The Liberals are proposing sweeping changes to the way Canada works. If you're looking for historical analogues, David Olive suggests that you look at John A. Macdonald's National Policy or the rollout of medicare in the last century:
Having promised a thoroughly overhauled post-pandemic economy, especially in strengthening the social safety net, the Liberals have gone all in. They can’t back down from it.
An early sign of the government’s resolve is the $37-billion package of new income supports it unveiled Aug. 20. Those measures extend pandemic-related emergency payments far beyond those of a U.S. counterpart program, which ran dry weeks ago and show no sign of resumption, though millions of Americans remain out of work.
In that same announcement, made jointly by newly appointed Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough, Ottawa also introduced increased sick-leave, caregiver, and maternity benefits.
The backdrop for those enhanced protections is a Liberal plan, signalled by the government for several weeks, to effectively replace the antiquated Employment Insurance program with the more streamlined and user-friendly Canada Emergency Response Benefit, which will still go under the name EI.
The Liberals seem intent on asking Canadians to consent to a sweeping economic renewal that tackles income inequality, climate crisis, immigration, economic sovereignty, industrial self-sufficiency, the gender-pay gap, Canada’s undernourished R&D sector and considerably more.
“The restart of our economy needs to be green,” Freeland said Aug. 20. “It also needs to be equitable, it needs to be inclusive, and we need to focus very much on jobs and growth.”
The Grits, in other words, are giving themselves an open-ended mandate for change, the ambition of which the country has seldom seen.
The only question is whether or not Justin Trudeau can negotiate these changes through a minority parliament or whether it will take an election to implement them.
And, most importantly -- if there is an election -- whether Canadians will support them.
Change is in the air.
Image: Thomas Neel
10 comments:
My sense is that JT will go it alone despite the minority parliament. If what Olive reports is true, the Cons will be soiling their Depends at the thought of big gubmint - there will be no support there and no point in negotiating. That leaves the perennially penniless NDP trying to wring out concessions by threatening an election they can't afford. I don't see them putting up much of a fight. With NDP support, how the BQ votes won't matter.
Cap
My hunch is that the Liberals and the NDP will find common ground, Cap. It's happened before -- during Mike Pearson's government.
I can't muster much enthusiasm. JT has a history of over-promising and under-delivering. I think I'll wait to see if he does the easy stuff first - ending fossil fuel subsidies and shutting down TMX.
What would economic reform look like in this age when globalism is coughing up a lung? Economic reform surely demands reclaiming sovereignty over our economy including essential powers ceded to the markets in free trade pacts.
All we can do is wait and see. And hope.
Precisely, Mound. Let's hope we don't have to wait too long.
I think the Libs might pull it off. If the Cons go into full gibbering rage, a lot of lukewarm Con supporters might just ask themselves things like "Why do the Cons want to steal my improved maternity benefits?" and make the Cons worry about a snap election.
The NDP, almost by definition, cannot argue against the package, though they might dispute parts validly. Even the politically tone-deaf Jageet Singh is unlikely to do it as he would almost certainly face a caucus revolt.
What surprises me that Trudeau is willing to go for it. He is about as centralist economically as can be. Some of his cabinet or other advisors must have done a real selling job or arm-twisting on him.
As Mound says, jrk, Trudeau has a reputation for overpromising and underdelivering. It will be interesting to see what the final product looks like.
@ Owen
Agree about Trudeau in some cases---I still feel he betrayed Canada on the proportional vote issue---but that is why I said "Libs". I don't see Trudeau as the instigator and wonder if members of the party will keep his feet to the fire.
I agree, jrk. Trudeau always needs someone to push him.
.. it never occurred to me when voting.. that I could be contributing to a political Party.. not Democracy.. that I might be propping up Geralds Butts 'ideas' that had been gestating like a cicada for some 12 years. Yes, I know Jason Kenney has been itching for over a decade to 'execute' his ideology.. and experiment on someones somewheres
I don't know Mr Butts.. nor do I know Ms Rempel Garner.. nor do I want to/need to.. Neither received my vote, seeing as I voted as an adult in an Ontario riding.. I did not vote for Mr Trudeau either, or Andrew Scheer. I attended an all candidate meeting (town hall) and freely admit the star of the evening was a young communist and not the Liberal incumbent.. who ended up winning
I thought elections were about 'our ideas'.. our needs, dreams and wishes.. within our ridings or counties, our provinces or territories.. but it seems that was replaced by Lavalin or Pro Life evangelicals.. or F-35 advocates or remove the bike lane advocates.. or .. (fill in the blank)
Elections used to be about ideas, sal. Now they're about advantage. The recipients of advantage occasionally change.
Post a Comment