Platforms, Part 2: Conservative Party

Picking up where we left off, the next party platform up for attention is that of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives are a new party in Canada, legally speaking, in that they are the result of the 2003 vote to merge the Canadian Alliance party and the Progressive Conservative party. Stephen Harper, former leader of the Canadian Alliance, became the first leader of the new party.

The Conservative Party Platform

The Conservative platform is significantly longer than the BQ platform: 44 pages to 6. Let's see how it breaks down.

Under the Heading "Demand Better Accountability"

• "End waste, mismanagement, and corruption in Ottawa"

As I said in the first part of this series, nobody is likely to disagree with this one unless they've had a steady diet of government sponsorship cheques, delivered by the RCMP.

• "The $1 billion HRDC and $2 billion gun registry"

Another hard-to-disagree-with entry. The gun registry has gone so far over its original budget that a good case could be made that it would have been significantly cheaper for the government to buy the guns than to register them.

• "A plan for better and cleaner government"

This one breaks out into multiple bulleted points, dealt with individually below:

• "Direct the Auditor General to audit all federal granting programs and recommend changes to reduce waste and fraud."

This is a step that has been recommended many times over the years. I hope that this parliament will implement it.

• "Create an independent Ethics Commissioner appointed by Parliament, not by the Prime Minister."

Another improvement to the current set-up. The Liberals promised the same thing in 1993, however, and didn't do it once the election campaign was over.

• "End corporate and union political donations, and end forced taxpayer subsidies of political parties."

This will particularly impact the NDP, who depend on mandatory contributions from individual union members across Canada for much of their operating budget. The Liberal party has been the darling of Bay Street firms for years, in a corporate-government exchange of money and players (retired Liberals often find employment in Bay Street firms who contributed to the party). Even if no "hanky-panky" is actually going on, the appearance gives quite the opposite impression!

A bit deeper in the description, the Conservatives are suggesting replacing the current political contribution scheme with a check-off box on the income tax form to provide support for political parties. This is certainly an improvement for labour union members who do not wish to support the NDP through their mandatory union dues, and it may provide enough support to wean all the political parties off the public teat.

• "Set federal elections on a fixed date every four years and examine other democratic reforms."

This step would have the advantage of eliminating the incumbent advantage to call an election at a convenient point in the popularity polls. Other than that, I'm not convinced that it would be an improvement: a government which loses the confidence of the house would have to go to the people for a new mandate, and then the election cycle resets to four years after that election.

• "Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races."

Okay. Whatever. Next point?

No, but seriously, when the Conservative Party platform mentions former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps by name, and argues that a change to the current laws would have been fairer to her, you've got to feel you're living in an alternate universe. . .

Another sub-point is to start "voluntary" registration of voters by party affiliation, in order to regulate party nominations and leadership contests. This, if nothing else, will drive the anti-Americans wild, just because it's more like what the American system does.

• "Hold elections to fill vacancies in the Senate."

This is a big issue west of the Manitoba-Ontario border, and of almost zero interest east of there. Most Canadians have grown accustomed to having only effectively one level of legislative and one level of meaningless debate for a government structure. Putting some real teeth into the current Senate organization will again tweak the tender sensibilities of the reflexively anti-American branch of Canadian politics. That being said, one of the effects of having the Senate as an elected body would be to make it more difficult for the government of the day to ram through unpopular legislation (as can be done in our current system). This, in my opinion, is a good argument in favour of the change.

• "Increase the power of individual Members of Parliament."

This is perhaps a more significant change than most Canadians realize: individual members of parliament are rarely allowed a free vote — almost every vote is by party affiliation and an MP risks being thrown out of their party for voting against the party line. I like the idea, and would like to see this one implemented.

• "Give Parliament, not the Courts, the final decision on issues like marriage."

Okay, I guess, although fans of gay marriage see this point (correctly, I think) as being aimed directly at the legality of homosexual marriage in Canada. I am personally in favour of gay marriage and I would prefer to leave the current muddle unresolved (I'd actually prefer to get the government completely out of the marriage racket, but that does not yet appear to be an option).

Interestingly, one of the reasons the Liberal party has been against referring the gay marriage question to parliament is that they are not confident that they can whip enough of their own members into supporting the party position. They happily point at the Conservatives as being "anti-gay", but in truth, their own party has a significant number of MPs who are very unhappy with their party's stand.

• "Improve relations with the provinces and clarify federal and provincial roles."

Another throw-away "motherhood" issue. Sure, yeah, all in favour. Passed. Next issue?

Under the Heading "Demand Better Accountability"

"Significant reforms still not implemented"

This is a point to beat up the Liberals for not implementing many of the changes they proposed for federal-provincial relations back in 1996. A bit "motherhood"-ish, if you ask me.

Under the Heading "Demand a Better Economy"

• "Lower taxes, control spending, and create jobs"

They point out that personal taxation, adjusted for inflation, is more than one-third higher than it was in 1981, and that Canada has among the highest tax rates of the G7 nations.

• "Too many taxpayer dollars go to wasteful Liberal spending"

A bit of a repeat of the earlier mentions of the HRDC and Gun Registry boondoggles.

They present a bundle of suggestions here:

• "We will reduce the federal tax rate on middle-income Canadians by more than 25 percent"

I'm always in favour of reducing taxation, so this proposal gets a thumbs-up from me. However, the down side is that they will raise the tax rates for the lower and upper classes to compensate for the "loss in revenues". So much for that brief, happy thought.

• "We will introduce a $2000 per child deduction to reduce the tax burden on families with children"

This is a re-creation of the old "Baby Bonus" plan of the post-war years. A direct bribe to families.

