2013-05-21T05:04:21-04:00 Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=ralph-goodale Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ralph Goodale Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3165144 2013-04-26T17:37:34-04:00 2013-04-26T18:08:12-04:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/
The Prime Minister was Robert Borden (originally a school teacher, incidentally). He too inherited his surplus from a Liberal predecessor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But he managed to maintain it for only one year before dropping into deficit.

The Harper government behaved in a similar manner. Through excessive spending and reckless budgeting between 2006 and 2008, they put Canada back into the red again BEFORE, not because of, the recession which hit in late 2008. And they haven't balanced the books since.

Now in Budget 2013, the Conservatives claim they'll eliminate their deficit by 2015. Isn't that convenient -- just on the eve of the next federal election! A close look at their financial plans provides ample reason to be suspicious. Here are seven of their fiscal tricks:

1. Rosy growth estimates -- To puff up government revenues, the Conservatives have based their fiscal planning on optimistic projections of economic growth. They ignore the reality that in years just past their numbers have never been correct. Time and again their initial forecasts had to be downgraded, as both the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of Canada have just done once again in the past month.

2. Deficient reserves -- To create the illusion of more financial flexibility than they really have, the Conservatives have low-balled the "reserves" that should be in place to serve as fiscal shock-absorbers against future economic setbacks. The amounts set aside should grow in outer years because the risks are greater, but this government has foolishly flatlined them going forward.

3. Exaggerated lapses -- When a government department doesn't use all of its budget in any given year, the excess money naturally "lapses" back into the central treasury. The Conservatives are counting on very large lapses over the next several years. In other words, they'll make lots of big announcements, but never actually spend the money.

4. Excessive optimism about catching tax cheats -- While cracking down on those who don't pay their rightful taxes is an absolute necessity, the Conservative claim of a balanced budget depends heavily on quickly collecting billions in unpaid taxes. That seems highly improbable at a time when they're chopping the resources needed in the Revenue agency to go after the cheaters.

5. Big program cuts -- For big programs like Infrastructure, the government claims to be increasing its investment. But any hypothetical increases are actually years down the road, after 2015. It's a trick called "multi-year bundling" and "back-end loading". In reality, the Build Canada infrastructure budget has been cut by $1.5 billion in each of the next two years.

6. Big tax increases -- Despite false claims to the contrary, this government is increasing taxes in dozens of nefarious ways -- on everything from hospital parking fees to cosmetic wigs for cancer patients. The two biggest types of Conservative tax hikes are higher tariffs-taxes on imported goods (costing Canadians an extra $333-million every year) and higher Employment Insurance payroll taxes (costing employers and employees an extra $600-million every year).

7. Claiming before proving -- Using all these tricks to concoct the false illusion of a balanced budget by 2015, the Conservatives will claim to have met their fiscal objective just before they call an election and before proof to the contrary can become available. In the normal financial cycle, the audit report on the government's books won't get published until much later - i.e., well into 2016 -- long after any election has come and gone.

So Parliament has a big job to do to find and expose the truth before Canadians vote.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2945186 2013-03-25T08:46:36-04:00 2013-03-24T23:02:41-04:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/
(1) Still in the realm of finance, just before his budget, Minister Flaherty strangely instructed his political staff to call senior officials at ManuLife Bank to convey his "displeasure" about the bank's decision to give consumers a small break of "20 basis points" on mortgage loans.

For certain qualifying customers, the going interest rate was 3.09 per cent and ManuLife proposed to bring it down to 2.89 per cent -- just a bit better than BMO which had a mortgage product in the marketplace at 2.99 per cent. When BMO created that rate a couple of weeks earlier, Mr. Flaherty phoned them personally to say he didn't want to see any mortgage market competition.

That's a rather odd position for free-marketers like the Harper Conservatives. BMO held its ground despite the political pressure and kept its lower rate. But ManuLife caved, going back up to 3.09. Who knows what was actually said, promised or threatened in either conversation? But the result is an uneven playing field, less competition, and higher consumer costs -- for the average home buyer in Toronto, the added cost could be over $12,000; in Regina it would be about $9,000 more. All thanks to Jim Flaherty!

If he has legitimate concerns about excessive household debt, the Minister has well established, legitimate tools to deal with those concerns. He can set the rules on down payments, amortization periods, credit qualifications, etc. for all lenders and borrowers in an open, transparent and fully competitive way. What he shouldn't do is distort the market with one-off personal threats or promises. Such behaviour is discriminatory, risky and unprofessional.

