowing to them with detachment, and calmly analyze it in a clear-eyed unbiased manner, to find out if they are being bullshitted and if so by whom.
I think you missed the other non-voting contributors.
The elimination of corporate donations, and public subsidies to political parties crippled the Liberal Party of Canada for nearly a decade.
We know who they turned to for cash.
You say, "we end up with the political environment we have now: constant "gotcha" attacks and cute little sound bites disparaging the other side. This is not a good environment for rational policy development."
How much is this a natual dissolution of the public sphere, and how much is a quiet divide and conquer push from those who are putting their thumb on the scale of the partys' candidate selection process?
A very interesting history lesson about the corporate interests larding the electoral pots and hoping for influence down the road.
The removal of corporate and union money in election campaigns was a wise decision, except that unions still run a steady stream of ads in the run up to elections that just happen to mirror NDP or Liberal talking points. An indirect campaign subsidy that Conservatives will never offset with heavy hitters in the business world.
All the restrictions did is confer advantage to groups like unions, evangelical groups and possibly some ethnic blocks that can motivate their bases to make small donations en masse.
The real advantage is to unions, especially public sector unions that have closed shop workplaces and can hive off union dues for political purposes. (Like supporting Hamas, but I digress.) Union members have no say in how their dues are politicized for causes that they don’t personally support. It’s a preferential hijacking of funds that isn’t available to all interested players in the political process.
Agreed. One note. Alberta has "right to work lite" in that unions are prohibited from spending member dues on anything not directly involved with the workplace unless explicitly permitted to by the individual member.
It's absolute "read in Charter rights" nonsense that unions are exempted from freedom to disassociate. Another example of Quebec philosophical leftism, group freedom over the individual, being shoved down the throats of Canada.
Could you imagine a Jewish public servant CUPE member going through the courts for the right to not be forced to give dues for anti-Israel political action? That's one that needs to happen.
Canada's unique closed shop system of requiring membership and payment of dues to a union (or association) to be able to work at that workplace is one of the things that makes this country less competitive and more of a joke on the world stage.
Mandatory unions and their actions such as banning replacement workers are the height on entitlement. No one should ever be entitled to a job, just like corps aren't entitled to a profit.
Business writers and academics have been critical of the productivity gap when Canada is compared to other democratic nations. Critical for years, and yet last summer’s strike at West Coast ports hit a stalemate over….wait for it: increased automation.
This obstruction of modernization at a government port is a prime example of how the economy suffers because of weak kneed politicians being overrun by union leaders who push hard all the time.
Even worse are the courts treating unions as more equal than any other group in society. Our legal elite are so far up the ivory tower, and like the good peasants we are, we defer to our class betters, that it's going to turn this country into Argentina.
I think Bill C-525 was just the first step in addressing exactly that. When Trudeau came to power every attempt to address accountability from unions (and First Nations, etc) was almost immediately overturned.
Yeah so much good policy died with the end of the Harper government, the most significant being OAS eligibility pushed to 67. Yet another reminder of the policy regression under the Liberals and what could have been.
I can't imagine the Trudeau Liberals implementing a policy like taxing income trusts that enraged their base despite being good (and necessary.) Instead, they seem to spend a lot of energy pandering to an older voter base's nostalgia for the Pierre Trudeau era of the '70s with things like stopping Canada Post's plans to end door-to-door mail delivery.
The Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau eras remind me of Napoleon Bonaparte's empire, followed by Napoleon III's 2nd Empire, which inspired Karl Marx to observe "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."
The Liberals tabled legislation to repeal bills C-377 and C-525 in January 2016, and in 2015 decided not to enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Quite obviously there had been deals struck before the 2015 election and promises were delivered.
Thank you, Sir, for validating what I have been saying for years: the LPC is the party of big business and the CPC is the party of small business and individuals.
Ah, so wonderful to be validated!! Not. No one cares, least of all me.
Validation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the public understand just who is pulling whose strings. [Hmmmm.... did I use my who/whom/whose correctly? No matter.] The point is that much is misunderstood about the motivations of our parties. Well, except the NDP about whom we do understand properly: they are primarily motivated by hatred and personal identity grievance.
I still have uneasiness about the CPC's ability to discern between business friendly policy and "big business" friendly policy, which in Canada means protecting oligopolies. Broad based policy change to encourage business investment that promotes competition and avoids picking favorites is exactly what Canada needs. Industrial strategy and populist measures like grocery codes of conduct is what it doesn't. I'd be impressed if Poilievre were to campaign on opening telecom to competition. That one would likely have wide public support. Ending supply management would have more impact than a grocery code of conduct, but Big Dairy is still too powerful because of its association with Quebec.
Indeed. Calgary’s office towers have been filled for decades with Liberal CEOs primarily because the Libs are - traditionally- a lot easier to lobby than the Cons.
An informative piece but that doesn't explain "Axe the Tax" which is clearly the will of the oil industry. As far as I know Poilievre has not offered any other plan to mitigate climate change. A prime minister has all kinds of ways to reduce taxes without touching that particular one.
PP also seems to be silent on corporate price gouging that is a major factor of our current inflation issues. That would be a good one to tackle head on instead of blaming it on Trudeau.
One of the reasons that Poilievre is popular amongst Millennials is that they weren't around for his years of being an obnoxious troll in the House. As a child of World War II vets I am very touchy about people messing with our democracy and, again, the youngsters weren't around for the Republican voter suppression antics of Pierre Poutine.
The current inflation issues are almost entirely due to excess demand due to loose monetary policy and excessive government transfers. Policies aimed at corporate price gouging are pointless because that's not actually a problem. Gross margins at businesses like Loblaws haven't changed over the past several years, which easily disproves claims of gouging. Increased prices are just a reflection of inflation in other areas of the economy. Don't fall for the innumeracy of people like Jagmeet Singh, who squeal about "record profits" because they look at a larger figure without understanding that it represents the same margin on revenue that's risen because of inflation.
Jagmeet Singh should pass on his evidence of price gouging to the OSC, as Loblaws' audited financial statements show grocery profit margins in the 3-4% range
Net profit. Loblaws earns higher margins on its drug store and financial services segments. At an aggregate level, its profit margins aren't much better than on a GIC.
