Harper philosophy collides with economic reality
BRIAN LAGHI
From Monday's Globe and Mail
March 1, 2009 at 9:18 PM EST
OTTAWA — The Harper Conservatives aren't accustomed to losing elections in Western Canada. But that's just what happened three months ago when Prairie farmers rejected one of the bedrock principles that helped build the conservative movement more than 20 years ago.
Farmers sent a sobering message to Tories who want to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on selling Canadian grain. Four of the five seats up for grabs on the 15-member board stayed with pro-monopoly candidates despite a vigorous effort by Tory backbench MPs. Tories speculate that farmers feared the elimination of the monopoly would harm their livelihood.
“Oh yeah for sure,” said Saskatchewan farmer Sam Magnus, a former Reform Party member and one of the losing candidates. “Farmers believe that government guarantees would protect them no matter how low the price of grain fell.”
The election is one of the starkest examples of how Stephen Harper's brand of laissez-faire conservatism is being swept aside by Canadians' increasing demands for protection from the faltering economy.
After years of pushing for smaller government and market deregulation, Mr. Harper now presides over one of the most rapid government expansions in modern Canadian history. The Conservatives have extended welfare-state entitlements such as Employment Insurance, are spending money on training and funnelling cash into the auto sector.
“New questions are emerging of what is the role of the state,” said Joe Garcea, a political studies professor at the University of Saskatchewan. “We're basically at stage one.”
Prof. Garcea said farmers who may want to leave the security of the Wheat Board and sell their grain on their own may not be so enthusiastic in such risky times.
“I think the arguments of those who feel the Wheat Board provides the kind of collective clout to be provide greater stability are going to find it easier to make their argument now than they did a few years ago,” he said.
A number of Tory MPs, including David Anderson, the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, used their considerable influence to persuade farmers to elect candidates sympathetic to their cause. Mr. Anderson and others wrote directly to farmers asking them to end the monopoly.
But as the campaign wore on – and the economy got worse – Wheat Board supporters such as the National Farmers Union pointed out that getting rid of the monopoly would mean the end of guaranteed returns for farmers.
“The Canadian Wheat Board was designed to minimize risk in exactly these kinds of circumstances,” said a flyer mailed out by the union before the vote. “Because it has government-guaranteed payments and borrowings, farmers can count on getting paid by the CWB.”
University of Waterloo political scientist Peter Woolstencroft said the Tories will have a problem marrying their laissez-faire philosophy with the alarm Canadians currently feel.
“The Conservatives have a big problem, it seems to me,” said Prof. Woolstencroft, a long-time chronicler of the party. “They know that people are damn worried, and they're not going to be happy with ‘Let's let things work themselves out.'”
He warned however, that, if the Tories intervene too much, they could lose what makes them different from the Liberals.
“The differentiation, as I see it now is ‘We will do a better job of handling the very difficult challenges that lie ahead. We're better at running things, we're better at balancing things. But we don't have an agenda, or any restructuring of Canada in mind other than surviving.'”
Tories themselves acknowledge they have included items in their recent budget that might not have been there before the economic crisis hit. The government has set aside cash, for example, to train aboriginals to cope with expected cuts in the oil patch.
“What seemed obvious to us in October of last year has been thrown out the window three times since,” said Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl. “What we're doing on many fronts is responding to that reality. We're all in a different world, and not just Conservatives, either.”
How do Conservatives respond?
Former human resources minister Monte Solberg said there are ways the Tories can maintain their Conservative underpinnings while still spending money.
He said the Tories should point out the country's successes in avoiding the worst of the financial meltdown thanks to Canada's prudent banking system and insistence on higher lending standards for homeowners.
“But going forward, the big issues are ensuring that deficits don't become structural, that we aggressively pursue free trade, and that we prepare to come out of the recession in the best possible shape by building key infrastructure, continuing to lower taxes and tackling non tariff barriers.”
BRIAN LAGHI
From Monday's Globe and Mail
March 1, 2009 at 9:18 PM EST
OTTAWA — The Harper Conservatives aren't accustomed to losing elections in Western Canada. But that's just what happened three months ago when Prairie farmers rejected one of the bedrock principles that helped build the conservative movement more than 20 years ago.
Farmers sent a sobering message to Tories who want to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on selling Canadian grain. Four of the five seats up for grabs on the 15-member board stayed with pro-monopoly candidates despite a vigorous effort by Tory backbench MPs. Tories speculate that farmers feared the elimination of the monopoly would harm their livelihood.
“Oh yeah for sure,” said Saskatchewan farmer Sam Magnus, a former Reform Party member and one of the losing candidates. “Farmers believe that government guarantees would protect them no matter how low the price of grain fell.”
The election is one of the starkest examples of how Stephen Harper's brand of laissez-faire conservatism is being swept aside by Canadians' increasing demands for protection from the faltering economy.
After years of pushing for smaller government and market deregulation, Mr. Harper now presides over one of the most rapid government expansions in modern Canadian history. The Conservatives have extended welfare-state entitlements such as Employment Insurance, are spending money on training and funnelling cash into the auto sector.
“New questions are emerging of what is the role of the state,” said Joe Garcea, a political studies professor at the University of Saskatchewan. “We're basically at stage one.”
Prof. Garcea said farmers who may want to leave the security of the Wheat Board and sell their grain on their own may not be so enthusiastic in such risky times.
“I think the arguments of those who feel the Wheat Board provides the kind of collective clout to be provide greater stability are going to find it easier to make their argument now than they did a few years ago,” he said.
A number of Tory MPs, including David Anderson, the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, used their considerable influence to persuade farmers to elect candidates sympathetic to their cause. Mr. Anderson and others wrote directly to farmers asking them to end the monopoly.
But as the campaign wore on – and the economy got worse – Wheat Board supporters such as the National Farmers Union pointed out that getting rid of the monopoly would mean the end of guaranteed returns for farmers.
“The Canadian Wheat Board was designed to minimize risk in exactly these kinds of circumstances,” said a flyer mailed out by the union before the vote. “Because it has government-guaranteed payments and borrowings, farmers can count on getting paid by the CWB.”
University of Waterloo political scientist Peter Woolstencroft said the Tories will have a problem marrying their laissez-faire philosophy with the alarm Canadians currently feel.
“The Conservatives have a big problem, it seems to me,” said Prof. Woolstencroft, a long-time chronicler of the party. “They know that people are damn worried, and they're not going to be happy with ‘Let's let things work themselves out.'”
He warned however, that, if the Tories intervene too much, they could lose what makes them different from the Liberals.
“The differentiation, as I see it now is ‘We will do a better job of handling the very difficult challenges that lie ahead. We're better at running things, we're better at balancing things. But we don't have an agenda, or any restructuring of Canada in mind other than surviving.'”
Tories themselves acknowledge they have included items in their recent budget that might not have been there before the economic crisis hit. The government has set aside cash, for example, to train aboriginals to cope with expected cuts in the oil patch.
“What seemed obvious to us in October of last year has been thrown out the window three times since,” said Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl. “What we're doing on many fronts is responding to that reality. We're all in a different world, and not just Conservatives, either.”
How do Conservatives respond?
Former human resources minister Monte Solberg said there are ways the Tories can maintain their Conservative underpinnings while still spending money.
He said the Tories should point out the country's successes in avoiding the worst of the financial meltdown thanks to Canada's prudent banking system and insistence on higher lending standards for homeowners.
“But going forward, the big issues are ensuring that deficits don't become structural, that we aggressively pursue free trade, and that we prepare to come out of the recession in the best possible shape by building key infrastructure, continuing to lower taxes and tackling non tariff barriers.”
Comment