(2) Another big story last week was news from Elections Canada that they are looking for additional qualified investigators to pursue an unprecedented flood of complaints about serious violations of election laws. Up to six new people may be engaged. It's about time! And even six more may not be enough.

Since the Harper government took power in 2006, Elections Canada has been under more pressure and scrutiny than ever before because more Canadians than ever before are worried about election misbehaviour that taints the quality of our democracy.

It started with the "In-and-Out" election financing scam which took nearly five years to run to ground, through a barrage of Conservative denials and obfuscation. But in the end, the Conservatives were charged, had to plead guilty, paid a fine and had to make restitution.

That was followed by obvious campaign problems in Etobicoke Centre, dubious events under investigation in Peterborough, the Pierre Poutine/Robocall fiasco which started in Guelph and could have contaminated more than 200 ridings across the country, and most recently the Peter Penashue scandal in Labrador.

It falls to Elections Canada to get to the bottom of exactly what happened in each of these cases. And they must do it in a timely fashion. Before future elections roll around, Canadians need to know that the system by which they vote is clean and honest.

(3) Last week also brought the sad end of Kevin Page's distinguished tenure as Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Despite never having the authority or the resources he was first promised, Mr. Page acquitted himself as a thorough, competent, professional whom Canadians and Parliamentarians counted upon for truthful, impartial, reliable information about public finances.

Always dignified and respectful, he was fearless in speaking truth to power, and "power" (i.e., the Harper Conservatives) never forgave him, despite the fact that they created his office and hand-picked him for the job. They thought they had recruited a lapdog, but found him to be a genuine watchdog instead -- fully dedicated to advancing the public's right to know the truth.

Stephen Harper loosed all manner of attack dogs to silence Mr. Page, but it never worked. With every Conservative assault, the PBO's stature and reputation continued to grow. Thanks to him, Canadians know about the deceit and mismanagement that permeated the F-35 boondoggle, the real costs of Mr. Harper's criminal justice agenda which mimics expensive failed experiments in the United States, the impact of corporate tax cuts, structural deficits, and much more.

The Conservatives could refuse to extend Kevin Page's mandate, but they will never be able to diminish his legacy of courage and trust.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2644987 2013-02-08T12:27:45-05:00 2013-04-10T05:12:01-04:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/
Some people focus on the lack of decorum among MPs, especially during the daily Question Period, and no doubt the tone during that intensely partisan 45-minutes should be improved. But based on personal experience in the House of Commons stretching back to 1974, I believe the bad behaviour is a symptom of what's wrong, not the cause of it.

To fix the malaise eroding our democracy, Canadians need a rich combination of party, electoral and Parliamentary reforms. Here are a few suggestions to contribute to a debate on this topic which I hope will become irresistible.

First at the level of political parties, as suggested by Justin Trudeau and others in the Liberal leadership campaign, the Leader needs to exercise less control over who can be selected as candidates by local riding associations. As long as a constituency organization is "in good standing" as a viable entity, and as long as the process of candidate selection is democratic and fair, the Leader should not appoint candidates contrary to constituency wishes.

Next, once in Parliament, MPs should be free to vote on most matters as their conscience and judgment dictate. They should not be "whipped" by the Leader's office to toe-the-line on virtually everything, as seems to be the case today. Questions of true "confidence" -- where losing a vote means the government falls and an election ensues -- should be restricted to a few fundamental situations pertaining to the Throne Speech and the Budget. Otherwise, MPs should think for themselves, make their own decisions and be accountable for them.

Ministers wanting to advance policy initiatives should be required to convince not only Cabinet colleagues, but also backbenchers. They should not simply rely on the Whip to enforce support -- they should earn it by merit.

House of Commons control over public spending must be enhanced. The government should be required to produce its budget before a certain deadline every year -- maybe February 21. Departmental spending Estimates should be based on the most recent figures contained in that budget, not year-old data. MPs should feel free to question and vote against individual spending items in the Estimates (like tax-paid government advertising, for example). And government borrowing plans should require specific approval by Parliament every year.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer should be established as an independent Officer of Parliament with the authority and resources such work requires.

Restrictions are needed on the use of ancient but recently-abused Parliamentary tools such as Omnibus Bills, Closure Motions to terminate debates, and Prorogation. They have their place, but should be confined to their original purpose and intent.

