New from the CCPA
January 5, 2006
Minority Report: A Report Card on the 2004-05 Minority Government
Canada-US Relations: Paul Martin’s Dilemma, by Bruce Campbell
1. Minority Report: A Report Card on the 2004-05 Minority Government
Today the CCPA released Minority Report: A Report Card on the 2004-05
Minority Government. The news release for the report is pasted below. The
entire report can be downloaded free of charge from the CCPA web site at
http://www.policyalternatives.ca
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 5, 2006
Minority governments achieve progress for people, says Alternative Federal
Budget
OTTAWA—Today the Alternative Federal Budget released a detailed report card
on the achievements of the 2004-05 Minority Parliament and awarded the
Martin Minority an overall C grade for “some progress.”
Minority Report: A Report Card on the 2004-05 Minority Government outlines
the problems, grades the efforts, and outlines an unfinished People’s
Agenda for the next government. The report, published by the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives, was put together with input from numerous
civil society organizations representing millions of Canadians.
“One of Canada’s most persistent political myths is that only majority
governments are able to make meaningful change. The reality is frequently
the reverse,” explains AFB Coordinator Judy Randall. “Minority Parliaments
have often been the most effective in terms of achieving real progress for
people.”
Two decades of back-to-back majorities under successive Conservative and
Liberal governments delivered largely on the demands of corporate Canada,
not the broader electorate. That agenda was stalled, at least temporarily,
under the minority Parliament of 2004-05.
This minority Parliament made progress on many policy fronts that put
people first:
Negotiations to maintain support from the NDP forced the Martin
government to put a brake on its rush to cut corporate taxes and
redirect that money to reducing tuition fees, building affordable
housing, improving energy efficiency, and improving protection for
workers.
Forceful opposition in the House and on the ground prompted Paul Martin
to reject participation in the U.S. ballistic missile defence program
and to modestly increase foreign aid.
The promise of a national child care program gained new life. And new
hope is on the horizon for Aboriginal Peoples via a landmark agreement
to close the gap between Aboriginal Peoples and other Canadians in
health, education, housing, and economic opportunities.
But much more needs to be done—Canada’s poor keep falling further below the
poverty line, Medicare is increasingly threatened, and inequality soars as
incomes become more polarized and tax cuts widen the gap.
Instead of addressing these issues the Liberal government wants to divert
$39 billion of projected ‘surplus’ revenues over upcoming years to tax
cuts that will go primarily to the well-off and to corporations already
wallowing in record profits.
And the Conservatives, who have never seen a tax cut they didn’t like, are
fully supportive of this agenda.
“Canada does not need another government bent on helping people that don’t
need help. What is needed is a counterweight in Parliament to remind them
that government is there to work for the people,” says the AFB report.
The Alternative Budget has demonstrated that a People’s Agenda is doable
and affordable. “But it requires the collective resources of Canadians, and
a government committed to putting our money to work for all of us,” Randall
concludes.
-30-
Minority Report: A Report Card on the 2004-05 Minority Government is
available on the CCPA web site at http://www.policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Communications Officer,
at 613-563-1341 x306.
2. Canada-US Relations: Paul Martin’s Dilemma
By Bruce Campbell
How to maintain essential policy freedom, discipline continental
integration pressures, and charting a distinct course for Canada at home
and in the world, has for generations, preoccupied Canadian policymakers in
managing relations with the United States. In recent years, however, their
commitment to these goals has been thrown into question.
The bilateral relationship has been remarkably friendly by international
standards. Canadians have at times been inspired by American political
leadership; though today they are highly critical of the Bush
Administration’s abuse of its military and economic power, its disregard
for international law and refusal to abide by its international
commitments. Nor do they want their leaders to be complicit by their
silence.
Thus, talking tough to the Bush Administration is bound to play well for
Paul Martin during this election. Canada-US relations are a perennial
hot-button issue. And Canadians, according to recent polls, see the
Liberals as best able to stand up to the Americans and defend national
interests and values.
