It's Time for a Reinvestment in Canada

Canadians are starting to get pissed off at elected government. They're beginning to realize that politicians are regularly making a mess of things. They may even be beginning to realize that the '90s neo-liberal, free market movement to smaller government has started causing disasters of incompetence. Events like SARS, are beginning to take a enough of a toll that relatively minor transgressions (if only from a dollar figure point of view) like the federal Liberal sponsorship scandal generate enormous outrage. Particularly in light of the sacrifices most Canadians have had to endure for the past decade.

Even the thick and largely corporate mainstream Canadian press is beginning to pick up on the attitude with an uncharacteristic focus on idiotic blabber by the elected.

For example, Mr. Privatization, Ralph Klein, apparently wants his medicine with his medicine. In his push to create two-tier health services, Klein quoted a man who received a hip replacement in England:

"By way of example, the premier said he recently spoke to a man who went to England to get a new "Birmingham hip" -- a replacement considered superior to a standard hip replacement. The man told Klein that for an extra charge, the hospital provided him with a hotel-like suite. "He said, 'I had absolute comfort and quiet,' and he said, 'I could even order room service and a bottle of wine.' "
Klein said he is now asking whether that could be done in Alberta."

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised considering Klein's fondness for imbibing. But what it has to do with better healthcare is beyond me unless you're rich or an alcoholic. But I think this article helps signal a shift in Canadian thinking. It underlines the boorishness of Canadian politicians given birth to in the '90s.

Klein is one of the Canadian leaders promoting the ideology of "me, myself and I" politics, along with the former Ontario Tory premier Ed Harris, and our current PM Paul Martin. I'd include my own BC premier Gordon Campbell, but he's largely been a failure at just about everything he tried to do here.

All these leaders have in common the personality trait that the bottom line is all about money. Now in business that may very well be true. But these guys are in government. The overriding principle of democratic government is, or damn well should be, the public good. Instead, for most of the '90s, Canadians have been forced to swallow a very bitter pill of massive government cutbacks, sugar coated with the argument of deficit elimination and debt reduction.

Supporting the '90s refrain of smaller government has been borne largely by the middle class in Canada (the poor have never been well treated). Massive cuts to social services, which we still pay for, have led to shorter Employment Insurance eligibility, longer waiting lists for important medical services, and nation wide decay of public infrastructure. But all that pain wasn't simply to pay for the elimination of the deficit, that was accomplished way back in 1995. We also repeatedly had to pay for Paul Martin's personal aggrandizment in the form of budget surpluses. Paul Martin built his reputation and his Liberal leadership bid on those surpluses, money that in hindsight was clearly "invested" for his own rather than Canada's purposes.

Why were the surpluses such a waste? Well let's take a page from most investment advisors, seeing as we're also in the middle of RRSP season. While saving money can be a useful activity, any investment advisor will tell you large sums of spare cash should be invested, as you will likely receive a far greater return down the road. Paying down debt has some uses, but not if the investment opportunities that present themselves offer greater long term advantages.

Paying down the principal of Canada's national debt has some limited uses, but as long as the economy is growing strongly, without adding new debt, the proportion of our debt in relation to the national economy will shrink all on its own. Under circumstances such as those, prudent investments are a far wiser choice.

But what should democratic governments invest in? Given that they're the representatives of the people the easy answer is the public good. It's long been know that prudent investments in infrastructure and social services provide a magnified return as the public take advantage of them to add their own contribution to the national economy. This leads to stronger economic growth. Throughout the '90's most of our governments, in many cases to the detriment of the public, made it easier for large corporations in the form of lower corporate taxes, lax safety and pollution enforcement, and increased patent and copyright protection.

During the '90s, the bugaboo of the debt, Paul Martin's quest for the Prime Minister's Office, and the triumph of free market globalization ideology, with it's low tax, factory farm, greed is good, marketplace as God thinking, blinded most Canadians to the need for investment in those things that make a democracy possible. SARS, BSE, Walkerton, Chicken Flu, increasing homelessness, the Ontario blackout, all of these things are signs of a crumbling public infrastructure and failing public services. And replacing them with private solutions hasn't worked. We're well past due to begin reinvesting in the national public good.

It's time to throw the bums, the drunks and the embezzlers out of office. They've already stolen, and mismanaged enough of our money.