Every Standing Committee of the House of Commons should be required to receive, debate and vote on every Motion in public, not in secret as is now too often the case.

Elections Canada needs greater capacity to supervise elections effectively, investigate crimes like telephone fraud and voter suppression, and prosecute offences in a timely manner, before another election rolls around.

It also goes without saying that the process for re-drawing constituency boundaries must be reinforced as independent of partisan influence. Recent Conservative chicanery using robocalls to pervert the process is contemptible.

Canadians need to have an adult conversation about voting systems that are better than our current "first-past-the-post" regime where the winner often gets a majority of seats with only a small minority of the votes cast.

Some form of Proportional Representation is suggested by some, and that deserves careful examination. Another alternative is a Preferential Ballot, where voters indicate not only their first choice, but also their second and third choices too, and the counting keeps going until one candidate gets more than 50 per cent support.

A common characteristic of many of these ideas is a power shift -- less control in the hands of the Prime Minister and Party bosses, more control in the hands of ordinary Canadians and individual MPs.

The result will be more individual responsibility and accountability. The quality of local candidates will become vital -- there will be little room for the so-called "door knobs" or "trained seals." Voting will actually matter. Democracy will be enhanced.

These are just a few ideas to make the point that we're not stuck without alternatives. Mediocrity is not inevitable. If Canadians really want a better system, it can be achieved. But it will take persistent hard work to get there!





]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2597976 2013-02-01T12:50:29-05:00 2013-04-03T05:12:01-04:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/
It's the manipulation of constituency boundaries to give an unfair advantage to one particular political party. The word originated in 1812 with the appalling behaviour of then-Governor "Gerry" of Massachusetts who twisted electoral districts into the shape of salamanders -- just so he could win.

To prevent such bad conduct in Canada, we have long had an independent and politically neutral process for "redistributing" federal riding boundaries every 10 years, according to population changes. The work is not done by politicians to suit themselves. It's done by credible, arm's length commissions that are supposed to reflect the best interests of the public.

In Saskatchewan, the current commission includes a Queen's Bench Judge, a professor emeritus of political science, and the President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) -- all hand-picked by the Harper government. (For some reason, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipal Association (SUMA) was not included.)

For the past year, the commission's task has been to devise a new electoral map which distributes Saskatchewan's 14 federal ridings in the fairest possible way. What they've produced is a big improvement over the "old" boundaries now in effect for nearly two decades.

The geographical sizes of proposed constituencies are as manageable as they ever can be in Saskatchewan. The population numbers are well within the allowed range. Historical patterns are respected. And most importantly, "clear communities of common interest" have been better grouped together for more authentic, effective representation.

These are the factors the commission is mandated by law to consider. Their new map is more fair, more balanced and more accurate in reflecting Saskatchewan's changing realities.

Two of those realities are steady population growth and increasing urbanization. A big majority of Saskatchewan people are already urban-dwellers, with fully 40 per cent of our population now living in our two biggest cities of Saskatoon and Regina alone. And yet this province does not have a single urban MP. Not one!

Surely that's a distortion that needs to be remedied. The commission has done so in a sensible and measured way. Instead of stacking all the ridings 14-to-nothing (as the old map does) against any distinctive urban representation whatsoever, the new map provides a balanced mix of constituencies.

Six ridings will be primarily rural (one more than under the old map), five ridings will be urban (three in Saskatoon and two in Regina, instead of none today), and three ridings will be rural/urban blends (namely Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Lanigan, Prince Albert and Regina-Qu'Appelle).

MPs responsibilities will become more focused. Divided, part-time obligations will be reduced. Both the rural and the urban points of view will be more clearly and more democratically reflected, because the new map better groups their respective interests and allows their distinctive voices to be heard -- undiluted and unobscured.

That's what "community of common interest" means.

A useful comparison can be made with Saskatchewan's two distinctive municipal organizations, SARM and SUMA. We have the two of them because the interests they represent are different.

Mass transit systems vs. grid-roads to service farms and oilwells. City police battling urban gangs vs. contracts with the RCMP to cover RMs. Urban homelessness vs. grain marketing. The examples go on.

These are all big and complex issues. They need focused attention. And that's what they get, from two distinct organizations -- SUMA and SARM.