What sort of plan should PP have in place for climate change mitigation? The current scheme has never and will never move the needle given that atmospheric C02 concentration is a global measurement. Taxing carbon (and thus anything that has to be delivered from one point to another, along with the majority of home heating) does essentially nothing to reduce emissions in the grand scheme. It just makes everything more expensive for regular people.
Climate change is a collective action problem. The reason to adopt carbon taxes is not that the policy instrument's use in Canada is going to single-handedly bring down global emissions, but rather that the policy would result in other countries following Canada's example and then aggregate action would result in global emissions decline.
Respectfully, I strongly doubt any sensible nation is going to follow Canada in impoverishing themselves with green policies that don’t work. If Canada wants to make a noticeable impact to global emissions, whether direct or indirect, the only serious route that currently exists is transitioning to nuclear power, using natural gas to keep energy affordable and relatively low carbon intensity. Additionally, exporting as much natural gas as possible would check off several very positive boxes including both emissions reductions (displacing coal in the developing world) and providing energy security to our European allies whilst also enriching every Canadian citizen with the royalties that would be pouring in at historic rates.
Taxing carbon in western nations when the developing world will not (can not?) follow suit is a purely political exercise and when viewed within the green framework being foisted upon developed nations will serve only to ensure that those nations have more debt and less capacity to confront an increasingly uncertain future.
Energy supply is not an automatic means of reducing emissions. You can increase supply of nuclear power and natural gas, but there's no inherent incentive for that to displace dirtier energy consumption as opposed to encourage increased consumption generally. There's no path to sustained emissions reductions that doesn't involve changing the consumption behaviour of society at large.
"Taxing carbon in western nations when the developing world will not (can not?) follow suit is a purely political exercise"
That is an illogical argument. If countries see that more developed countries can combine high carbon taxes, low emissions, and strong economic performance as Sweden does, then developing countries will inevitably conclude that such an economic model is friendly to their own development.
Respectfully, what I was driving at is that, realistically, no amount of investment into “green” energy sources is ever going to make up enough of the market to seriously impact overall emissions, especially when the unit cost of those energy sources is dramatically higher than what is currently in use and isn’t likely to get cheaper as more and more scarce raw materials are required.
You are correct in saying “energy supply is not an automatic means of reducing emissions” as it would of course take time for new methods to be adopted. The point remains though that sources like solar and wind will never appear cost effective to nations with a living memory of what it is to be hungry. Countries like India and China are forever in need of more energy and expensive, intermittent green energy just can’t be the answer for them. Natural gas turbines fueled by imported LNG can get a foothold if there’s enough product available for it, which is where nations like Canada could play a vital role in making a real difference to global emissions.
I see your viewpoint on developing nations taking pointers from developed nations but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Nations desperately trying to industrialize and improve life for their people don’t care what countries like Canada or Sweden do. Sweden is an impossibly small case study to attempt to apply to nations measuring their population in hundreds of millions. There are 19 people in India that don’t have enough to eat for every single Swedish citizen.
I think that it is perfectly logical to assume that giant developing nations like China and India will continue to do whatever is fastest and cheapest in growing their energy supply and increase energy security. Illogical would be assuming they’d take a page out of Canada’s (or any western nation’s) book when we have no living concept of the additional struggles they have to tackle.
"I think that it is perfectly logical to assume that giant developing nations like China and India will continue to do whatever is fastest and cheapest in growing their energy supply and increase energy security. Illogical would be assuming they’d take a page out of Canada’s (or any western nation’s) book when we have no living concept of the additional struggles they have to tackle."
There isn't a single country in the world that completely ignores the record of every single other country. If Canada sets an obvious positive example, other countries will follow, most likely European ones. If Canada and Europe set a strong example, the U.S. will inevitably be embarrassed enough to follow. If the entire western world sets a strong example, then some number of developing countries will follow their example. If various developing countries set a strong example, India and China will inevitably follow their example.
A collective action problem can only be solved through individual leadership. If everyone including Canada is hypocritically hedging their bets that they can free-ride on the emissions reductions efforts of others, then of course India and China will have minimal incentive to bother trying at all.
"Sweden is an impossibly small case study to attempt to apply to nations measuring their population in hundreds of millions."
Pricing incentives have obvious and demonstrable impacts on consumer behaviour, and larger populations like India and China are not any more immune to behavioural changes through price incentives. There's no indication that Chinese or Indian economists would think any differently than western economists on this matter, as opposed to being ignored by their governments just as western economists are having their advice ignored by their own respective governments.
JR, "Axe the Tax" is a slogan to appeal to the masses, i.e. individuals.
The oil industry long ago made peace with the feds and the Alberta NDP government of the day on "climate change" when it agreed to various and sundry goals such as "net zero" and the like.
As near as I can tell, the oil industry is quite accepting of the carbon tax because they see that there is virtually no chance of an industrial carbon tax being repealed whereas a consumer carbon tax is very, very likely to go. In fact, the oil industry is currently negotiating with the feds for agreements that provide certainty about the level of the industrial carbon tax, something that a PP government will be stuck with.
The notions of price gouging and corporate greed are lazy politics. Loblaws' profits are growing because the population is growing rapidly due to Trudeau's policy of human quantitative easing. Costco and Walmart, two of the most ferocious competitors in commercial history, are major players in the Canadian grocery market and can drive margins far lower than any government legislation. Beyond the lasting effects of 15 years of excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus, the major contributors to high food prices are supply management and lack of unified food product safety standards with the US.
Millennials can't afford to live. They care less about the identity crap that politicians and their evil strategists have used to wedge the electorate in the past.
Why would the CPC reveal its climate change policy in advance of a campaign? Lots can change between now and then, especially at the geopolitical level (ex. Russia collapses, war in Middle East, Trump presidency). The Trudeau hacks have already played the Liberals' greatest hits from the 90's (ex. abortion, NWC), so they will likely fight the election on climate change.
