Paul Martin’s other deficit problem

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
January 8, 2004

Patronage, ethics and other corruption-related issues loomed large in the last federal election. They didn’t stop Jean Chretien and the Liberals from being re-elected with an increased majority but they did cast a poll over the country.

A poll taken in 2002 by EKOS Research Associates Inc. showed 51% believed Paul Martin would be better able to deal with ethics and corruption issues than Mr. Chretien, who received the nod of just 21% of those polled.

In fact, much as the public anticipated, the country’s international standing did decline, according to Transparency International, a Berlin-based non-profit group that is the gold standard in monitoring international corruption. In its 2003 survey, Transparency International dropped Canada from the top 10 least-corrupt countries, based on the perception that Canada’s hands aren’t quite so clean.

Another international group, the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, also ranked Canada poorly in its 2003 study of the developed world’s export credit agencies. It placed Canada in the bottom half of 28 OECD nations it surveyed, based on the policies of its crown corporation, Export Development Canada. As EDC revealed in an OECD working group survey of the standards to which export credit agencies adhere, EDC does not feel compelled to report evidence of corruption to authorities and, even if a company is convicted of corruption, EDC will continue to do business with it if it so chooses.

Canada in 1999 signed the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention to stamp out corruption, but so far it has shown no interest in cracking down on wrongdoing, even after a Canadian government official performed double duty as a briber. In a landmark decision last year involving a water megaproject in the African country of Lesotho – the first case in the history of international development to see a multinational brought to trial – Acres International, a Canadian engineering firm, was convicted of corruption in bribing a foreign official. The person depositing Acres’ illicit payments into Swiss bank accounts on behalf of a corrupt Lesotho official was Canada’s own Honorary Consul to Lesotho, a Canadian Cabinet appointee. Yet, rather than showing contrition for Canada’s role in this crime – which the Lesotho Court of Appeal called “this premeditated and carefully planned criminal act” – our federal government is rallying to Acres’ cause and lobbying international bodies such as the World Bank to continue to provide Acres with contracts. Export Development Canada spokesman Rod Giles maintains that his organization will continue to do business with Acres. “It’s not the role of financial institutions to punish companies for these things.” The government’s role, Mr. Giles and other government officials convey by their deeds, is to defend Canadian companies that have been convicted of corruption, and to minimize any financial consequences that these companies may face.

In the next federal election campaign, as in the last, the ethics of government leaders may again be a issue. In recent years, the public has witnessed a slew of scandals, among them Mr. Chretien’s lobbying of the Business Development Bank to favour a constituent, former B.C. Premier Glen Clark’s resignation over “Casinogate” and a Toronto scandal over a questionable computer leasing deal.

If Mr. Martin is vulnerable on any issue in the coming election campaign, it’s on patronage and ethics. He has already been attacked for perceived conflicts of interest over his shipping empire and over his friendships with, and gifts from, recipients of government largesse. During Canada’s federal election campaign, the U.S. presidential campaign will also be in full swing. Charges of “cronyism” have emerged as a major issue there, with the Democrats demonizing Vice-President Dick Cheney’s past ties to Halliburton. In Canada, both the Conservative and the NDP parties are sure to echo such charges.

Mr. Martin would do well to aim for a fresh start by acting to clean out the rot, before an election call. He can do so in any number of ways – appoint an independent ethics advisor, refuse to do business with companies convicted of criminal wrongdoing, curb the patronage system. The public has waited long enough for integrity in government.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Toronto-based Urban Renaissance Institute. www.urban.probeinternational,org 

 E-mail: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

View a response to this article by Eric Siegel, executive vice-president, Export Development Canada (EDC)

Posted in Nation states | Leave a comment

Strategic voting in Canada: A cross time analysis

Duke University
Jennifer L. Merolla and Laura B. Stephenson
January 1, 2004

This paper investigates strategic voting in Canada. We test the standard expected utility model, as developed by McKelvey and Ordeshook (1972), across four federal elections.

