WHAT NEEDS UNDOING?

When politicians meet with the Citizen’s editorial board, there’s a question we like to put to them, even though it hardly ever gets a thought-through response: What, if anything, should government stop doing?

Quite often, they’ll flail about until they grab on to some tiny program or vague scapegoat. It’s hard to find a program or service to cut without political reaction. So when governments do find themselves forced to cut, they often cut across the board, assuring citizens that there’s fat to trim everywhere, rather than taking a rational look at what’s working and what’s not.

This week, Tom Mulcair had to confront the question of what he wouldn’t do. He suggested he’d balance his budgets, in part, by getting rid of subsidies for the oilsands and the Senate.

The Senate and its costs are not going to disappear overnight; it is, in fact, highly doubtful they would disappear over the course of any prime minister’s mandate. The oilsands line is politically astute, though: it appeals both to ideological conservatives who dislike subsidies in general, and to environmentalists who dislike subsidizing emissions.

The question of whether the oilsands are “subsidized” and to what extent depends in large part on how one defines a “subsidy.”

The Canadian government has already phased out the most direct subsidies to that sector, so when Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that subsidies have been eliminated, he isn’t lying. But some critics do argue that forgone taxes — even the lack of a carbon tax — can be considered a kind of subsidy.

In any case, Mulcair’s answer is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one.

Speaking of tax expenditures, hardly a day goes by without Harper promising a new one to some group or other. His government already brought in a long list of boutique credits. Now it’s a staple of the campaign trail: there have been handouts to homeowners who renovate, adoptive parents, service clubs. This is tax-andspend government gone amok: the government collects taxes from all of us according to income, then redistributes that money according to whim, assigning dollar values to hobbies. But it has clearly served Harper well — so well that Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader, recently announced a tax break for teachers’ expenses.

It is tempting to focus on deficits as a clear line in the sand and equate a promise to balance the budget with fiscal responsibility. But true responsibility means spending wisely and efficiently, in good times and in bad.

Politicians spend a lot of time telling Canadians what presents they have in store for them; they don’t want to talk about what they’d stop doing. So it’s up to citizens to keep asking the question.