The CPC and Poilievre have never had a serious climate change policy prior to any election. They have always been carefully pandering to the constituency that does not believe that carbon dioxide emissions affect global temperatures and weather.
I have similar concerns about our democracy, but it is Trudeau who talks a good story, but his actions have done more to destroy our democracy than any regime before him.
Trudeau has anti-democratic flaws of his own, but he didn't test perpetually escalate tensions with opposition parties with over 100 motions for time allocation like the Harper government did, he didn't secretly force on Canada the 31-year Canada-China FIPA that allows Chinese state-companies to sue for our tax dollars in kangaroo courts like the Harper government did, he didn't try to advance a partisan electoral reform bill like Poilievre did as minister in 2014, and he didn't test the limits of constitutional legitimacy by proroguing parliament in the face of a pending non-confidence vote like was done in 2008.
Could you please elaborate on that? What exactly has JT done to destroy democracy in Canada? I have lots of issues with what JT has done but he hasn't resorted to phony robocalls to cheat in elections.
"Ax the tax" is my wish right from the start, and I have nothing to do with the oil & gas industry. Why should PP offer any plan, only to have it stolen by the Liebranos.
Amazing is that you have not as yet clued in who and which party/parties have already proven (laws enacted or in process to be enacted) themselves to by a real threat to our democracy.
I'm really not sure what the author is saying. Unless one is running a company or charity and "needs" the type of access to the PMO that Liberals have specialized in forever, successful companies only need a government that creates a business climate to succeed in. And successful companies understand that intimately.
The only reason there's been a shift to micro-economic issues is that on the macro side we are dealing with the most incompetent federal government in the country's modern history. There's nothing left to do but reach out to individual voters in the hope they can be fooled yet again.
A party is a party of big business if, once elected, it enacts policies favourable to big business. Who votes for a party, and who sends it money, are irrelevant!
But, but, but Brian, the majority of the LPC money - I believe but do not have the statistics to prove - comes from individuals, yes, but primarily individuals associated with big business [How do you pronounce SNC-Lavalin? How do you pronounce We Charity? How do you pronounce Chinese electoral interference?].
-One reason people are so angry and are facing so much economic malaise is because the chickens of globalization have been coming home to roost for years, just as Cassandras like John Ralston Saul and Mel Hurtig warned us about. More and more of our economy has become hollowed-out branch plants, to the point that even right-wingers like Gordon Nixon and Rudyard Griffiths have been worried about it. Hell, Brian Mulroney himself said it best when he noted that "I never saw a takeover that created a new job, except for lawyers and accountants."
Hell, even some of Poilievre's own ideas are flat-out protectionist. His proposal to block foreign oil imports in favour of more domestically produced fuel from places like Alberta is the stuff of nightmares for your typical free trader, but it could be a huge sell in Alberta.
And then there's this piece in C2C Journal by Sam Routley, arguing for the need to consider the "common good" in trade policy, how governments can shape economic forces to respond to community or national needs. He even refers to the older Conservative traditions and economic nationalism! That's Red Tory talk!
-I don't know if anybody here saw Jen Gerson's interview with Ryan Jespersen, but she said that Poilievre might have to release a climate policy whether he wants to or not. Our international customers and investors will demand it. Jason Kenney cost Alberta the Teck Frontier mine because he killed our provincial carbon tax, and Teck flat-out said as much in its letter withdrawing its application. Not to mention some people are going to start asking him what he plans to do about diminishing rivers, wildfires and what have you. What will he answer?
-If people think the Conservatives are the party of big business, it's because a lot of their actions have fueled that perception. Whether it be Harper ramming through drastic changes to our environmental oversight laws back in 2011-12 in omnibus bills and giving the Canadian Wheat Board away to a foreign multinational with a hundred-plus million in taxpayer money when a bunch of local farmers were willing to take it as a co-op, or Mike Harris giving away the 407 Highway for a song and a 99-year lease in a mind-bogglingly stupid deal that would've gotten him fired and sued in an actual private sector job, it's not hard to find examples of Conservatives and Liberals alike doing things that look like flagrant giveaways to big business.
In Canada there is a big difference between big business and small/medium business. More so than in most other countries. Our big businesses tend to be clients of the state, protected by various laws from the outside world, and/or depend on the public sector as a client.
In the Canadian energy industry, the big players and everyone else don't really get along. They even have different trade associations and very different wants and needs.
To equate big business with all business is the mark of a simpleton.
I think what I would add to this though, is that businesses benefit when people have money to spend and the economy is generally proceeding well. So while the conservatives may not set out to support big business, they sort of indirectly do.
That being said - your point about parties focusing more on microeconomics than macroeconomics jumps out at me because it explains the mistakes of the liberals handing out money like candy during 2020. If they didn't understand how the money supply expands (banks make money too by lending out a portion of the money deposited at their institutions,) and didn't think much about how over-size demand at a time of low-supply might impact prices, well - some of those concepts are more macroeconomics in nature than micro. And you have to understand both portions to really fit the pieces together.
It's seemed fairly clear to me for a number of years that the liberals and their budget approach and decisions don't understand basic economics. I truly hope that the conservatives understand it better and get some better coms out so that people stop hating any business that turns a profit. The current hate-fest for grocers is the path towards nationalization of markets if allowed to fester/grow big enough. Businesses don't operate in markets where there aren't profits to be had. And I don't think all the people boycotting loblaws really understand that for those profits, thousands of people have jobs, and people have a place to shop. (It's not right to blame one retailer for the effects of inflation that have affected their businesses too.)
Sure. Just like the CPC isn't the party of so cons that want to regulate women's bodies. Before anyone comes at me screaming "liberal stooge" blah blah, please go and look at the lovely statement made by an Alberta MP not even two weeks ago regarding the right to choose.
This election is the conservatives to lose - all they need to do is keep the crazy to a minimum. That's it. Everyone is so so sick of the very tired, poorly governing liberals that all the CPC has to do is shut their crazy contingent up yet here we are.