But this country’s economic elites are no doubt squirming uncomfortably at
Martin’s statements. These conspicuous displays of independence belie
Canada’s diminishing policy autonomy and heightened economic vulnerability
over the last two decades. But, more importantly, they could threaten the
much greater compromises that would be required to fulfill the elites’
vision of a fully formed continental market down the road--what they refer
to as their deep integration agenda.
Though never spelled out, creating a truly continent-wide free market
requires political integration--the harmonization of a vast array laws,
policies and regulations. NAFTA and US security imperatives have done much
to advance this process, but there is a long way to go.
Because of the vastly unequal size and power between the partners, the new
continental single market under construction (underpinned by its
infrastructure of harmonized policies and regulations) increasingly
resembles the US market. Canada (and Mexico) continue to align their
policies more closely with the US. Since the elites generally favour the
more “market friendly” US rules, this is seen more as a benefit than a
cost.
On the other hand, because of its huge power advantage, the US could
potentially ignore with little consequence, the rules of the continental
market if an important national interest were at stake. Canadian
negotiators thought they had finessed the power politics problem with a
dispute settlement mechanism, but the softwood lumber debacle has proved
how wrong they were, and has caused considerable anxiety among the economic
elite.
As economic integration has proceeded, a deep fault line has become evident
in Canadian society: between the attitudes and values of the economic
elites and those of the general public. The former have converged toward
their American counterparts: on deepening economic ties with the US, on
supporting US policies, and on government market roles. They have accepted
that achieving their goal requires that Canada regress to a
semi-autonomous, semi-democratic state. They also know that, while what has
been given up so far is significant, it pales beside what is required to
fully complete a continental single market.
The attitudes and values of the Canadian public on the other hand, have not
converged. If anything, they have grown farther apart, both from Americans
and from their own elites. Nor do they want to be drawn deeper into a
Fortress North America.
This fracture within Canadian society poses a serious dilemma for Paul
Martin. He is a charter member of the economic elite. He believes in the
idea of creating the single integrated continental market. His government
has been pursuing an aggressive, stealth agenda of policy and regulatory
harmonization since he was elected. Its most recent manifestation is the
little known North American Security and Prosperity Initiative. Though
vaguely defined, it is moving the country incrementally toward broad
continental regulatory harmonization agreements in areas such as health,
safety and environment; toward a common energy and resources policy; common
security policies, a common trade policy etc., all with a view to
eventually realizing Tom d’Aquino and John Manley’s vision of a single
unfettered continental market and the informal political association that
is its unstated companion (though with no vote for Canadian citizens).
I believe Martin is aware of the extent of Canadian policy autonomy that
would have to be sacrificed, although perhaps he has convinced himself that
he can somehow slow or contain the process.
Electoral success, however, requires strong assertions of national
independence. Most people don’t want Canada to move further down this deep
integration road. They want to be able to elect a government that can make
fundamental choices about the kind of society they want. Canadians don’t
want these choices foreclosed through back-door bilateral agreements and
behind-the-scenes regulatory measures shaped by US demands. So Martin has
to throw up a smokescreen around the goal of a single continental market.
If he were up-front about the consequences of this Fortress North America
push, Canadians could have an open debate about its merits as happened in
1988. However, by doing this he would risk losing political support. Thus,
to help secure his hold on power, he has pulled out the “standing up for
Canada” card even though it makes the elites nervous. The downside of this
is that it could, as Ambassador David Wilkins warned, alienate the US
Administration, which needs to be kept on-board with the Plan. Worse, it
could have the unintended consequence of awakening Canadians to the dangers
of traveling further down this road to a single continental market.
Herein lies Paul Martin’s dilemma.
Bruce Campbell is Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives.
--
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
410-75 Albert Street, Ottawa ON K1P 5E7
tel: 613-563-1341 fax: 613-233-1458
http://www.policyalternatives.ca
caw567
|