Click here to view PDF

Posted in Agriculture (Rural) | Leave a comment

Strategic voting in Canada: A cross time analysis

Jennifer L. Merolla and Laura B. Stephenson

January 1, 2004

Duke University

This paper investigates strategic voting in Canada. We test the standard expected utility model, as developed by McKelvey and Ordeshook (1972), across four federal elections.

Click here to view .pdf document

Posted in City states | Leave a comment

Martin’s 19th-century Cabinet

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
December 27, 2003

Paul Martin bills himself as a Prime Minister for the 21st century. His first Cabinet better suits the 19th century.

Take the inner circle of his Cabinet, the Priorities and Planning Committee. Among the ministers overseeing the high-level portfolios mandatory in any Cabinet’s inner circle – inherently powerful departments such as Finance, Justice, Health and Foreign Affairs – is a minister for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. A century and more ago, Canada’s fisheries, like our trapping and hunting industry, were all-important to our economy. Then came the great economic growth that accompanied the industrialization and the urbanization of our economy, which made the fisheries small in comparison, followed by government mismanagement of our cod and other fisheries, which made the fisheries much smaller again. Canada’s fisheries now represent less than one-tenth of 1% of Canada’s GDP and sinking. There is no economic merit in favouring this industry by awarding it a minister in the Cabinet of a modern economy. Even if the fisheries industry were privatized in the hands of individual fishermen, and grew ten-fold because it was now allowed to thrive, it would remain less than 1% of Canada’s economy. But if it were privatized, as it should be, it would have even less claim to ministerial representation.

Or take another inner circle Cabinet position, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It will emphasize two forms of welfare: handouts to aboriginals, to meet Mr. Martin’s desire to ease aboriginal poverty, and handouts to northern industries, to meet his desire to develop the hinterlands. As the government press release announcing the Cabinet appointees stated, this ministry will place “special emphasis on Northern Economic Development.”

The Cabinet rank given to the ministers charged with overseeing Canada’s rural reaches has nothing to do with creating a 21st century economy and everything to do with old-fashioned electoral pork: Though these rural areas don’t amount to much economically – in fact, their small amount of economic activity occurs at a net loss – they represent a hefty number of ridings. Even better, the cost of pork per rural riding is relatively low, because so few Canadians inhabit them. Buying them off becomes a prudent political investment for financial stewards.

Hence the parade of other ministers serving the unpopulated parts of Canada. There’s a minister for the economic development of northern Ontario, a minister in charge of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and a minister in charge of Western Economic Diversification, all charged with delivering political pork. Plus a minister for agriculture to complement the minister for the fisheries, and a minister for the mining and forestry industries in the form of a Minister of Natural Resources. All natural resources combined, including the energy sector, Canada’s one profitable resource sector, account for less than 5.5% of Canada’s GDP.

As for the populated parts of Canada, Mr. Martin has appointed no minister for either city or suburb. No urban industry, except for the financial sector, rates a Cabinet member.

The Martin Cabinet has nothing to do with boldly reinventing the Canadian economy for the 21st century. It is, however, a bold and audacious Pre-Election Cabinet. With Urban Canada unlikely to leave the Liberals for the new Conservative Party of Canada, so leery of immigrants and otherwise socially conservative, Mr. Martin is plotting a historic sweep of the rest of the country. The sweep starts at the Atlantic, where the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is charged with netting all the ridings now held by the Tories. It rolls through Quebec, where the Bloc Quebecois is in disarray. It picks up Ontario, which is solid Liberal country. And with a Cabinet now weighted to the West, it goes for the gold and a crushing majority.

