Erin O’toole’s Conservatives get their shot.
Recent Conservative criticism of the Trudeau government’s alleged plan to “re- engineer” the economy has certainly struck a chord. There’s been plenty of subsequent debate about whether the claim is justified or conspiratorial, or even if the Liberals have the competence and gumption to take over the commanding heights of the Canadian economy.
The main problem, though, is that hyperbole obscures the government’s real intentions. The Liberals are unlikely to remake the economy in their image, but they are intending to add significant new spending to the federal budget. Childcare, pharmacare and an expansion of employment insurance are all on the agenda and they’re bound to cost billions of dollars.
Monday’s economic and fiscal update will be our first chance to see the opening tally. Some estimate the government may add as much as $ 20 billion in permanent annual spending. Although this may not be precisely the “great reset” that Conservatives are warning about, it will still have long- term implications for the size, scope and priorities of the federal government.
This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that in the zero- sum world of government budgeting it’s not obvious that these areas ought to be top priorities. Dedicating scarce resources to them necessarily means there will be less available for national defence, emergency preparedness, science and technology and the various other policy areas that will be relevant in the post-pandemic recovery and over the long-term.
This is an especially important consideration given that Canada’s rate of economic growth was sluggish prior to the pandemic and is poised to slow even more in the future due to secular trends such as aging demographics. There’s a strong case, therefore, that scarce resources ought to be dedicated to eking out as much growth and productivity as possible. We need progrowth investments, not “a big grocery list of spending,” as my friend Robert Asselin from the Business Council of Canada recently put it.
The second is that even if one accepts that these are the right areas to prioritize, it’s far from obvious that the Liberal approach, which basically amounts to a series of top-down diktats, is the right way to pursue them. Their proposals on childcare and pharmacare in particular will undoubtedly involve the federal government crowding out private-sector and non-profit options in the misguided pursuit of common national standards. The result will be, by design, less freedom and choice available to Canadians and their families.
The point is that for all the speculation about the “great reset,” the Liberals are actually planning a post- pandemic agenda of massive new spending that will ultimately do more harm than good. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to think this. You just need to have read the speech from the throne from two months ago.
The Conservatives would thus be better off focusing their attention on these known policy misjudgments rather than speculating about possible future ones. But this will require that they do more than merely oppose the Liberals’ plan. That’s the easy part, after all. The more challenging yet crucial priority for a government- in- waiting is to develop and put forward an alternative vision.
The opportunity here seems self-evident. With the Liberals swept up in their own self- assuredness about the “build back better” mantra, the Conservatives essentially face no political competition for a message and agenda focused on economic growth, opportunity and individual choice.
The onus is now on them to take advantage of it. Developing alternative policies for childcare, prescription drug coverage and support for unemployed workers ( or deciding to focus on other policy areas altogether)
THE LIBERALS ARE PLANNING AN AGENDA POST-COVID THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
seems much more fruitful than arguing over the Trudeau government’s surreptitious intentions.
Take pharmacare for instance. Roughly three- quarters of Canadians report that the medicines they need are available to them. And more than 80 per cent think the government shouldn’t spend tax dollars on those who already have drug coverage.
So while the Liberals threaten to disrupt the whole system to help the small share of the population without insurance, the Conservatives should instead put forward an alternative proposal to preserve the current mix of private and public insurance for most Canadians and target those who actually need help at a fraction of the cost.
This is the substantive path to not only winning the policy argument but ultimately the next election. Canadians don’t just want to vote against the incumbent government. They want to vote affirmatively for an alternative. It’s up to Conservatives to give them such reasons.
Next week’s economic and fiscal update will be a key step on the path to the next federal election. The Conservative party ought to ensure that whenever it eventually comes, Canadians are given a clear, practical and positive choice.