Both are important. Both are an integral part of Saskatchewan. Both need and deserve effective representation. Some of their issues are similar; but many are not. They work well together. But the distinctive voices of both need to be heard -- loud, clear and unmuddled.

If that were not the case, why not just lump them together in a single group?

When it comes to devising electoral boundaries, our democracy should not be distorted by artificial concoctions in which one point of view will always swamp another. Our voting system should enable all citizens to see themselves fairly reflected in their Parliament. If they can't see that, then people grow cynical and stop participating. Democracy is damaged.

In this spirit of a healthy democracy, the Saskatchewan Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission has done a good job.

But the Harper Conservatives hate the new map -- precisely because it's not rigged in their favour. They're getting ready to interfere in what has been an independent process, so far. Just before a new map is finalized, Mr. Harper wants to change the rules.

Taking a page out of old Governor Gerry's perverted playbook, Conservatives are attacking the thoughtful analysis of their own independent commission and they're setting themselves up to Gerrymander Saskatchewan.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2265436 2012-12-09T08:57:46-05:00 2013-02-08T05:12:01-05:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/
Right in front of the Speaker, just to one side of the aisle down the middle of the House of Commons, they went at it hammer-and-tong. No actual punches were thrown, but on both sides, the crude insults and the aggressive body language were decidedly "unparliamentary."

The altercation followed a fairly minor procedural argument. But it reflects a deeper problem.

Since the last election, both the Conservatives and the NDP have pursued a strategy of partisan polarization. Their explicit objective is to drive all other participants off the political playing-field, so they can have it all to themselves. You see that strategy unfolding every day in the bitter polarizing tactics they both employ.

They argue that polarization would make politics so much "simpler" for Canadians. Every issue would be reduced to a mutually-exclusive two-way choice. No bothersome complications or nuances. No need to compromise. Everything would be straight-forward -- right vs. left, black vs. white, good vs. bad.

Simpler? Maybe. But better? Not so much.

A classic illustration of what you get from polarization can be seen south of the border. Americans are deeply divided between the Tea Party mentality on the right and the Occupy Movement on the left. Their political atmosphere is toxic. Decision-making is paralyzed.

Accommodation is seen as weakness. Even on the most critical issues -- like their looming "fiscal cliff" -- polarized politics in the U.S. makes them incapable of finding solutions that rise above divisiveness to earn broad-based support.

That's because polarization is all about driving wedges, not building bridges. It's about pushing people apart, into fiercely opposing camps, not pulling them together in common endeavour. It feeds off searing conflict. It gets personal. You learn not just to oppose the other side, but to hate them. Your goal is not just to defeat them, but to destroy them -- because polarization teaches you that you are "righteous" and the other guy is not.

And here's another damaging consequence. The deep-seated conflict that lies at the heart of polarized politics truly appeals to only a small number of the most extreme partisans, on one side and the other, who relish the constant fight. People like Van Loan, Cullen, Mulcair and Harper -- it turns them on.

But it also turns off large numbers of Canadians generally. They don't hold extreme views. Perpetual campaigning is not their thing. They don't like polarization or the hatred it breeds. So they just drop out of the political process altogether. They are the ones who stay home on election day.

But here's the good news!

Canada is far too complex a country -- too subtle and nuanced, too fundamentally decent, too full of hope and ambition -- to be content for very long with the polarizing wedge politics of division, greed, fear and envy.

People will look for something better. The greater Canadian instinct is to want to pull together to achieve goals that are bigger and more worthy.

The future will belong to those who blaze that trail.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2238257 2012-12-04T17:48:37-05:00 2013-02-03T05:12:01-05:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/
A lot of attention is rightly focused on the anti-democratic nature of their "omnibus" procedure, choking off debate and forcing MPs to deal with 50 or more unrelated issues all at once in a single vote. As a result, that final vote is totally meaningless.

But even worse, for all the verbiage in this legislation (more than 400 pages, some 250,000 words), the Conservatives are doing little of consequence to deliver what the Canadian economy really needs -- more growth and less inequality.

In fact, this government is moving in the opposite direction.

Mr. Harper's ideological obsession with austerity drives him to cut the federal government at every turn to make it as irrelevant as possible. The most vulnerable (veterans, seniors, low-income families, the unemployed, newcomers, etc.) are typically the hardest hit. And his cuts risk further weakening the economy by curtailing aggregate demand at a time when Canadian growth is already faltering.

