Breathing Smoke, Playing With Fire

Ignatieff opposes, supports, tax cuts for middle class

Taking the helm of the Liberal party -- even if only by default -- during a time of economic and political crisis, there's no question that Michael Ignatieff has a very tenuous path to walk.

On one hand, Ignatieff must find a way to dispel Canadian concerns about the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition government -- one in which the government would be mortgaged to the separatist Bloc Quebecois. On the other hand, Ignatieff has to appease the supporters of that coalition arrangement, and keep them convinced that maybe, just maybe, he'll go ahead and defeat Stephen Harper and the Conservative government.

As National Post Full Comment editor Kelly McParkland notes today, this has backed Ignatieff into a very tenuous position -- one that may leave many Canadians wondering just how far Ignatieff can really be trusted.

As Parkland notes, Ignatieff recently voiced opposition to the middle-class tax cuts proposed by Stephen Harper.

"This is not the moment for broad-based tax cuts because we think it will lead us into structural deficit and our children will be paying the price for Stephen Harper's mistakes for years to come," Ignatieff insisted.

Yet this is very different from Ignatieff's position of just over a week ago, in which he announced that, as Prime Minister, he would address the economic crisis with, wait for it... middle-class tax cuts.

"I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast," Ignatieff announced.

According to the Chronicle Herald, Ignatieff added that he would prefer that those tax cuts be permanent.

Ignatieff noted in his interview with John Ivison that "[Mr Harper] seems to have a better sense of what constitutes confidence in the House of Commons. I welcome that development and want to see proof of it."

Yet Ignatieff himself needs to come to a better understanding that when it comes to economic issues, he cannot have it both ways.

He's either opposed to permanent tax cuts for the middle class, or he's against them.

It he decides to come down against them and defeat the government despite his earlier expressions to the contrary, there is no question that Ignatieff will pay.

He'll either try to go ahead with the proposed coalition government, be quickly defeated in Parliament and be faced with an election in which polls have indicated Canadians will deliver a landslide majority to the Conservative party. Or he'll go to an election, be faced with his flip-flop, and suffer dearly at the polls -- perhaps even worse than Stephane Dion's recent defeat.

Kelly McParkland describes Ignatieff's position as "breathing smoke". Should he sufficiently embolden himself to try and act on his sudden opposition to middle class tax cuts, he'll most certainly be playing with fire.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

James Laxer - "Ignatieff's Dilemma: Coping with the Conservative Budget"

Dust My Broom - "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: I Was For Tax Cuts Before I Was Against Them"

Far and Wide - "The 'Wear It' Narrative"

Obama Victory An Exciting Opportunity for Conservatives

No time like the present to shed the Bush millstone

If ideology were everything in politics, one wouldn't expect Canada's governing Conservative party to be very excited about the prospect of working with US President-elect Barack Obama.

Yet, John Ivison points out in a National Post Full Comment post, Canada's new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, is looking forward to working with Obama with a sense of cautious optimism.

Of the issues prompting caution upon Cannon is that of NAFTA, which Obama suggested he wanted to renegotiate in order to include labour and environmental standards. “I think at the outset we have to indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to all trading partners. Sure, we acknowledge there are some irritants - that’s quite normal - but, as we’ve done in the past on issues like softwood lumber, we’ll deal with them in a constructive manner,” he explained.

Cannon attributes some of Obama's NAFTA-themed musings to the election, but isn't ready to take anything for granted.

“I think what is said in the course of an election, is said in the course of an election. Afterwards, things cool down a bit,” he added. “I don’t presume what the new American president will want to do though. We take note of what has been said.”

While it certainly could be expected that the Conservatives would prefer to be adjusting to a John McCain Presidency, a change in the leadership of the United States was assured during this election -- something the Conservatives have been preparing for.

"We have been putting in place our program to be able to make sure that when this change occurs on November Fourth," Cannon previously said. "We'll be well-positioned to continue our relations, our privileged relations, with the Americans."

Like any other Canadian, Cannon understands the importance of the Canada/US relationship.

"You know, 40 per cent of our economy depends on exports and roughly 70 per cent of those go to the United States. So we are very, very tied in with the United States," Cannon mused. Cannon also wrote off any notion that Obama doesn't understand Canada despite having rarely spoke of it during the election. "That’s not an indication of lack of knowledge. He’s a senator from a border state, which to me demonstrates he’s very knowledgeable."

Of course, it takes more than being from a border state to understand Canada. Obama's previous mention of the "President of Canada" does lead one to wonder about Obama's level of expertise.

