Canada Calls an Election

 

Can he ride a white horse?

Canada is heading into an election. Polls show the Liberals are ahead, and on track to form a majority government. And this time it really matters. This could end Canada.

Trump has played his cards well; or he is lucky. Trump having put out the welcome mat, Alberta  is scuffing its boots on it. Danielle Smith has issued a series of demands of the federal government, to prevent “an unprecedented national unity crisis”: 

1. guaranteed access to east and West coasts for Alberta oil and gas.

2. dropping restrictions on new pipelines.

3. dropping restrictions on oil tankers off the West Coast.

4. dropping emissions caps on oil and gas.

5. scrapping clean energy legislation.

6. lifting restrictions on single-use plastics

7. no export tax on oil and gas

8. no federal industrial carbon tax

9. better management of national parks—i.e., judicious pruning out of deadwood.

Smith has also said Alberta must stop subsidizing large provinces through equalization payments. 

The Liberals cannot agree to this. They would have to renounce their platform, turn on their environmentalist base, and alienate their Quebec base. It is Quebec that is blocking any pipeline east, and Quebec is the “large province” that benefits most from the equalization payments.

And if a Liberal government ignores her demands? Smith warns of an “unprecedented national unity crisis.” Unprecedented? That means something more serious than the Quebec separatist movements of the recent past.

The path is established by precedent: Smith can call a referendum on separation, as Quebec has. At least one poll showed 41% support for independence as of 2020. With the open offer to join the US on the table, the bite of tariffs, the explicit rejection of demands by Ottawa, official endorsement from the premier, and a charm offensive from the US, one can easily imagine that figure going over 50%. Alberta unbound.

Whether or not Alberta then joins the US, there goes Canada. Cut in half. No access to BC from Saskatchewan and East, and vice versa. Huge loss of government revenue. And everyone east of Saskatchewan loses their equalization payments.

If they do go on to join the US, Trump gets the oil and gas, and a relatively conservative voting base, for his new state. He may not even care about the rest of Canada and their troublesome liberal voters.

Without the equalization payments, without Alberta’s tax revenues, and without access to the rest of Canada, other provinces are likely sooner or later to come begging. And the Americans can pick and choose which it is in their interest to admit, and which to leave out in the cold.

Could the Conservatives save Canada? They can at least better afford to alienate Quebec by forcing through a pipeline; they do not much rely on Quebec as a base of support. 

Might Quebec then separate? Perhaps. But this is less likely. A pipeline across their turf is not so serious an issue. Quebec does not have Alberta’s easy fallback of joining the US: it would probably mean losing their distinct language and culture over time. And they would surely be poorer after separation, while Alberta would be richer. 

Conservatives would not be alienating their base by dropping environmental restrictions. That are all for deregulation in general, and killing he industrial carbon tax is a core part of their platform. Alberta’s insistence and Trump’s threats could be a useful excuse for what they want to do anyway.

If Trump wants to take Canada’s resources, Carney is his horse.

The Platform of the Alliance for Canadian Unity Party

Were he alive, we feel sure he would want to lead us.

Amidst writs dropping everywhere, Canadians of all possible ridings are heading to the proverbial polls. Maclean’s Magazine has recently outlined the platforms of the various Canadian federal parties.

But for one. They have omitted the platform of the utterly inevitable, albeit not entirely existent, Alliance for Canadian Unity Party (A-CUP). Slogan: Forward into the future with real change you can believe in that makes a new difference.

So let us make up the deficiency here:

Taxes: the other parties miss the essential problem here. They all promise lower taxes, or warn of higher taxes, as if anyone cared. It is not that Canadians hate taxes. It is that they hate doing math. Taxes make you do math. Why is the HST, and before it the GST, a special grievance? Because it makes it so difficult to count change. Why do those on payrolls like bigger government, while the self-employed want government small? Because the former never see their income taxes go—they are taken off at payroll. But the latter have to wrestle with the Revenue Canada forms.

This argues, in the first case, for a simple flat tax at a nice round number: say, 10% sales tax, 25% income tax. No exemptions, no loopholes, just send it in, and thanks. Businesses will be forced to quote prices tax included. And, just to put the cherry on top, everyone gets a little rebate when they submit a return. Say $100. This way, we will soon have the majority of Canadians believing the government is paying taxes to them.

Defense: Canada is in the fortunate position of not actually needing any defense. If anyone but the Americans choose to invade, the Americans would stop them. If the Americans choose to invade, nobody or nothing could stop them.

Unfortunately, it seems we have signed on to NATO. We have done this, no doubt, as Justin Trudeau says, out of CF-18 envy. NATO officially requires us to spend 2% of GDP on defense, even though little that NATO does is relevant to the actual defense of Canada.

The trick is to find some way to spend this money so that it is actually useful to Canada.

