Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Post-debate post: He's a man, he's got a plan, notwithstanding that eerie sense of déjà vu

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 11:31pm - 56 Comments

I have little to add about the French-language leaders’ debate after our rather exhaustive group liveblog, which was a blast and which was extremely well-received by readers who were following along with us while the debate was happening.

I do, however, want to address the Liberal leader’s surprise policy announcement in the opening minutes of the debate. Apparently Prime Minister Martin wants to amend the constitution to bar the federal government from invoking the “notwithstanding” clause. Stéphane Dion has a five-point plan for fixing the economy in 30 days if he’s elected.

What to think of all this?

Well, first, as you can tell, I’m a bit weirded out by the structural resemblance to the failed 2006 ‘notwithstanding’ stunt. In that election, some of Martin’s staffers thought it’d be neat to release a policy plank live on TV while millions of Canadians were watching. Nothing required that the plank be a truly weird straw-man plan to skate Stephen Harper offside on abortion once again, but apparently that was some kind of bonus.

But just because tonight’s announcement borrows the manner of one of the really bad ideas in the history of Canadian politics doesn’t mean it is necessarily another of the really bad ideas in the history of Canadian politics. Let’s look at what Dion is actually proposing.

  1. He’d ask a bunch of financial eggheads — OSFI, CIDC, CMHC, Bank of Canada — if they have any good ideas.
  2. He’d have a meeting with economists. Don Drummond, check your Twitter.
  3. He’d slam together an Economic and Fiscal Update within three weeks after forming a government.
  4. He’d have a meeting of First Ministers.
  5. He’d accelerate infrastructure spending within already-planned spending programs.

This list comes close to satisfying the Hippocratic Oath — “first, do no harm” — while being perhaps a bit too reminiscent of the Favourite Paul Martin Idea — “first, hold a lot of meetings.” Items 1, 2, and 3 on this list seem, to me, to fall into the category of “Couldn’t hurt, and for all you know, they might even help.” Item 4 is riskier — premiers tend to be smarter one by one than in bulk. As for 5, depends on your tastes. Two earlier rookie leaders did things like this when they took office during earlier economic hard times: Bill Clinton held a big meeting with economists, and Jean Chrétien launched infrastructure spending.

Since it was Stephen Harper who asked for the debate’s chapter on the economy to be expanded from 12 minutes, it was striking that he didn’t have much new to say with the extra times. Mind you, Harper’s core economic message — “stay the course” — doesn’t take long to say. Dion showed up at an expanded debate with expanded economic policy, or at least with expanded economic busy-ness. It helped him fill his allotted speaking time, at least.

Dion will be able to take this list of ideas into the English debate without having to hang his head in shame. Is anyone actually against asking the Bank and the provinces for ideas?

I’m keenly, and sheepishly, aware that this post amounts to an entirely mixed review. I don’t think Dion’s announcement deserves better — or worse.

    Bookmark and Share
    • T. Thwim

      Davey Boy: Sure, economists may have been wrong before. But they’re still the best informed people we have on this issue, so when they say, “You know, this idea of reducing income tax and making it up in carbon tax will help out” I tend to think they have greater credibility than some random poster on the internet.

      So do we trust a single economist, Harper, who hasn’t published a single economics paper in the last decade and is a politician who has evidenced he’ll do anything for electoral advantage, legislation or no, or do we trust a plan that’s been evaluated by multiple independant economists, and has been shown to be working in various other countries?

      Incidentally, look at the plan. The benefits to the poor kick in immediately. How’s that for getting money into the pockets that need it the most fast, and worrying about getting it back later?

    • T. Thwim

      Ryan: Unless you’re unwilling to acknowledge that the circumstance have changed between when the Green Plan was made and now, then it makes sense that any plan be re-evaluated under the current circumstances.

      Do we throw it out? Dunno. But to at least acknowledge that maybe we need to take another look at it in an economy that looks like it may rapidly go south (in more ways than one) is probably a good idea.

      By contrast, Harper is maintaining that sticking to the same course that got us here will somehow turn us around and lead us out.

      It’s said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

    • Jenn

      Davey Boy:

      I don’t know Layton and Chow personally, and I don’t know where they lived. But I DO know that ‘living in subsidized housing’ does not–repeat not–necessarily mean one’s housing is subsidized.

      I live in a subsidized housing complex and I pay full and fair market rent. I can’t tell which of my neighbours are subsidized a little, a lot, or none. And unless you know the Layton/Chow financial information, neither can you about them. The fact that the building they lived in had subsidized units is irrelevant. Nor am I taking housing away from someone who needs it–every single subsidized housing project (as far as I know, anyway) has some market rent units. I don’t know if that’s 50% market rent and 50% subsidized, 60/40 or what.

      So I wonder what proof you have that Jack Layton and Olivia Chow ‘skived the taxpayer’. If it matters, I’m not a Dipper.

    • Pingback: B Frank · Making a Turn?

    • Davey Boy

      Hi Jenn,

      No it doesn’t matter. I’m sure you’re very nice.

      At the time Jack was a city councillor and Olivia was a school trustee. Their combined public sector salaries were well over $100 K, which was a lot two decades back. After they were outed (by the Toronto Sun) they moved out.

      I know there are a lot of mixed-income housing units about, with varying levels of income assistance. I think they are a jim-dandy solution, especially for providing housing for those with disabilities. But that wasn’t quite Jack’s case. At the time Toronto was in a very tight rental market (which meant that market rents were fairly stiff, and certainly not fair) and, as I recall, Jack was at pains to explain how his name wound up on the list of those offered the opportunity to partake in what was then, a new option in publicly-supported housing. The whole episode reeked of insider-dealing. The most surprising thing about the whole episode was that Jack threw in the towel after he was caught. He was so righteous in his defence that I expected he would still be living in the building all these years later. Now he just has to make due on his and Olivia’s housing allowances as MPs. I understand it’s only $1500 per month each. Small wonder he’s eying the oppulence of Stornaway. After all, there’s public housing, and then there’s public housing.

    • http://my.opera.com/1medbilling/blog/medical-billing-book Foectorares

      medical billing and coding schools
      medical billing at home course
      medical billing cover letter sample
      medical billing courses on line
      billing company home medical starting
      medical billing work at home
      medical billing services georgia
      2b billing2btn career medical
      jobs work at home medical billing
      billing illinois medicaid training

      at home medical billing jobs
      online medical billing software
      outsource medical billing
      medical billing software programs

    From Macleans