My last two blogs considered Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer in light of the question “which one should be elected Prime Minister in the October federal election?”. I limited my consideration to them because they are the only ones with any realistic chance of forming a government, whether majority or minority.
So here is my answer:
Justin Trudeau has shortcomings. Some of style; and some of substance, or the lack thereof; and some resulting from the actions of his government. In some areas, one is the consequence of the other.
I am most critical in three: his handling of the SNC/Lavalin affair; the bungled visits to China and India; and continuing spending deficits.
As I’ve said before, my criticism of the SNC/Lavalin affair results from how ineptly it was handled, causing needless damage to the government. I attribute this to lack of experience but also to arrogance that, it seems, blinded the Prime Minister and his advisors to significant political realities, as well as the intelligence and sophistication of Canadians. And now they’re paying the price. Whats more, I don’t know if they’ve learned any lessons from this.
The trip to India and China was bad enough as a national embarrassment, but it also damaged relations with those two significant countries, although I don’t know by how much. In fact, as I’ve said previously, the immediate impact on Canada/China relations may be fortuitous because, while the current difficulties with China are probably exacerbated by the ill will resulting from the trip, it also short-circuited a rush to negotiations on a free trade agreement, if not an extradition treaty and, in light of China’s behaviour these days, that’s a good thing. In fact, my biggest concern over the government’s handling of the China file is that, once the Huaweii dispute is resolved, it will rush back in and try to return the relationship to “normal” without hitting the pause button to inventory our lessons from this episode and make the necessary changes going forward. That would be a big mistake and a missed opportunity but, given the financial stakes for Canadian businesses with significant lobbying power, I’m less than optimistic the government will do what needs to be done.
On the issue of the Huaweii dispute, I don’t have enough information to assess how effectively it’s being managed, although I do feel some increase in pressure on China might be useful but, of course, it also might backfire. My hunch is it’s being handled about as well as it can be given the weak hand Canada has been dealt and, regardless who forms the government in Ottawa, it’s just going to take time to play out.
As for India, well, as I watch the rise of Hindu nationalism with its increasingly chauvinistic treatment of non Hindus, I wonder how closely we want to align with it too.
No question, it’s a nasty and difficult world out there.
I’m critical of the government for its continuing use of deficit spending without a plan to achieve balance or, if there is one, not sharing it with Canadians. As the talk of a recession grows, this becomes more urgent.
Against these criticisms, I give the government good marks (in some cases better than good) for its handling of the Nafta file; its effort to balance the economic needs of the country while pursuing credible initiatives to support the environment; joining the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership; concluding the free trade agreement with the EU; its immigration policy; legalizing physician assisted dying; as well as significantly reducing poverty and providing good overall stewardship to the economy.
Not a bad list of achievements at all.
When I balance the negatives against the positives and consider the government’s stated future policy directions, as well as hoping four years in office has taught them a few lessons, I do believe Prime Minister Trudeau and his government deserve to be re-elected for another four years…
…unless there is someone better.
And that brings me to Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives.
First, a few general comments on the Conservative Party. In 2015 it was defeated after ten years in government. Many Canadians had tired of its virulent partisanship and, particularly in the last year or two, its narrow minded nastiness. Some of its members were defeated. Others chose not to run. But a significant number continued and are now on the opposition benches. By and large, it’s the same party that governed for ten years with little to suggest it has spent much time considering why it was defeated or where it should go in future. And that’s a problem. In our system of government, we send parties to the penalty box (to use a particularly Canadian metaphor) when they get tired or overwheening or corrupt or just plain arrogant. And we expect them to use that time-out to renew. Typically that lasts a couple of terms. The Conservatives don’t seem to have used their time-out well.
On specific policy questions, the Conservatives advocate for changes that would take Canada back to their time in government, particularly on climate change. They dishonestly attack the carbon tax as a “tax grab” without acknowedging that the revenues from the tax will be returned to taxpayers, either directly or through other provincial government programs. They would repeal it and replace it with measures that, to most experts on the issue of mankind’s impact on climate change, are woefully inadequate.
They shout their support for pipelines from Alberta to both coasts while attacking the current government for its failure to make more progress on getting pipelines built. This, despite that in ten years of government, they failed to get even one kilometer of pipeline built. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that their unqualified support for the oil industry and its wish to build additional pipelines, without acknowledging the significant environmental implications and opposition, not to mention the views of native Canadians, doesn’t work. Remember, we live in a country of laws. This is an example of a failure to engage in introspection and chart a new course away from the policies that failed them when they were government.