Then again, Obama is known to be a fast learner. His Presidency should do little to harm Canada/US relations.

Cannon seems to be looking forward to working with Obama on the economy. "I think the issue that confronts Canada, as well as the United States and the world, of course, is the instability, the volatility in the marketplace," he insisted.

Obama does, however, introduce one wild card into Canada/US relations. Ironically, it's one to which he himself is a bit of a wild card -- that of the war in Afghanistan.

Cannon has already insisted that Obama's election won't change Canada's plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. "We welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan on behalf of the president-elect," Cannon announced. "The U.S. interest won't change our opinion or intention to withdraw our forces in 2011."

Yet Obama remains very committed to the Afghanistan mission. While the ever-increasing unpopularity of the mission provided some election-time impetus for the Harper government's decision to set the withdrawal date, one has to wonder what effect the charismatic Obama's support of the mission may have.

If Obama calls on Canada to stay committed to the Afghan war, it may become a good deal more palatable to Canadians, who would vote for Obama in a pinch if they could.

But perhaps most important of all is that if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives can establish fruitful relations with the incoming Obama administration its opponents would no longer be able to profit politically by pushing it as close to the now-outgoing Bush administration as possible.

But a lot of work has to be done. Hopefully, Lawrence Cannon is up to that job.

Dion Needs New Take on Federalism

Federalism is not a wedge issue, it’s the foundation of our country

According to John Ivison, Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be looking to the concept of federalism in his continual search for wedge issues to divide Canadians.

This is, quite simply, bad news for Canada.

According to Ivison, the issue is coming down to a conflict between two visions of federalism: Paul Martin’s vision of assymetrical federalism, under which Quebec would be afforded powers and privileges not afforded to Canada’s other provinces, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s vision of open federalism, under which the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments are defined and defended.

The disagreement is fairly simple: Stephen Harper believes the spending and legislating powers of the federal government should be both limited and enshrined, while Stephan Dion believes they should be limitless.

Each side actually has a case. Harper’s belief in defending provincial powers from federal encroachments actually has historical foundations, dating back to the establishment of the country, and the conflict between John A MacDonald and various provincial premiers (spearheaded by Ontario) over various points of conflict.

Yet Stephane Dion has a fair case as well. There always remains the possibility that the federal government may need to step in and establish necessary programs in provinces that are unwilling to establish them on their own, or act in order to prevent the citizens of some provinces from being unduly disadvantaged.

Enshrined federal spending powers laced with contingency clauses seems like a reasonable compromise between the two views.

But this has little to do with symmetrical or assymetrical federalism.

The fact is that federalism cannot be assymetrical and also be just. Not only would assymetrical federalism entrench inequality (and, thus, injustice) in the short term, but it would commit us to that inequality and injustice in the long term. Worse yet, it would establish it as a foundation upon which the country is established.

Assymetrical federalism represents the same threat to Canadian unity as any coercive policy of official bilingualism ever could. Just as many French Canadian scholars were noted to remark with glee (perhaps naively) how official bilingualism could have been used to transform Canada as whole into a French state (at least as acknowledged by Peter Brimelow), assymetrical federalism represents a tool by which extreme Quebecois nationalists could mould Quebec into an increasingly exclusive enclave, while possessing a disproportionate amount of influence over the rest of the country. Assymetrical federalism may not necessarily transform Quebec into a sovereign state nearly by default, but it will certainly do the next best thing.

The granting of such powers to Quebec would only be tenable under circumstances in which those powers are also extended to the other provinces. Then again, that isn’t assymetrical federalism. That would be symmetrical.

Yet the granting of additional powers to, for example, western provinces has rarely been considered seriously because those in power have rarely considered western separatism to be as threatening as Quebec separatism. On the same not, those men have disproportionately tended to be French-Canadian. One may make of that what they will.

If Stephane Dion is truly prepared to depart from his party’s flirtations with assymetrical federalism, as Ivison has suggested, this is a good thing. But turning to the very foundations of Canada as a wedge issue is not.

It shouldn’t be suggested that Dion should consider federalism topica non grata, but rather that he should engage that topic in a responsible, collaborative manner, not a divisive one.

Any discussion of federalism should seek to unite Canadians, not divide them. There are simply some ways in which a country cannot be divided and still remain whole. This is one of them.

The fact is that no politician can reasonably expect to politicize the very concept on which the country was established without risking the break-up of the country. It is in this sense that Dion’s reliance on divisive issues may finally bear fruit, but it will be very bitter fruit, indeed.

The nature of Stephane Dion's take on federalism is bad news for Canada.