Amal, I won't scream "Liberal stooge" at you for the simple reason that every person is entitled to their opinions, even foolish opinions. Oh, before you get offended, please understand that I include in that descriptor the Alberta MP you reference. He/she is entitled to his/her [I am unaware of his/her gender so ...] brilliance, as well as to his/her stupidity. Oh, and there have been pro-lifers in the LPC caucus so ....
The point is, please understand that the existence of a particular individual with a particular opinion is not necessarily indicative of the opinions of all members of a political party.
Yes, the CPC has to keep the crazy talk to a minimum, not only in terms of the volume and quantity of said crazy talk but also in the influence of those individuals.
Finally, I note that the LPC continually and stupidly - still - tries to link the CPC to Roe v Wade in the US but makes no distinction between Canada and the US. In fact, very few people appreciate that Canada has NO abortion law and has not had one since 1993 - 31 years. That means that even Stephen Harper, that Conservative "right wing fanatic who was going to ....", even when he had a majority, made no law about abortion. That means that the Prime Feminist, our current PM, has made no law. So, any assertion that PP will do so flies in the face of his assertion that he believes in a woman's choice.
While I do agree about the crazy needing to be kept to a minimum, I think anyone who votes based on one random person's statements (when they can't actually vote against party lines anyways with a party whip system) is really just not very aware of how our political system functions. Imagine thinking that one person's statement reflects exactly what an entire party would do.
The CPC should align itself with small, independent businesses, not corporate crooks that are the other side of the coins that feature pernicious politicians on the top (or is that bottom) of the same coins.
Small, independent businesses are the only thing that can save Canada from the corruption and malaise that our government-corporate oligarchs have jointly created.
I can't ait to read Pierre's election platform. I suspect it will set a world record for vagary. Canadian tradition is we vote to get rid of governments. We did it with Harper, Martin, Mulroney and now, again, Trudeau. They get old and tired and lose their way, and we turf them. How long Pierre remains in power remains to be seen. I don't yet see him having a plan for anything outside of 14 cents a litre which is farting at a hurricane useless as a solution.
Conservatives may not care about big business. Being in Ontario, my experience with it is Mike Harris selling the 407 for 2 billion to make his books look better, and Doug putting on a clinic in graft while slowly killing off our most treasured program; healthcare. He's spending more than Kathleen Wynne; just not on anything that benefits anyone who isn't his friend. Canada is broken......because it's current leaders have no solutions to any of the major problems facing the country. To many things to fix, so nothing gets fixed. I'll wait for the platform.
Healthcare "treasured." That's a boomer thing. Health care in Canada hasn't been that good for decades now, and most people polling shows want more choice and options.
Perhaps when the Trudeaumania Central Canadian boomers die off we will finally have more options than mediocrity in fake equality.
Most Canadians want more choice and options....and not one of them wants their taxes to go up to pay for it. Our healthcare sucks because we've let politicians dilute the quality of service by offering everything and providing nothing with actual quality....the thing that matters. So hospitals spent boatloads on idiot consultants who want to measure everything, so they can manage it to try and fit political budget aspirations. That doesn't work in a field like healthcare where some surges aren't predictable. So running it at 95%+ capacity to get more bang for the bucket yields lousy service when things get busy. This is a failure of government issue.
I spent 17 days in hospital, half in the ICU. I can only imagine the sheer volume of bullshit that would come with dealing with an insurance company over that......for those who can afford the insurance. My bill was zero dollars. Careful what you wish for.
Correct re. the Trudeaumania Central Canadian boomers, but they are a lesser problem.
It is the HEREDITARY Laurentian corruptocratic "elites", of any and all political bents that have to be driven away from power. They and their offspring have been in place now well over 100 years, running the apparatus of the various political backrooms, middle and senior ranks of federal civil service, owners and/or shareholders of Canada's blue chip companies and large and medium enterprises. They are just about invisible, while most citizens "see' the political parties. Especially I do agree with your mention of "fake equality", just like from behind the old iron curtain.
Agreed. The funny thing is, people wouldn't resent them so much if they were any good at eliting. Instead they focus on feathering their nest while being second rate at actually running things, public or private.
Peter, it is my understanding that unions are prohibited from making political donations to federal parties; it is my further understanding that there is no restriction on unions making donations to third party advertisers. And they do: massively.
Ken: Thank you for the clarification. My contention is that this type of union advocacy is simply an end run around rules governing donations and needs to be curbed.
Peter, and I mean no disrespect when I say, "Well.... duh!"
Yup, it is an end run. I further agree that it should be prevented.
On the other hand, on the other hand ..... You can be sure that the union counter argument would be that companies cannot donate but the executives can and that those many, many, many executives donate to the two bigger parties and that there are so many more executives with enough wealth to donate than there are union members who have the wherewithal to donate.
I expect that union argument has a degree of validity and any reform should bear that in mind. Any potential reform should also bear in mind the current union donation effect of massive donations in one direction (toward the party), which is much more effective (I submit) than a number of much smaller donations in two directions (LPC and CPC) and split among more than 300 ridings. In other words, there are complications but I don't believe that such complications should prevent an intelligent change to the current rules.
Unions can mobilize their members to make donations under the limits moreso than corporation can mobilize their employees and shareholders to do the same. That is an advantage that can't be regulated.
I agree with the removing the ability of non-voting entities, such as corporations and unions, from being able to contribute to political parties. Essentially, if you can't vote in an election, you should not be allowed to influence through other means. It was a great decision. It does introduce another problem though.
Unlike corporations, people base their funding decisions on their emotions as much as a rational analysis of each party. As our federal political parties have shown, it is easer to get money out of people by appealing to their base emotions: anger, frustration, worry about dark conspiracies, and so on. Unless such emotions act as a spur to build or develop something better, they can be twisted into a darker, more nihilistic view of the world.
The unfortunate side of this trend in party fundraising is that the electorate tends to be fed a diet of stories that tell us how bad the other side is, rather than a series of policy proposals for making things better. Coupled with negative effects of social media, we end up with the political environment we have now: constant "gotcha" attacks and cute little sound bites disparaging the other side. This is not a good environment for rational policy development.
What is unfortunate is the unwillingness of the electorate to view the information flowing to them with detachment, and calmly analyze it in a clear-eyed unbiased manner, to find out if they are being bullshitted and if so by whom.