They attack the government’s handling of the current conflict with China publicly and repeatedly, demanding that it be tougher. Aside from my view that is unhelpful to Canada, and verging on disloyalty during an international crisis, it’s not at all clear what they would do differently. It’s simply an attempt to score political points at cost to Canada’s national interest and the welfare of some of its citizens, something that should be condemned.
They say we need to re-think our relationship with China, something I wholeheartedly agree with. As I indicated previously, I trust them more on this issue than the Liberals although I am mindful they too are beholden to powerful business interests that will seek to “normalize” the relationship as soon as the Huawei dispute is settled.
The Conservatives are committed to scrapping changes the Liberal government adopted to how appointments are made to the Upper House (the Senate). I think that would be a step backward as we try to give Canada more effective governance. Like many Canadians, I support abolishing the Senate but I’m also realistic enough to know that isn’t going to happen given the extraordinary difficulty of amending the Canadian Constitution. So, we are stuck with an unelected Upper House, and for many, that’s undemocratic, although it was clearly the intention of the Fathers of Confederation.
Historically, a Senate appointment has been a sinacure given as reward for party loyalty or financial support. Senators overwhelmingly were members of either the Liberal or Conservative parliamentary caucus. That changed with the new system of appointments and a majority of Senators are now “independents”, appointed through a less partisan process than previously. These new Senators are showing their independence by amending and delaying legislation, attracting criticism that the process is undemocratic. Well, undemocratic or not, it’s the process we’ve got and I would prefer that the “house of sober second thought” really did provide sober second thought, with the caveat that, ultimately, the Commons will always prevail, which it will.
Normally, as a fiscal conservative, I would find myself in agreement with the Conservatives on the issue of budget management and would expect them to commit to achieving a balanced budget. But that seems to have disappeared as they go into the election. At this point I don’t trust them any more than the Liberals to rein in government spending and end deficits.
Although they’ve criticized the government for its immigration policy, I have no real understanding of what the Conservatives would do differently. It’s likely they would restrict somewhat the current policy, although by how much and where is unclear. On balance, I suspect there would be little change, including for undocumented immigrants coming across our southern border, despite their angry rhetoric today. As I’ve said before, that problem results from the attitude towards immigrants by the current American administration and it will continue as long as that administration is in office.
In a move that screams of political opportunism, the Conservatives say they support re-opening the Constitution with a view to amending it so Quebec will finally sign it. What? Or, maybe more appropriately: “What the f…k?”. Of course it would be good if Quebec signed the Constitution but, really, at what cost? Re-opening it will result in an avalanche of competing demands from all across Canada (is that Alberta calling?…oh, you want to discuss equalization payments you say…fine, no problem…and on and on and on.) . This is crazy talk. I suppose there are younger Canadians who don’t remember the never ending constitutional haggling and paralysis, but I’m not one of them.
Aside from the Conservative’s policy positions, there is still the question: would Andrew Scheer make a better Prime Minister than Justin Trudeau. In my last blog I detailed some issues and beliefs that might provide an answer.
There has been renewed discussion lately of the fact Andrew Scheer spoke and voted against the legalization of same sex marriage in Canada, this in response to the Liberals releasing a video of a younger Andrew Scheer speaking against same sex marriage in the House of Commons. In response, Mr. Scheer and the Conservative Party have reiterated their long standing position that the matter is settled and will not be re-opened. And I believe them, although not for the reasons they’re giving. I believe them because it would be politically unpopular and costly to re-open the issue, but also, and more significantly, because changing the law is virtually impossible because of the ruling of The Supreme Court of Canada that led to the legislation in the first place. Remember, the law was not changed because of the particularly progressive nature of the Paul Martin government. It was changed because the courts gave the government no choice. And that hasn’t changed.