Yes, the federal government must always demonstrate strong management and fiscal prudence. There is never an excuse for waste. But Canada does have a fiscal ace-in-the-hole that gives us some policy flexibility for times like these, and that's our federal debt-ratio.

That ratio compares the size of the federal debt to the size of our economy overall. In the mid-1990's, after 25 consecutive years in deficit, Canada's federal debt-ratio had soared to a paralyzing 70 per cent. In other words, accumulated debt was equal to 70 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. Thanks to essential decisions by the Chretien/Martin governments, that ratio was more than chopped in half -- down below 35 per cent.

That's what gives Canada some room to maneuver today. We should utilize some of that flexibility to invest in growth and combat inequality.

To start, the Harper Conservatives could stop escalating EI payroll taxes. They claim they don't raise taxes, but that's actually a lie. They are hiking payroll taxes by as much as $600-million each and every year, and that kills jobs.

Secondly, they could make federal tax credits for kids, caregivers and the disabled equally available to all Canadians. The way these credits are structured, people below a certain income level are not eligible. More than nine million low-income Canadians are deliberately excluded. That's perverse and should be fixed.

The government could amend Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) to correct the current discrimination against those who have been diagnosed with gradual, debilitating conditions like Multiple Sclerosis. They may not be fully disabled today, but they know their future prognosis is problematic. They would like to build some financial security, while they still can, but the rules say "no" -- you have to be fully disabled right now to open an RDSP. Such rigidity is mean-spirited and short-sighted.

The government could focus on first-time jobs for young Canadians who are still struggling with unemployment rates at recession-like levels near 15 per cent. Some 250,000 fewer young people are employed today than before the recession. Another 165,000 have just given up.

The government could help families better cope with the high cost of post-secondary education, through interest relief and more grants than loans.

Squarely within federal jurisdiction for Aboriginal education, the government could remove the "2% cap" that restricts First Nations' access to post-secondary learning. In the K-12 system, the federal government needs to bridge the disgraceful gap between what they invest to educate a First Nations child on-reserve and the much higher amounts that provinces invest to educate each non-Aboriginal child.

The government could also get serious about affordable housing.

They could transfer the entire federal gas tax to local municipalities to help build community infrastructure.

There are many pro-active options to encourage growth and combat inequality, but the Harper government remains indifferent -- paralyzed by ideology, content with mediocrity.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2039253 2012-10-29T11:38:44-04:00 2012-12-29T05:12:02-05:00

Ralph Goodale http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-goodale/ are ramming another "omnibus" budget Bill (C-45) through Parliament.

It's massive, incoherent legislation, lumping together everything from navigable rivers to grain inspection, from disability savings plans to hazardous waste -- over 500 sections, over 400 pages, covering more than 30 different topics and amending more than 60 different laws.

Coupled with "closure" to kill debate, it's all designed to be so humongous, convoluted and fast that no Parliament could possibly scrutinize the details and expose all the mistakes. (Sort of like the inspection system the Conservatives are responsible for at XL Foods -- a lot of contamination got through.)

But as profoundly anti-democratic and obnoxious as Mr. Harper's procedures are, the substance of his "omnibus" legislation is even worse. It's vacuous!

Economic growth all around the world is slowing to a crawl. Some countries are back in recession. The US continues to struggle. Asia is showing signs of weakness. The International Monetary Fund says global financial risks are "alarmingly high."

Recent figures show Canadian productivity is worse than previously reported. Our trade is faltering. Household debt is at dangerous levels -- for every dollar of disposable income, the average Canadian is carrying $1.63 in debt.

And yet, Budget Bill C-45 contains nothing to promote growth, jobs, innovation or productivity; nothing to advance sustainable development in our resource-based economy; nothing to support middle-class families; nothing to combat growing inequality between different sectors, regions and population groups.

To offer just one example -- the Conservatives brag about the "hiring credit" for small businesses contained in C-45. But the only reason that credit is necessary is because this government is increasing Employment Insurance payroll taxes each and every year.

For the past two years and every year going forward, the Conservatives are hiking EI premiums by $600 million annually. This is a destructive, escalating Conservative tax-on-jobs! They make a big show of giving back $200 million through a temporary "hiring credit," but businesses are still $400-million worse-off every year!

This is just one example of how complacent and misguided Conservative economic policy is, in the face of rising global risks. On both procedure and substance -- for what it does and what it fails to do -- omnibus Bill C-45 cannot be supported.

]]>