Corporations and unions, sure.
I think you missed the other non-voting contributors.
The elimination of corporate donations, and public subsidies to political parties crippled the Liberal Party of Canada for nearly a decade.
We know who they turned to for cash.
You say, "we end up with the political environment we have now: constant "gotcha" attacks and cute little sound bites disparaging the other side. This is not a good environment for rational policy development."
How much is this a natual dissolution of the public sphere, and how much is a quiet divide and conquer push from those who are putting their thumb on the scale of the partys' candidate selection process?
A very interesting history lesson about the corporate interests larding the electoral pots and hoping for influence down the road.
The removal of corporate and union money in election campaigns was a wise decision, except that unions still run a steady stream of ads in the run up to elections that just happen to mirror NDP or Liberal talking points. An indirect campaign subsidy that Conservatives will never offset with heavy hitters in the business world.
All the restrictions did is confer advantage to groups like unions, evangelical groups and possibly some ethnic blocks that can motivate their bases to make small donations en masse.
The real advantage is to unions, especially public sector unions that have closed shop workplaces and can hive off union dues for political purposes. (Like supporting Hamas, but I digress.) Union members have no say in how their dues are politicized for causes that they don’t personally support. It’s a preferential hijacking of funds that isn’t available to all interested players in the political process.
Agreed. One note. Alberta has "right to work lite" in that unions are prohibited from spending member dues on anything not directly involved with the workplace unless explicitly permitted to by the individual member.
It's absolute "read in Charter rights" nonsense that unions are exempted from freedom to disassociate. Another example of Quebec philosophical leftism, group freedom over the individual, being shoved down the throats of Canada.
Could you imagine a Jewish public servant CUPE member going through the courts for the right to not be forced to give dues for anti-Israel political action? That's one that needs to happen.
Canada's unique closed shop system of requiring membership and payment of dues to a union (or association) to be able to work at that workplace is one of the things that makes this country less competitive and more of a joke on the world stage.
Mandatory unions and their actions such as banning replacement workers are the height on entitlement. No one should ever be entitled to a job, just like corps aren't entitled to a profit.
Business writers and academics have been critical of the productivity gap when Canada is compared to other democratic nations. Critical for years, and yet last summer’s strike at West Coast ports hit a stalemate over….wait for it: increased automation.
This obstruction of modernization at a government port is a prime example of how the economy suffers because of weak kneed politicians being overrun by union leaders who push hard all the time.
Even worse are the courts treating unions as more equal than any other group in society. Our legal elite are so far up the ivory tower, and like the good peasants we are, we defer to our class betters, that it's going to turn this country into Argentina.
I think Bill C-525 was just the first step in addressing exactly that. When Trudeau came to power every attempt to address accountability from unions (and First Nations, etc) was almost immediately overturned.
Yeah so much good policy died with the end of the Harper government, the most significant being OAS eligibility pushed to 67. Yet another reminder of the policy regression under the Liberals and what could have been.
I can't imagine the Trudeau Liberals implementing a policy like taxing income trusts that enraged their base despite being good (and necessary.) Instead, they seem to spend a lot of energy pandering to an older voter base's nostalgia for the Pierre Trudeau era of the '70s with things like stopping Canada Post's plans to end door-to-door mail delivery.
The Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau eras remind me of Napoleon Bonaparte's empire, followed by Napoleon III's 2nd Empire, which inspired Karl Marx to observe "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."
Removed a comment because it was gross.
Overturned by the opposition you mean? Just want to clarify.
The Liberals tabled legislation to repeal bills C-377 and C-525 in January 2016, and in 2015 decided not to enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Quite obviously there had been deals struck before the 2015 election and promises were delivered.
I see.
Thank you, Sir, for validating what I have been saying for years: the LPC is the party of big business and the CPC is the party of small business and individuals.
Ah, so wonderful to be validated!! Not. No one cares, least of all me.
Validation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the public understand just who is pulling whose strings. [Hmmmm.... did I use my who/whom/whose correctly? No matter.] The point is that much is misunderstood about the motivations of our parties. Well, except the NDP about whom we do understand properly: they are primarily motivated by hatred and personal identity grievance.
I still have uneasiness about the CPC's ability to discern between business friendly policy and "big business" friendly policy, which in Canada means protecting oligopolies. Broad based policy change to encourage business investment that promotes competition and avoids picking favorites is exactly what Canada needs. Industrial strategy and populist measures like grocery codes of conduct is what it doesn't. I'd be impressed if Poilievre were to campaign on opening telecom to competition. That one would likely have wide public support. Ending supply management would have more impact than a grocery code of conduct, but Big Dairy is still too powerful because of its association with Quebec.
Indeed. Calgary’s office towers have been filled for decades with Liberal CEOs primarily because the Libs are - traditionally- a lot easier to lobby than the Cons.
An informative piece but that doesn't explain "Axe the Tax" which is clearly the will of the oil industry. As far as I know Poilievre has not offered any other plan to mitigate climate change. A prime minister has all kinds of ways to reduce taxes without touching that particular one.
PP also seems to be silent on corporate price gouging that is a major factor of our current inflation issues. That would be a good one to tackle head on instead of blaming it on Trudeau.
One of the reasons that Poilievre is popular amongst Millennials is that they weren't around for his years of being an obnoxious troll in the House. As a child of World War II vets I am very touchy about people messing with our democracy and, again, the youngsters weren't around for the Republican voter suppression antics of Pierre Poutine.
The current inflation issues are almost entirely due to excess demand due to loose monetary policy and excessive government transfers. Policies aimed at corporate price gouging are pointless because that's not actually a problem. Gross margins at businesses like Loblaws haven't changed over the past several years, which easily disproves claims of gouging. Increased prices are just a reflection of inflation in other areas of the economy. Don't fall for the innumeracy of people like Jagmeet Singh, who squeal about "record profits" because they look at a larger figure without understanding that it represents the same margin on revenue that's risen because of inflation.