• "We will reduce premiums to eliminate the annual surplus in the Employment Insurance account"

The EI premiums are just a tax by another name. The annual surplus disappears into general government revenues. I approve of the idea of reducing the premiums. I'd approve even more if there was some hint that allowing individuals to opt out of the system, but that's probably too much to hope for.

• "We will invest in infrastructure by transferring at least 3 cents of the gas tax to the provinces"

Another transparent sop to the voters, as the high price of gasoline is a hot-button topic right now. I'd prefer to see them reducing or eliminating the taxes on gasoline, but that's not going to happen soon.

• "We will introduce a new Registered Lifetime Savings Plan that allows Canadians to withdraw their money tax-free"

This sounds like a good idea, although most Canadians do not save enough for their retirement (partly due to being brainwashed about what the government would provide to them at the end of their working lives through pensions and income supplements). This plan could be fairly parodied by opponents as only benefitting the well-off.

• "We will control government spending and pay down the national debt"

Good. This is something I can support.

• "We will cut wasteful corporate subsidies in order to reduce taxes for all businesses"

Yes, get the junkie corporations to kick the habit of government methadone! If they can't compete without the taxpayer shovelling cash and benefits at them, they should not be in business.

• "We will invest in research and development, especially medical and scientific research"

This is another area where I don't think government has a valid role to play.

• "We will support Canada?s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers"

Is everybody cribbing from the NDP platform this time around?

Under the Heading "Demand Better Healthcare"

• "Waiting lists are unacceptably long"

Didn't Paul Martin spend almost all of his time during the English-language debate saying this? If you've had recent experience with the healthcare system, you probably cannot disagree with this statement.

• "We will work with the provinces to build on the 2003 Accord on Health Renewal"

Motherhood, ain't it grand?

• "We will provide stable long-term funding for health care"

While I'd prefer to see the feds get out of the healthcare business altogether, this at least would prevent the feds from playing the provinces like fish in a shallow pond. . .

• "We will hold the federal and provincial governments accountable for Health Accord promises"

Including Quebec?

• "We will respond more effectively to public health emergencies"

Here's one of the few areas where a federal presence is possibly justified. The risk of epidemics (SARS, for instance) goes beyond a single municipality or province. Co-ordination and co-operation among the various levels of government are critical to respond to potentially disastrous public health issues.

• "We will improve access to new drugs and natural health products"

This is a good plank for the platform. Reducing red tape and streamlining drug testing and acceptance for public trials is essential for the lives and health of Canadians who need help with ailments. Let the medical professionals do what they're trained to do and keep the bureaucrats at bay.

• "We will promote amateur sport and physical fitness"

Which is not the business of government, but why should the Tories be different from the rest of the political parties on this issue? Blah.

Under the Heading "Demand Better Communities"

• "We will work with the provinces to reduce financial barriers to post-secondary education and training"

Much nice-sounding talk, little in the way of concrete proposals in this section.

• "We will provide relief to Canadians on low and fixed incomes to help them meet rising utility, insurance, and gasoline prices"

And in this bullet point, we will proceed to attempt to bribe senior citizens and other Canadians on a fixed income.

• "We will expand tax credits for caregivers taking care of elderly, sick, or disabled relatives"

This might be a winner: as more of the baby boom generation heads into retirement, they will often be taking care of their own aged parents. This will be a bigger issue as time goes on: most of us are living longer than we plan on — or save for. Any help in this area is going to be welcomed.

• "We will improve recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience for immigrants"

This is a good thing for several reasons, not least for good common sense. And, if we really are still suffering from a "brain drain" to the US, we need to somehow replace those highly trained and experienced expatriates.

• "We will work to improve economic and social conditions for aboriginal Canadians"

Another long-overdue topic for discussion. Aboriginal Canadians still live in a legal demi-monde: not subject to the same set of laws as non-Aboriginals, but subject to other laws which restrict their freedoms (especially individual rights for Aboriginals on reservations).

• "We will become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy"

Now we're cribbing from the Green Party manifesto!

Under the Heading "Demand Better Security"

• "We will protect our communities from crime by instituting truth in sentencing, tightening parole, and holding young offenders accountable"

The Young Offenders Act needs a major overhaul. This is especially important in the eyes of city dwellers.

• "We will protect our children by eliminating legal loopholes for child pornography"

I don't know why this became such a big issue for the Tories. Their core supporters are pretty uniformly against it, but so are most Canadians. Defining is the big problem — and the problem of defining what it is is why most Canadians are uncomfortable with the current strident Tory position.

• "We will fight crime by scrapping the firearms registry and redirecting the money to law enforcement"

Absolutely. The government has enough demands on its time without devoting billions of dollars to creating a new criminal class of otherwise law-abiding Canadians.

• "We will protect our national security by clearing the backlog of individuals who have been ordered deported but not removed"

Legitimate immigrants are entitled to a fair and honest welcome to the country. Criminals and terrorists must be sent back where they originated. Too many of the people trying to work the system fall into the second category rather than the first.

• "We will build a more constructive partnership with our major allies and trading partners, and enhance the North American trade relationship"

We could hardly have a less friendly relationship with the Americans than we've had for the last ten years!

• "We will implement a Made in Canada foreign policy"

Two words. What-ever.

• "We will give our Canadian Forces the equipment they need to do the difficult and demanding work we ask of them"

This is true, and long overdue. In spite of the Liberal distortion about "aircraft carriers", the Canadian Forces are in desperate straits and need serious financial help to even maintain their current operations overseas.

Under the Heading "The Conservative Spending Plan"

This section provides numbers to back up the Tory contention that the previous Liberal government was deliberately fiddling the budget to allow plenty of end-of-fiscal-year slop to be spent in less-than-prudent ways. The tables presented here at least give some idea of the kind of budgets we could expect to see from a Harper government.