Change For Change's Sake

When you're stuck in the doldrums, a little change can do wonders; a new coat of paint on the house, a fresh injection of fashion into a tired wardrobe, or even a new set of wheels.

But if you were to demolish your family room on a whim, add another carport to the garage so that nice new Hummer can sit next to your ho-hum Caravan, and switch to plaid pants and undershirts, I'd have to question your general sanity.

Spicing things up is one thing, folks, but this is getting ridiculous.

With 40 per cent of decided voters ready to commit to a policy shift as substantial as anything seen in this country in a generation, you'd think Canada was suffering some sort of dark age, full of pain and woe, in desperate need of not just tinkering but a complete overhaul. Have we failed so thoroughly, so completely, that it's time to not only throw out the bathwater, but the baby, the tub and change room to boot?

While Paul Martin has cried wolf so many times that most of Canada is as likely to watch Starsky & Hutch reruns as a Martin press conference, what's lost in all the fear, intimidation, and spin is the simple fact that the country is running remarkably well for one that so many people want to start remaking in the image of that Bushian wonderland to the south.

This is not to raise the spectre of social conservatism running amuck in the hallowed halls of parliament, for the best that such zealotry can hope for with a new Conservative government is a few postponed weddings while lawyers reap the rewards of Harper's last shot at a dead issue.

The Supreme Court has made it very clear how it will rule should the Conservatives re-write the definition of marriage yet again. Such a move will be a waste of time, money, and a slap in the face to social tolerance, but not a death knell for gay rights, merely the final homophobic gasp of the evangelical right.

No, the problem quite simply is dollars, and what to do with them, for economic conservatives and social liberals alike, if for no other reason than the fact that a government's ability to do "the right thing" can only go as far as its cheque book will let it. And Stephen Harper, for all his protestations to the contrary, seems bent on bouncing the first few federal cheques this country has seen in a decade.

The most glaring flaw in the Conservative platform is a commitment to deal with the so-called "fiscal imbalance," the eternal cry of the provinces for more money.

The Conservatives have budgeted for a cumulative surplus of 23 billion dollars over five years, which they say will be used to satisfy the provincial pleas for dollars, while Dalton McGuinty has spent the past year pointing out that Ontario's idea of a fiscal imbalance amounts to 23 billion dollars annually.

One can only imagine, given how hot an issue this has become in Quebec, and how precarious Jean Charest's political future is, that he will be demanding that and more to placate voters and buy another mandate.

That leaves eight provinces to go, and Harper, the self-made champion of national unity who seems intent on not merely peeking into the Pandora's Box of federal-provincial relations, but cracking it wide open once again, having to either raise the proverbial middle finger in greeting at the next First Ministers' conference, or cut a goodly chunk out of his own budget to avoid a revolt.

Of course, that assumes that he even has a surplus to work with. It is not fear mongering to wonder where the money is going to come from, particularly with such a radical tax cutting regime that constrains government revenues, leaving the other side of the ledger a sitting duck for a budget-balancing orgy of slash and burn.

Already, Harper has said he will scrap the national child-care program, which is just now coming online with new daycare spaces. There will also be no more Kyoto, no more First Nations agreement, and a change in commitments to cities and pubic transit. It is not very hard to argue that more cuts must be on the way, as the simple math of the matter is hard to ignore, or stomach.

This is a fundamental change in the way government works, simply for change's sake. And it relies on the still unproven idea that money in the hands of the individual instead of the government will somehow result in a fair and just society. It smacks of a love affair with unfettered capitalism, but not sound economic policy.

When Martin cut program funding in the mid-nineties, he did so because he had to. Deficits were out of control, ever-eroding the government's ability to do more than pay interest on ballooning debt. But he didn't tie his fiscal hands by simultaneously slashing taxes, thus maintaining financial flexibility and a measure of predictability.

The books are now balanced, the economy has consistently out-performed all other G8 nations, and we finally have the sort of financial wherewithal and stability of which other nations can only dream.

As any economist worth his or her salt will tell you, stability is the greatest of economic assets, making it easier to regulate an economy, plan, budget, and invest. You change when you have to, but you do not rock the boat on a whim.

We're about to rock that boat, Canada...hold your breath.