The 21st century begins for Mr. Martin after the spring election. He will then be at liberty to select a Cabinet that reflects his true disposition. Canadians will then discover whether Martin the Prime Minister craves something more than merely acquiring power, and whether the next century will look any different to him than the last.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institutes, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. E-mail: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

Related article:

On-ramp to power

Posted in Municipal | Leave a comment

On-ramp to power

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
December 11, 2003

Canada’s conservatives have voted overwhelmingly to create a new Conservative Party of Canada. They now need to decide on a leader but even more, they need to decide whether to contest Canada’s urbanized ridings, home to an overwhelming number of voters.

To many conservatives, contesting the cities seems suicidal: The Liberals have sure appeal on gun control, gay rights, immigration and other social issues that sway urban voters. Yet abandoning the cities is a sure formula for replaying the last century of dominant Liberal rule. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in our cities and suburbs, a proportion that has been steadily growing. Each new census adds urban ridings and reduces the number of rural ones, shifting the political calculus ever away from our rural past. The conservatives’ traditional strategy of contesting the rural areas, and capitalizing on regional discontent here and there to cobble together a victory, becomes less credible with each passing year. Worse, this strategy relegates the party to incoherence and opportunism – hardly the invigorated and unambiguous platform that a new party needs to inspire the next generation of Canadians.

Conservatives can take heart. Canada’s cities are winnable. The Liberals have been coupling their overt pro-urban social policies with covert anti-urban economic policies – in effect, the Liberals have been overtaxing urbanites to subsidize small town and rural residents. By attacking the Liberals’ anti-urban economic policies, Conservatives can remake themselves as protectors of the urban economy, and of urbanites’ pocketbooks. By also attacking the harm that the Liberals’ anti-urban policies do to the environment – urbanites are unwittingly forced to subsidize the exploitation of our natural resources for the benefit of American consumers – Conservatives can split the vote of urban Canadians who vote Liberal on social grounds. If Liberals lose their social sheen, and must campaign chiefly on economic grounds, Urban Canada is in play.

Taxes on urbanites tend to be hidden, providing shock value when urban Canadians learn of them. For example, the federal CRTC, which regulates phone companies, forces urbanites to pay a hidden surtax on their phone services – in recent years, it has reached $1-billion a year – to reduce the long-distance charges of rural Canadians. Similarly, urban consumers are kept in the dark over the discriminatory costs they bear in air travel, mail service, banking and other federally regulated goods and services. Statistics Canada provides another measure of how urbanites get shortchanged through our political process: The average rural resident receives 50% more in welfare, employment insurance, old age security and other government transfers than he pays in taxes, it reports. The gap between taxes paid and cash transfers grows for the average resident of small towns – those with populations less than 30,000. Most of the cost of carrying our unsustainable rural and small-town economy is borne by the residents of the large urban and suburban centres, whose sizeable middle-class and affluent populations, with their correspondingly high tax brackets, pay a whopping two-and-a-half times as much in taxes as they receive in transfers.

Urban residents aren’t alone in bearing an unfair share of the costs of carrying the country. Urban businesses also bear discriminatory charges, undermining their competitiveness and their ability to create jobs. Canada’s income tax rate for large corporations, and capital taxes that are widely considered to be among the most destructive taxes that we levy, are specifically designed to hit urban businesses. Rural businesses, meanwhile, particularly the extractive industries that inflict most of the environmental damage, get tax credits and direct government handouts.

An urban platform for the Conservative Party of Canada would signal that it sees itself as a party of the future, one that stands for a level playing field for all Canadian industries and equal rights for all Canadian citizens. An urban platform welcoming of an advanced, information-based society would also allow it to champion the free market values it espouses with integrity, and without needing to defend a host of regional development grants and other decidedly un-free market subsidies to inefficient resource industries. Not that this platform wouldn’t have risks – subsidy-dependent rural ridings that traditionally vote conservative may well switch to another party. But as the Ontario Tories learned to their dismay in their recent election, playing to a rural vote can be a quick route to political ruin. The status quo, in reality, represents much greater risks. And much smaller rewards.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institutes, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. E-mail: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

Related article:

Martin’s 19th-century Cabinet

Posted in City states, Municipal | Leave a comment