The Path for Canadian Conservatives

(I hope this post is not too long. With the upcoming Conservative policy convention, I thought this might be a good time to put forward some ideas on the policy direction of conservatives in Canada. Mr. Harper, feel free to steal any of these ideas. - MB)

Introduction

1. The Conservative response to the latest Liberal government budget has led to talk that conservatism in Canada is dead. The Conservative Party of Canada has betrayed conservative values with it support for and lukewarm criticism of this budget. Canadians do not know what the CPC stands for. A policy convention set for next month should clear up these questions, but there are several types of conservatism that the party could embrace. Will the CPC embrace the religious, traditional views of social conservatives, the big spending, big government of U.S Republican conservatives, or the small government less taxes of libertarians or some mixture of these values? Which brand of conservatism the CPC selects will greatly effect its electability as well as the future of all Canadians.

Aim

2. The aim of this paper is to outline a political philosophy that conservatism in Canada should adopt.

Discussion

3. The Problem: The problem the CPC faces in developing a policy is the seeming pull of factions within it. Social conservatives want to defend what they see is an assault on traditions, while progressive conservatives support such ideas as same sex marriage which they see as a rights issue. Most conservatives agree that smaller government and lower taxes are a positive development, yet defending assaults on tradition or defending rights costs money and forces the government to be more intrusive in the lives of Canadians. These ideas seem to contradict each other. In order to unite conservatives and to bring those not initially predisposed to vote conservative over to our cause, a political philosophy for the party must be chosen that unites these seemingly disparate views.

4. The Policy: The policy that bridges this gap should have the following two planks as its base:

a. Personal Freedom and Responsibility: This idea is that Canadians are intelligent, responsible citizens and know better that the government what is best for themselves and should be allowed the freedom to make that choice. No government official, no matter what their training, education or credentials knows better than I what is best for me. When, inevitably as happens with non perfect beings, mistakes are made, citizens should be responsible for those choices. Freedom to choose without the responsibility of the outcome, positive or negative, is not truly freedom.

b. Smaller Government: Government is inherently inefficient. Any service to a citizen that must go through a third party before being delivered back to the citizen will cost more than if the citizen found the service for themselves. For this reason, services to Canadians should, as much as possible, be delivered to citizens directly by providers, without the intervention of the government. There may be certain services the government must still provide, (for example, such as defence), but these services should be outsourced as much as possible. The government may still have a role to set standards, provide and ensure a certain minimum level of service, and monitor industry for compliance, but this should be the exception, not the rule.

5. Policy Examples: The following are some suggestions of how the two planks of the above political philosophy would be applied to major policy areas that face Canadians:

a. Social Issues: The suggested way to deal with these issues could be employed with a number of social issues. Based on the principle of smaller government and personal freedom, the government should get out of the marriage business. Any person should be allowed to marry any other, provided they retain the metal faculties to make such a decision. This would preclude those under a certain age and the marrying of inanimate objects or animals. In this sense, why should the government care who at citizen marries? The only reason to care is if citizens are claiming married status that does not meet the definitition in order to avoid paying taxes. Remove the tax breaks for people who are married and this problem solves itself. This may not satisfy social conservatives, but in all reality, anyone who believes that Canadian society would turn back the clock to a time when there was no divorce and homosexuality was not open, is wrong. Social conservatives should be approached and told that, on these subjects the goal should not be to change the behaviour of others, but to ensure that their tax dollars are not being used to condone this behaviour. This approach would apply to other issues such as abortion.

b. Optional Government Programs (Social): Under this heading I include spending on Healthcare and Education policy. Based on the principle that government is inefficient, the government should get out of funding healthcare. This may appear as a completely unsellable policy. However, certain other actions could be taken in concert with this to allay that perception. For example, if the government were to stop funding health care, taxes would be reduced by that same amount, resulting in no net loss of the level of spending in health care. The spending would simply transfer from citizen to government to health care provider to the more direct citizen to healthcare provider, eliminating the middle man and the efficiencies that the extra level of bureaucracy provides. This may be a difficult proposal for Canadians to accept. However, Canadians are intelligent and would see that this would actually lead to more money being spent on health care without an increase in cost. It would also increase personal freedom by allowing citizens to spend their money as they saw fix, allowing them to get the drugs or procedures they deemed important. A certain number of concerns about this plan would have to be countered to ensure wide acceptance. Two of the primary concerns would likely be the cost of catastrophic coverage and how the poor or disadvantaged would be provided for. Two suggestions to address those concerns would be as follows:

(1) Phase in the program to allow private insurance to cover services no longer covered by the government. Private insurance already covers some additional health costs, this would simply increase that amount. This would also provide for an increase in private jobs.

(2) The government could continue to provide health coverage to certain persons, say under a certain income level. This would address the concerns of persons being left with no medical coverage.

The key factor in convincing Canadians to support cuts to social programs is that it must be accompanied by an equal cut in taxes. A “go slow” and phased approach could assist in increasing the acceptance of these ideas.

c. Clear Areas of Federal Jurisdiction: Within this area are items that would be difficult to outsource or responsibilities that should not be outsourced, such as defence and foreign affairs. These departments would be focused on achieving the goals of securing our citizens and protecting Canadians. This would be a “Canada First” policy and this philosophy should be clearly articulated. For example, on the US Ballistic Missile Defence program, Canada would support it as it goes towards securing our citizens.

d. Economic Issues: In line with the principle of freedom and smaller government, the CPC would advocate maximum economic freedom. Citizens and companies are free to spend their money as they wish. In addition, corporations would receive a tax cut at least equal to the amount the government pays out in various regional development funding schemes. This would probably mean greater tax relief than what is spent on these schemes, due to the elimination of the middle man. It would also have the effect of removing the unfairness and difficulty of choosing one company over another.

e. Taxation: This is the key area of the platform. It must be communicated that the lowering of taxes benefits all Canadians, and in effect increases wealth by eliminating the middle man and money spent to administer and audit how the money is spent. This should be easy to communicate considering the many spending scandals over the last ten years by the Liberal government.

Conclusion
6. The suggested policies should go far in uniting the conservative base while, due to the “progressive” view towards personal choice issues, bringing some support from the left of the political spectrum. Although social conservatives may not be satisfied, it is questionable if any “turning back of the clock” on social issues in possible. The best that social conservatives should expect is removal of their tax support for lifestyle choices they do not agree with. This, of course, goes both ways and assures social liberals that their tax dollars do not support lifestyle choices with which they do not agree. Reduced taxes would appeal to all but the most die hard statists and smaller government increases personal freedom while improving the efficiency of tax dollars by removing the middle man.