WHAT DO PCs STAND FOR?

PCs still have to fig­ure out what they stand for

Ottawa Sun - - FRONT PAGE - REEVELY

The Pro­gres­sive Con­ser­va­tives look as though they’ll fin­ish nearly two years of de­cid­ing what they stand for with­out much more idea than they had go­ing in.

Next month they’ll study 139 pol­icy res­o­lu­tions at a ma­jor con­ven­tion in Toronto, lay­ing ground­work for the 2018 elec­tion cam­paign.

They re­leased the list Wed­nes­day night. They’re not pol­icy yet, and party pol­icy is not a cam­paign plat­form. The Tories started this at an Ottawa con­ven­tion in late win­ter 2016, where leader Pa­trick Brown promised one of the most mem­ber-driven pol­icy pro­cesses in his­tory.

It’s nor­mal for some res­o­lu­tions on such a list to be po­lit­i­cally sui­ci­dal, con­tra­dic­tory, goofy or all of the above. But th­ese res­o­lu­tions do give a sense of where a party’s col­lec­tive head is at, what virtues it wants to sig­nal.

In April, On­tario’s New Democrats looked at res­o­lu­tions to fight cli­mate change and re­move car­bon taxes from res­i­den­tial nat­u­ral gas and in­volve poor peo­ple in en­vi­ron­men­tal pol­icy and make it easy to sue fos­sil­fuel com­pa­nies and stand by the anti-pipe­line protest in Stand­ing Rock in the United States, to re­move po­lice from gay-pride pa­rades, and to ex­per­i­ment with “demo­cratic man­age­ment” in the civil ser­vice, among many, many oth­ers. Two sep­a­rate res­o­lu­tions com­plained that the con­ven­tion con­flicted with univer­sity and col­lege ex­ams. One said fu­ture NDP con­ven­tions need more time to de­bate pol­icy res­o­lu­tions.

Res­o­lu­tions like th­ese aren’t bind­ing: un­der Tim Hu­dak in 2014, the Tory plat­form was no­to­ri­ously di­vorced from the party’s pol­icy process and the “Mil­lion Jobs Plan” that was cen­tral to the cam­paign landed on can­di­dates and ac­tivists like a cin­derblock. Brown has sworn up and down not to re­peat that.

So this list of res­o­lu­tions maybe mat­ters more than most. It’s not ideal that it’s more a list of vi­sion state­ments than a set of plans for how to achieve them.

For in­stance, one thing the Tories will still lack af­ter their pol­icy con­ven­tion is a cli­mate-change pol­icy. Brown is in favour of pric­ing car­bon pol­lu­tion through a rev­enue-neu­tral car­bon tax (a “per­ma­nent tax on ev­ery­thing,” as Con­ser­va­tives once called it), which he de­clared at the be­gin­ning of this whole process. That still leaves a lot of ques­tions.

What would the On­tario Tories tax? Would they fo­cus on in­dus­try or in­clude gaso­line and nat­u­ral gas? How much would the tax be? Enough to make a dif­fer­ence or just for show.

The list of res­o­lu­tions has zero ideas about any of this, prob­a­bly be­cause there’s no Tory con­sen­sus that cli­mate change is even a prob­lem. Any de­bate about what to do about it will be a don­ny­brook that ends with blood on the floor. Pos­si­bly Pa­trick Brown’s.

The list in­cludes a cou­ple of en­tirely neg­a­tive res­o­lu­tions. One would make it Tory pol­icy to dis­man­tle the cap-and­trade sys­tem the Lib­er­als have built, bail out of our agree­ments with Quebec and Cal­i­for­nia, “can­cel the Lib­eral slush fund known as the Cli­mate Change Ac­tion Plan,” and do ev­ery­thing in the pro­vin­cial govern­ment’s power to nul­lify the fed­eral govern­ment’s work on car­bon pric­ing. An­other would “re­peal the Green En­ergy Act (more ap­pro­pri­ately known as the Bad Con­tracts Act),” be­cause when you’re for­mu­lat­ing a gov­ern­ing plan, above all don’t re­sist drive-by cheap shots.

There are pol­icy pro­pos­als about “im­prov(ing) the en­vi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tory process so that it is less bur­den­some,” mak­ing it eas­ier for mu­nic­i­pal­i­ties to block re­new­able en­ergy projects, get­ting a ma­jor new high­way built in west Toronto, study­ing the bad things about wind­mills. The clos­est thing to an un­am­bigu­ously proen­vi­ron­ment pol­icy is a vague one about pro­tect­ing the Great Lakes.

Also miss­ing: ideas to re­duce the price of elec­tric­ity, beyond not sign­ing new gen­er­a­tion con­tracts and elim­i­nat­ing a charge for smart-me­ter equip­ment from hy­dro bills (which is less than $1 a month). They’ve been whal­ing on the Lib­er­als for this for years and still have no so­lu­tions of their own.

Per­haps you’d like some in­sight into Pro­gres­sive Con­ser­va­tive health-care pol­icy.

“PC Party pol­icy is to en­sure bet­ter care for de­men­tia pa­tients.” Again with the vi­sion state­ments.

“PC Party pol­icy is to re­duce over­crowd­ing in our hospi­tals and elim­i­nate hall­way health care by pro­vid­ing On­tar­i­ans with preven­tion pro­grams, more ef­fec­tive ac­cess to timely care and bet­ter use of our health-care providers.” There are sev­eral res­o­lu­tions on this theme. It might end up be­ing Tory pol­icy to cre­ate world-class men­tal-health and home-care sys­tems, too. How? Er ...

There’s noth­ing what­so­ever about pre­car­i­ous jobs, the “shar­ing econ­omy,” pen­sions and retirement.

Cli­mate change, elec­tric­ity prices, health care and the fu­ture of work are some of the cen­tral problems any govern­ment in On­tario will ei­ther have to tackle or make a con­scious de­ci­sion not to. A big messy pol­icy con­ven­tion should be the time to hash th­ese things out, lis­ten to ev­ery­one, make a de­ci­sion to­gether. If you’re go­ing to have a fam­ily scrap, do it now, not in mid-cam­paign.

Con­ser­va­tives are sup­posed to be the tough but smart ones, the party of hard truths faced valiantly, in con­trast to the Lib­er­als’ well-mean­ing loose-pursed in­com­pe­tence. Time’s start­ing to run out here.

MICHAEL PEAKE

Tim Hu­dak’s Mil­lion Jobs Plan in 2014 landed on can­di­dates and ac­tivists like a cin­derblock.

PA­TRICK BROWN

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.