Theoretically, our most vulnerable border with a non-NATO nation is in the Arctic. And there are a great number of unemployed Inuit in the area…

Let’s equip them all with weaponized skidoos, and put them on regular patrols. The money we spend on defense could then be more or less directly subtracted from welfare costs. On top of that, the skidoos could all be built right here in Canada, by Bombardier, boosting the Quebec economy. We might even build this into an armaments export industry. Surely Russia will want its own armoured skidoos to contend with our armoured skidoos?

He's already filed his papers.

Immigration: This is a difficult issue, the worst kind, one with two sides. On the one hand, we need new immigrants to sustain our vast social welfare system. On the other, lower-income Canadians worry about immigrants taking their jobs.

We propose a simple solution: we allow only immigrants who will undertake a solemn oath not to take anyone’s job, but go immediately onto the social welfare system. Or just stay at home themselves, and send their families.

Health: We will legalize all drugs, without prescription. As people will then begin to self-medicate, we can save most of the money now spent on health care. And be much happier about it.

Unemployment: We believe that any current problem with unemployment can be easily solved by making it illegal for women to work.

Child Care: See above.

Senate: Granted that the Constitution says we must have a Senate, does it actually say anywhere that we have to pay them? 

Let's not, and see what happens.

That's Debatable

Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960.

In both Canada and the US, we are about to hear the first candidate debates of the current elections. My great regret, as a political junkie, is that the Canadian and US debates are scheduled, as usual, for the same time. This is done, of course, because were it not so, few in Canada would be watching. They would just switch to some American network for the regular programming.

They are not, of course, really “debates.” There is no topic. Nobody expects to hear a new argument; there is little opportunity to build one. In their debates in 2004, I think John Kerry clearly bested George Bush in terms of debating points. Yet Bush “won,” largely by ignoring any semblance of debate and repeating familiar points. The same thing happened in the Canadian leaders' debates in 2008. Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe all piled on Stephen Harper. Harper mostly just sat there and smiled, making his own case, responding to nothing. By debate rules, he lost badly. Yet polls said he won the debate, and he won the election. The others seemed angry; people admired Harper for taking it all calmly.

So these are not so much “debates” as joint press conferences, or, better, beauty contests. We watch and listen not to be persuaded by argument, but for blunders or zingers. It's kind of like watching a stock car race: we're mostly looking for a crack-up. One might see this as unkind and unworthy. Or one might see this as trying to discern something about the candidates' characters.

This was obvious from the very first famous televised candidates' debate, Kennedy-Nixon, in 1960. On points, most agree, Nixon at least held his own. But in political terms, Nixon lost badly, so badly that he refused ever to debate anyone again. His problem was that Kennedy looked relaxed and natural, whereas he looked stiff and uncomfortable.

And so it has been ever since.

The gaffe I remember best personally was Gerald Ford's insistence, against Carter in 1976, that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. Ford confirmed the suspicion that he was in way over his head as President, that he was in the end a local pol with no wider vision than the next Rotary Club luncheon. It was not that Carter or Ford had made any kind of coherent point here; just a revelation of Ford's insufficiency.

In Canada, perhaps the best remembered score in debate is Mulroney's “you had a choice, sir. You could have said no” against Turner in 1984. But this was not argument; it was a simple negation of Turner's immediately prior statement that he “had no choice” (in making a batch of political appointments immediately on becoming prime minister. His larger claim was that this was part of a deal made with his predecessor, Trudeau). Again, this was not debate, not even a point scored by Mulroney, but a self-inflicted wound. It was the claim to have no control that killed Turner; Mulroney merely echoed the obvious. What kind of leader was this, who started out by refusing to take responsibility?

Tuner nailed himself again, at least in my opinion, on his second go-round with Mulroney in 1988, with the phrase most people remember from that debate: “I happen to think that you've sold us out” (speaking of free trade). To me, at least, that phrase, “happen to think,” implied either a misunderstanding of what thought actually entailed, or a lack of principle. As if political positions, in Turner's mind, could honourably be put on or taken off at whim, without any larger body of thought behind them. This was the more striking, to me, because opposition to free trade went against bedrock liberal principles; and Turner was leader of the Liberal Party. I'm not sure anyone but I noticed; but it made it impossible for me to vote for him.

Another famous line from a debate is Lloyd Bentsen's against Dan Quayle in 1988: “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.” But in fact, this was not an argument at all, and was, as Quayle responded at the time, “uncalled for.” First, it was ad hominem, and second, it was non sequitor. Quayle had not said he was like John Kennedy in any sense but his relative lack of experience. It worked, because it suggested Quayle was both inexperienced and callow.

Michael Dukakis blundered badly during the same campaign by taking a debate to actually be a debate. Asked if he would change his mind on opposing the death penalty if someone raped and killed his wife Kitty, he answered, properly, that his position opposing capital punishment was perfectly consistent. But the answer made him come across to the audience as a soulless suit.