Jagmeet Singh should pass on his evidence of price gouging to the OSC, as Loblaws' audited financial statements show grocery profit margins in the 3-4% range
Do you know if that is their gross profit margin for groceries or their operating profit margin?
Net profit. Loblaws earns higher margins on its drug store and financial services segments. At an aggregate level, its profit margins aren't much better than on a GIC.
Thank you for posting before I could say the same thing. You said it much more succinctly.
What sort of plan should PP have in place for climate change mitigation? The current scheme has never and will never move the needle given that atmospheric C02 concentration is a global measurement. Taxing carbon (and thus anything that has to be delivered from one point to another, along with the majority of home heating) does essentially nothing to reduce emissions in the grand scheme. It just makes everything more expensive for regular people.
The easiest plan will be to reduce the environmental footprint of the federal government by reducing its headcount.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy!
Climate change is a collective action problem. The reason to adopt carbon taxes is not that the policy instrument's use in Canada is going to single-handedly bring down global emissions, but rather that the policy would result in other countries following Canada's example and then aggregate action would result in global emissions decline.
Respectfully, I strongly doubt any sensible nation is going to follow Canada in impoverishing themselves with green policies that don’t work. If Canada wants to make a noticeable impact to global emissions, whether direct or indirect, the only serious route that currently exists is transitioning to nuclear power, using natural gas to keep energy affordable and relatively low carbon intensity. Additionally, exporting as much natural gas as possible would check off several very positive boxes including both emissions reductions (displacing coal in the developing world) and providing energy security to our European allies whilst also enriching every Canadian citizen with the royalties that would be pouring in at historic rates.
Taxing carbon in western nations when the developing world will not (can not?) follow suit is a purely political exercise and when viewed within the green framework being foisted upon developed nations will serve only to ensure that those nations have more debt and less capacity to confront an increasingly uncertain future.
Energy supply is not an automatic means of reducing emissions. You can increase supply of nuclear power and natural gas, but there's no inherent incentive for that to displace dirtier energy consumption as opposed to encourage increased consumption generally. There's no path to sustained emissions reductions that doesn't involve changing the consumption behaviour of society at large.
"Taxing carbon in western nations when the developing world will not (can not?) follow suit is a purely political exercise"
That is an illogical argument. If countries see that more developed countries can combine high carbon taxes, low emissions, and strong economic performance as Sweden does, then developing countries will inevitably conclude that such an economic model is friendly to their own development.
Respectfully, what I was driving at is that, realistically, no amount of investment into “green” energy sources is ever going to make up enough of the market to seriously impact overall emissions, especially when the unit cost of those energy sources is dramatically higher than what is currently in use and isn’t likely to get cheaper as more and more scarce raw materials are required.
You are correct in saying “energy supply is not an automatic means of reducing emissions” as it would of course take time for new methods to be adopted. The point remains though that sources like solar and wind will never appear cost effective to nations with a living memory of what it is to be hungry. Countries like India and China are forever in need of more energy and expensive, intermittent green energy just can’t be the answer for them. Natural gas turbines fueled by imported LNG can get a foothold if there’s enough product available for it, which is where nations like Canada could play a vital role in making a real difference to global emissions.
I see your viewpoint on developing nations taking pointers from developed nations but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Nations desperately trying to industrialize and improve life for their people don’t care what countries like Canada or Sweden do. Sweden is an impossibly small case study to attempt to apply to nations measuring their population in hundreds of millions. There are 19 people in India that don’t have enough to eat for every single Swedish citizen.
I think that it is perfectly logical to assume that giant developing nations like China and India will continue to do whatever is fastest and cheapest in growing their energy supply and increase energy security. Illogical would be assuming they’d take a page out of Canada’s (or any western nation’s) book when we have no living concept of the additional struggles they have to tackle.
"I think that it is perfectly logical to assume that giant developing nations like China and India will continue to do whatever is fastest and cheapest in growing their energy supply and increase energy security. Illogical would be assuming they’d take a page out of Canada’s (or any western nation’s) book when we have no living concept of the additional struggles they have to tackle."
There isn't a single country in the world that completely ignores the record of every single other country. If Canada sets an obvious positive example, other countries will follow, most likely European ones. If Canada and Europe set a strong example, the U.S. will inevitably be embarrassed enough to follow. If the entire western world sets a strong example, then some number of developing countries will follow their example. If various developing countries set a strong example, India and China will inevitably follow their example.
A collective action problem can only be solved through individual leadership. If everyone including Canada is hypocritically hedging their bets that they can free-ride on the emissions reductions efforts of others, then of course India and China will have minimal incentive to bother trying at all.
"Sweden is an impossibly small case study to attempt to apply to nations measuring their population in hundreds of millions."
Pricing incentives have obvious and demonstrable impacts on consumer behaviour, and larger populations like India and China are not any more immune to behavioural changes through price incentives. There's no indication that Chinese or Indian economists would think any differently than western economists on this matter, as opposed to being ignored by their governments just as western economists are having their advice ignored by their own respective governments.
JR, "Axe the Tax" is a slogan to appeal to the masses, i.e. individuals.
The oil industry long ago made peace with the feds and the Alberta NDP government of the day on "climate change" when it agreed to various and sundry goals such as "net zero" and the like.
As near as I can tell, the oil industry is quite accepting of the carbon tax because they see that there is virtually no chance of an industrial carbon tax being repealed whereas a consumer carbon tax is very, very likely to go. In fact, the oil industry is currently negotiating with the feds for agreements that provide certainty about the level of the industrial carbon tax, something that a PP government will be stuck with.
The notions of price gouging and corporate greed are lazy politics. Loblaws' profits are growing because the population is growing rapidly due to Trudeau's policy of human quantitative easing. Costco and Walmart, two of the most ferocious competitors in commercial history, are major players in the Canadian grocery market and can drive margins far lower than any government legislation. Beyond the lasting effects of 15 years of excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus, the major contributors to high food prices are supply management and lack of unified food product safety standards with the US.
Millennials can't afford to live. They care less about the identity crap that politicians and their evil strategists have used to wedge the electorate in the past.