John Ibbitson at the Globe and Mail wrote a column arguing that gays and lesbians shouldn’t not vote for the Conservatives because of the issue of same sex marriage because of their commitment to leave it unchanged, but that’s only right up to a point. If, like many public figures, the party and Andrew Scheer had “evolved” on the issue (to quote former U.S. President, Barrack Obama), that would be one thing, but if they still believe same sex marriage is wrong that suggests they don’t accept the fundamental equality of gays and lesbians, perhaps viewing us, in the words of the Catholic Church, as “intrinsically disordered”, perhaps worthy of sympathy, but not respect as fully formed human beings and equals. And, thus far, Andrew Scheer has resolutely refused to say whether his views have changed which could be a political calculation but, I suspect, tells us they have not.
So, on a practical level, is this important? Yes it is. None of us has any idea what new challenges are going to face Canada and its leaders during the life of the next government. All we can say with certainty is that there will be new challenges, some of which might seriously affect gays and/or lesbians uniquely (think of the sudden appearance of Aids) and, when that happens, I would like to know I have a government that respects the rights and equality of all Canadians and that responds appropriately, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, colour, religion…you name it. And, with the lingering bitter taste of the same sex marriage debate, not to mention the memory of the appalling indifference or hostility of most politicians when Aids first appeared, I don’t have that confidence in Andrew Scheer or his party.
In some respects, the same can be said on the issue of womens access to abortions in Canada. Andrew Scheer is a strong opponent of abortion but has said the issue will not be re-opened under a government led by him. But he has been less unequivocal on whether Conservative back benchers could raise the issue. Also, he has made promises to anti abortion groups that conflict with the commitment to not revisit access to abortions. However, even if the issue does manage to come back to the Commons, history suggests the government will not be able to impose much in the way of restricting access. Canada is where it is on the issue of abortion because of repeated decisions by Canadian courts striking down earlier attempts to regulate abortion. But, while the likelihood of change is slim, unlike with the issue of same sex marriage, it is not virtually non existent.
Andrew Scheer and most of the Conservative caucus voted against the legislation that legalized physician assisted dying in Canada. This is an issue the Conservatives may revisit. I know advocates for physician assisted dying are critical of the current law because of its limitations, but I am certain that none of those limitations will be loosened, and may well be expanded, under a Conservative government.
So, do I think Andew Scheer will be a better Prime Minister than Justin Trudeau? No I do not. And, more importantly, I believe his philosophical and religious beliefs conflict with what I think are core Canadian values of equality, tolerance and inclusion. It doesn’t surprise me that he cites Senator Ted Cruz, who amongst other negative things, is virulently anti-gay, as a role model, or that he’s had past affiliations with “The Rebel”. It’s all of a piece.
I’m not saying he’s a bad person, just that he holds beliefs that I think are wrong and hurtful to many Canadians.
Then there’s the influence of provincial premiers to consider. So far, I’ve seen little from Andrew Scheer suggesting he would be a strong, dynamic leader, one capable of pushing the federal position against regional opposition. That concerns me because at least two of the current Conservative Premiers would have outsized influence over any Andrew Scheer government: Doug Ford and Jason Kenny, both of whom hold social and political views wildly at odds with my own. Bluntly put, I don’t want either of them steering the federal ship and I think that would likely happen with Andrew Scheer as Prime Minister.
Finally, like many Canadians I’ve watched in dismay as the world order that has benefited us all has come under attack in the past four years. Brexit; the authoritarian turn of governments in Poland, Hungary, Austria and Italy, amongst others; the rise of right wing populist parties in Germany, France, Scandinavia and the Lowlands; the election of Donald Trump with his constant trashing of the western alliances and working to weaken the liberal democratic order while kowtowing to tyrants; indeed, the seeming retreat of liberal democracy across the globe.
Except, that is, in Canada.
I’m not sure I’ve ever felt such pride in my country as I have in the past few years as it consistently and unwaveringly reiterated its commitment to democracy, western liberal democratic values and multilateralism.
And I don’t want that, or the world’s perception of it, to change.
I’m not saying Andrew Scheer is a Donald Trump wannabe, or even a pale reflection of Viktor Orban in Hungary but, unfortunately for him, if he wins, that is what much of the world will see. The headlines will be something like: “Canada Lurches to the Right” or “Canada Follows Trump” or, well, I’ll leave that to your imaginations. I know it’s not fair but it is what it is and, for the rest of the world, one of the last consistently strong defenders of real democracy and the established international order will be gone, adding to the momentum towards chaos out there.
We cannot let that happen.
just sayin
g
Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.
Geoff's Blog 