Then there's Rick Perry's “oops” in the 2012 Republican debates. Obviously, no debate points scored. Ron Paul, at the next podium, even tried to help jog Perry's memory. It was the kind of memory freeze anyone could have. But it destroyed Perry's hyper-macho image. James Bond is not supposed to slip on the soap.

Reagan's “I paid for this microphone” in 1980 erased the suspicion that he was just too easygoing to be effective as president. His “I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him” was a response to a moderator's question, not to anything raised by Walter Mondale. And, of course, it involved no argument.

Ali vs. Liston, 1965.

Then there's Stockdale's “Why am I here?” in the 1992 VP debates. Okay, that had no legitimate point or purpose, since he had no chance of becoming VP anyway. It was just an awesome car crash.

So what does this mean? First, it is not unreasonable that we judge our candidates this way. Issues come and go over the course of four years. We have other ways of learning our politicians' stands. It makes sense instead to try to grasp their character. If there turns out to be a big disparity between their public and their private character, this is of limited importance. As a leader primarily of people who will only ever see them on TV, their public character is more relevant than their private persona anyway to their ability to lead.

At the same time, these “debates” run the risk of seriously debasing the popular idea of what a debate is or should be. This is important, because the ability to debate properly is a sine qua non of democracy.

Federal Election in Canada

Last time.

Okay, so we now have a Canadian federal election.

Things can change quickly in Canuckistan; present polls are not necessarily going to reflect the final outcome. But let's assume they hold.

That would probably result in a Conservative minority government, with the Liberals running third.

Given what recently happened to Britain's Liberal Democrats, I doubt the NDP and Liberals would then try to form a coalition. If the NDP came out as the senior partner, to do so would probably be the end of the Liberal Party. More likely, Justin Trudeau would then resign, and the Liberals would not want to force an election until they had a new leader in place. Harper would have at least a little breathing room, and then face a new vote.

Canadians know Harper pretty well. Trudeau certainly has name recognition, and has been very much in the spotlight for the last year. Opinions are probably mostly formed by now. Mulcair, facing his first election, is probably least well known, and so has the best breakout potential. If he is impressive in the campaign, he has the best shot at a majority government. If he really does poorly as a campaigner, support moves to the Liberals, but odds are, not strongly enough to jump two spaces: it would simply be a Conservative minority with a Liberal instead of an NDP official opposition. If Mulcair neither excels nor chokes, we are probably left with roughly the poll figures we have now.

Ergo:
Likeliest result: Conservative minority, new election within a year or two.
Next most likely result: NDP majority.

Farewell to the Grits

Now that the Canadian Liberal Party has suffered their worst election defeat ever, the question is, can they rebuild? Will they be back?

I think not--not unless the NDP screws up fairly quickly, and, not being in government, they don't have much chance to screw up soon.

The problem is, in order to hold  together, a party as far back as third place needs an ideological core around which to rally. The Liberals don't have that. Their unique sales proposition for the past forty years has been: 1. the natural governing party, and so the natural vehicle for the best and the brightest who sought power, and 2. the party that understood Quebec, and stood the best chance of keeping Quebec in Confederation.

Both those justifications are gone. Without them, why would anyone run as a Liberal?

My Election Prediction

Bare Conservative majority.

I think Layton and the NDP have peaked too soon. A large part of their polling figure is, I think, a "none of the above" protest. They have surged quickly enough, though, that now the possibility is evident that they might actually get into power. At that point, I think a substantial part of their support up until now may want to back off.

I think they will still edge the Liberals, in the popular vote, but it will be close.

The NDP Surge

The Canadian election is getting far more interesting than I expected. Some thoughts:

A lot of the NDP surge, I suspect, is a sympathy vote. It's Jack Layton's cane and bout with cancer. Especially in Quebec, voters are sentimental about such things. To their credit.

Some if it is also a Canadian equivalent to the Tea Party. In these times, it is not advantageous to have a profile as the "Natural Governing Party." At the same time, the Conservatives are in government, and so not the obvious recipients of a protest vote against the powers that be. The NDP becomes the obvious "none of the above" choice, since Reform is gone.

The Liberals are staring at the real possibility of sharing the fate of the British Liberal Party. If the NDP gets past them once, they may establish themselves as the clear left-wing alternative, as happened in the UK, and the Liberals fade to the chronic third-party status the NDP has suffered until now.

But can the Liberals even continue to exist, if this happens? Since it has scant chance of power, a third party must be held together by an ideological core. Does the Liberal Party really still have an ideological core, at least sufficiently distinct from the NDP's? Even to the extent that the old PCs did? Or has it lately only been a vehicle for power, the party of the ruling class, easily assimilating its Scott Brisons and Bob Raes from either side of the supposed left-right divide?