Why would the CPC reveal its climate change policy in advance of a campaign? Lots can change between now and then, especially at the geopolitical level (ex. Russia collapses, war in Middle East, Trump presidency). The Trudeau hacks have already played the Liberals' greatest hits from the 90's (ex. abortion, NWC), so they will likely fight the election on climate change.
The CPC and Poilievre have never had a serious climate change policy prior to any election. They have always been carefully pandering to the constituency that does not believe that carbon dioxide emissions affect global temperatures and weather.
I have similar concerns about our democracy, but it is Trudeau who talks a good story, but his actions have done more to destroy our democracy than any regime before him.
Trudeau has anti-democratic flaws of his own, but he didn't test perpetually escalate tensions with opposition parties with over 100 motions for time allocation like the Harper government did, he didn't secretly force on Canada the 31-year Canada-China FIPA that allows Chinese state-companies to sue for our tax dollars in kangaroo courts like the Harper government did, he didn't try to advance a partisan electoral reform bill like Poilievre did as minister in 2014, and he didn't test the limits of constitutional legitimacy by proroguing parliament in the face of a pending non-confidence vote like was done in 2008.
Could you please elaborate on that? What exactly has JT done to destroy democracy in Canada? I have lots of issues with what JT has done but he hasn't resorted to phony robocalls to cheat in elections.
"Ax the tax" is my wish right from the start, and I have nothing to do with the oil & gas industry. Why should PP offer any plan, only to have it stolen by the Liebranos.
Amazing is that you have not as yet clued in who and which party/parties have already proven (laws enacted or in process to be enacted) themselves to by a real threat to our democracy.
I'm really not sure what the author is saying. Unless one is running a company or charity and "needs" the type of access to the PMO that Liberals have specialized in forever, successful companies only need a government that creates a business climate to succeed in. And successful companies understand that intimately.
The only reason there's been a shift to micro-economic issues is that on the macro side we are dealing with the most incompetent federal government in the country's modern history. There's nothing left to do but reach out to individual voters in the hope they can be fooled yet again.
A party is a party of big business if, once elected, it enacts policies favourable to big business. Who votes for a party, and who sends it money, are irrelevant!
But, but, but Brian, the majority of the LPC money - I believe but do not have the statistics to prove - comes from individuals, yes, but primarily individuals associated with big business [How do you pronounce SNC-Lavalin? How do you pronounce We Charity? How do you pronounce Chinese electoral interference?].
A few points to make:
-One reason people are so angry and are facing so much economic malaise is because the chickens of globalization have been coming home to roost for years, just as Cassandras like John Ralston Saul and Mel Hurtig warned us about. More and more of our economy has become hollowed-out branch plants, to the point that even right-wingers like Gordon Nixon and Rudyard Griffiths have been worried about it. Hell, Brian Mulroney himself said it best when he noted that "I never saw a takeover that created a new job, except for lawyers and accountants."
Hell, even some of Poilievre's own ideas are flat-out protectionist. His proposal to block foreign oil imports in favour of more domestically produced fuel from places like Alberta is the stuff of nightmares for your typical free trader, but it could be a huge sell in Alberta.
And then there's this piece in C2C Journal by Sam Routley, arguing for the need to consider the "common good" in trade policy, how governments can shape economic forces to respond to community or national needs. He even refers to the older Conservative traditions and economic nationalism! That's Red Tory talk!
https://c2cjournal.ca/2023/07/how-canadas-conservatives-should-solve-their-free-trade-confusion/
-I don't know if anybody here saw Jen Gerson's interview with Ryan Jespersen, but she said that Poilievre might have to release a climate policy whether he wants to or not. Our international customers and investors will demand it. Jason Kenney cost Alberta the Teck Frontier mine because he killed our provincial carbon tax, and Teck flat-out said as much in its letter withdrawing its application. Not to mention some people are going to start asking him what he plans to do about diminishing rivers, wildfires and what have you. What will he answer?
https://www.teck.com/news/news-releases/2020/teck-withdraws-regulatory-application-for-frontier-project
-If people think the Conservatives are the party of big business, it's because a lot of their actions have fueled that perception. Whether it be Harper ramming through drastic changes to our environmental oversight laws back in 2011-12 in omnibus bills and giving the Canadian Wheat Board away to a foreign multinational with a hundred-plus million in taxpayer money when a bunch of local farmers were willing to take it as a co-op, or Mike Harris giving away the 407 Highway for a song and a 99-year lease in a mind-bogglingly stupid deal that would've gotten him fired and sued in an actual private sector job, it's not hard to find examples of Conservatives and Liberals alike doing things that look like flagrant giveaways to big business.
In Canada there is a big difference between big business and small/medium business. More so than in most other countries. Our big businesses tend to be clients of the state, protected by various laws from the outside world, and/or depend on the public sector as a client.
In the Canadian energy industry, the big players and everyone else don't really get along. They even have different trade associations and very different wants and needs.
To equate big business with all business is the mark of a simpleton.
I think what I would add to this though, is that businesses benefit when people have money to spend and the economy is generally proceeding well. So while the conservatives may not set out to support big business, they sort of indirectly do.
That being said - your point about parties focusing more on microeconomics than macroeconomics jumps out at me because it explains the mistakes of the liberals handing out money like candy during 2020. If they didn't understand how the money supply expands (banks make money too by lending out a portion of the money deposited at their institutions,) and didn't think much about how over-size demand at a time of low-supply might impact prices, well - some of those concepts are more macroeconomics in nature than micro. And you have to understand both portions to really fit the pieces together.
It's seemed fairly clear to me for a number of years that the liberals and their budget approach and decisions don't understand basic economics. I truly hope that the conservatives understand it better and get some better coms out so that people stop hating any business that turns a profit. The current hate-fest for grocers is the path towards nationalization of markets if allowed to fester/grow big enough. Businesses don't operate in markets where there aren't profits to be had. And I don't think all the people boycotting loblaws really understand that for those profits, thousands of people have jobs, and people have a place to shop. (It's not right to blame one retailer for the effects of inflation that have affected their businesses too.)
Sure. Just like the CPC isn't the party of so cons that want to regulate women's bodies. Before anyone comes at me screaming "liberal stooge" blah blah, please go and look at the lovely statement made by an Alberta MP not even two weeks ago regarding the right to choose.
This election is the conservatives to lose - all they need to do is keep the crazy to a minimum. That's it. Everyone is so so sick of the very tired, poorly governing liberals that all the CPC has to do is shut their crazy contingent up yet here we are.
Amal, I won't scream "Liberal stooge" at you for the simple reason that every person is entitled to their opinions, even foolish opinions. Oh, before you get offended, please understand that I include in that descriptor the Alberta MP you reference. He/she is entitled to his/her [I am unaware of his/her gender so ...] brilliance, as well as to his/her stupidity. Oh, and there have been pro-lifers in the LPC caucus so ....
The point is, please understand that the existence of a particular individual with a particular opinion is not necessarily indicative of the opinions of all members of a political party.
Yes, the CPC has to keep the crazy talk to a minimum, not only in terms of the volume and quantity of said crazy talk but also in the influence of those individuals.
Finally, I note that the LPC continually and stupidly - still - tries to link the CPC to Roe v Wade in the US but makes no distinction between Canada and the US. In fact, very few people appreciate that Canada has NO abortion law and has not had one since 1993 - 31 years. That means that even Stephen Harper, that Conservative "right wing fanatic who was going to ....", even when he had a majority, made no law about abortion. That means that the Prime Feminist, our current PM, has made no law. So, any assertion that PP will do so flies in the face of his assertion that he believes in a woman's choice.
And I hope we keep it that way. US politics should stay below the border where it belongs.
I love this comment.
While I do agree about the crazy needing to be kept to a minimum, I think anyone who votes based on one random person's statements (when they can't actually vote against party lines anyways with a party whip system) is really just not very aware of how our political system functions. Imagine thinking that one person's statement reflects exactly what an entire party would do.
I won't be voting liberal or CPC to be honest. The NDP doesn't even exist in my voting universe. I may in fact sit this one out
Sure hope, if true, it remains that way.
The CPC should align itself with small, independent businesses, not corporate crooks that are the other side of the coins that feature pernicious politicians on the top (or is that bottom) of the same coins.
Small, independent businesses are the only thing that can save Canada from the corruption and malaise that our government-corporate oligarchs have jointly created.
I can't ait to read Pierre's election platform. I suspect it will set a world record for vagary. Canadian tradition is we vote to get rid of governments. We did it with Harper, Martin, Mulroney and now, again, Trudeau. They get old and tired and lose their way, and we turf them. How long Pierre remains in power remains to be seen. I don't yet see him having a plan for anything outside of 14 cents a litre which is farting at a hurricane useless as a solution.
Conservatives may not care about big business. Being in Ontario, my experience with it is Mike Harris selling the 407 for 2 billion to make his books look better, and Doug putting on a clinic in graft while slowly killing off our most treasured program; healthcare. He's spending more than Kathleen Wynne; just not on anything that benefits anyone who isn't his friend. Canada is broken......because it's current leaders have no solutions to any of the major problems facing the country. To many things to fix, so nothing gets fixed. I'll wait for the platform.
Healthcare "treasured." That's a boomer thing. Health care in Canada hasn't been that good for decades now, and most people polling shows want more choice and options.
Perhaps when the Trudeaumania Central Canadian boomers die off we will finally have more options than mediocrity in fake equality.
Most Canadians want more choice and options....and not one of them wants their taxes to go up to pay for it. Our healthcare sucks because we've let politicians dilute the quality of service by offering everything and providing nothing with actual quality....the thing that matters. So hospitals spent boatloads on idiot consultants who want to measure everything, so they can manage it to try and fit political budget aspirations. That doesn't work in a field like healthcare where some surges aren't predictable. So running it at 95%+ capacity to get more bang for the bucket yields lousy service when things get busy. This is a failure of government issue.
I spent 17 days in hospital, half in the ICU. I can only imagine the sheer volume of bullshit that would come with dealing with an insurance company over that......for those who can afford the insurance. My bill was zero dollars. Careful what you wish for.
I'd rather be broke than dead to be honest. Canadians are cheap, they want good but don't want to pay for it so this is what we get.
Correct re. the Trudeaumania Central Canadian boomers, but they are a lesser problem.
It is the HEREDITARY Laurentian corruptocratic "elites", of any and all political bents that have to be driven away from power. They and their offspring have been in place now well over 100 years, running the apparatus of the various political backrooms, middle and senior ranks of federal civil service, owners and/or shareholders of Canada's blue chip companies and large and medium enterprises. They are just about invisible, while most citizens "see' the political parties. Especially I do agree with your mention of "fake equality", just like from behind the old iron curtain.
Agreed. The funny thing is, people wouldn't resent them so much if they were any good at eliting. Instead they focus on feathering their nest while being second rate at actually running things, public or private.
When do the rules regarding donations that apply to corporations become applied to unions?
Peter, it is my understanding that unions are prohibited from making political donations to federal parties; it is my further understanding that there is no restriction on unions making donations to third party advertisers. And they do: massively.
Ken: Thank you for the clarification. My contention is that this type of union advocacy is simply an end run around rules governing donations and needs to be curbed.
Peter, and I mean no disrespect when I say, "Well.... duh!"
Yup, it is an end run. I further agree that it should be prevented.
On the other hand, on the other hand ..... You can be sure that the union counter argument would be that companies cannot donate but the executives can and that those many, many, many executives donate to the two bigger parties and that there are so many more executives with enough wealth to donate than there are union members who have the wherewithal to donate.
I expect that union argument has a degree of validity and any reform should bear that in mind. Any potential reform should also bear in mind the current union donation effect of massive donations in one direction (toward the party), which is much more effective (I submit) than a number of much smaller donations in two directions (LPC and CPC) and split among more than 300 ridings. In other words, there are complications but I don't believe that such complications should prevent an intelligent change to the current rules.
Unions can mobilize their members to make donations under the limits moreso than corporation can mobilize their employees and shareholders to do the same. That is an advantage that can't be regulated.
Agreed.