Someone emailed me earlier this evening and took me to task for not commenting on Belinda Stronach's policies. I've written previously that I was pretty sure I wasn't the kind of voter that Stronach would be trying to appeal to, but since someone insists, I'll go through the speech and tell you what I think.
I'll be skipping large portions of it, though. How do you argue with "my public service will be defined by values"? As for "government is too big", well, that's a bit vague. And predictable when you consider it's the Conservative party.
To create jobs, let’s scrap the tax on capital and reduce the burden of big government red tape.
[Update: I subsequently learned that the clarification referred to in the next paragraph was actually an error. The following brief rant now has nothing to do with any policy Belinda Stronach has announced. See
this post for a correction.]
Subsequent press reports clarified this as scrapping the capital gains tax. So someone who's already well enough off to speculate on real estate can flip some properties to earn himself an extra sixty grand and pay no tax on it. But someone who works his butt off to earn sixty grand, and still can't afford a house because the speculators have driven the cost of houses up, should pay taxes. The rich get richer and the rest ... don't. That's not a policy I can get behind.
To give hardworking Canadians a break, let’s make mortgage interest partially tax deductible.
Please see above. And what about people who rent? This isn't entirely a non-starter but there may be better ways to give a break to those who need one. How about we increase the taxes on the rich and eliminate them entirely for the working class? I told you Stronach wouldn't want any part of me.
To secure our competitiveness and to protect our interests, I would place Canada inside, not outside, an integrated North American security perimeter.
In order to have a strong economy we need to promote an efficient flow of goods and services across our border.
This sounds like Fortress America and it's spoken as if there's no down side. There's a down side and it needs to be acknowledged. Until that's done this isn't a policy, it's a platitude. Why are people who are so critical of Paul Martin (who deserves it) so uncritical of George Bush (who deserves even more criticism)? Besides, Martin seems intent on putting us inside that perimeter too.
The Liberals have weakened our relationship with the United States, our neighbour, ally and largest trading partner.
I want to restore that relationship, based on strength, cooperation and keeping our commitments.
What commitments haven't we kept? And why is there no acknowledgement that America has done its part to damage relationships with Canada and a host of other nations?
To defend ourselves and meet our international obligations, I would rebuild our military, giving our troops the equipment, the funding and the recognition they deserve.
One of the first things I blogged about was the fact that the Sea King helicopters are older than the people who fly them and it's a disgrace. By all means let's have a realistic look at what our requirements and international obligations are. Let's also acknowledge that we'll never spend enough to satisfy Don Rumsfeld and Paul Cellucci.
As Prime Minister I would promote the creation of industry-based technology centres, across the country, that allow young people to learn the technological skills that industry so desperately needs to compete internationally.
I'd like to hear where Stronach thinks the job opportunities will be in the next few decades. And does industry-based mean private? Is the primary purpose of education to produce productive workers or are we interesting in builded citizens too?
We should support higher education by allowing both parents and students to deduct post-secondary tuition from their income tax.
I'm not opposed, but why not just work towards lowering tuition and ultimately eliminating it?
To encourage openness and transparency, government should send patients regular statements, so they see the true cost of the services they have received from medicare.
This is the only specific item on health care - the rest was pretty general. Doesn't this add red tape and expense? Why do I need to see a bill I'm not going to pay?
I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana. This is a question of public safety and public health.
I think marijuana should be legalized. A big part of the public safety problem exists because pot is illegal and therefore driven underground.
While strengthening gun control, I would scrap the gun registry. I would use the money to fight against illegal guns and drugs.
The gun registry is a disaster. The laws are poorly written and whoever drafted the initial budget obviously had no experience with large database software projects. (Not to mention the fact that there's doubtless a ton of pork in there.) But if she's talking about bringing the War on (Some) Drugs™ home to Canada, Belinda and I are
really going to have a problem.
I would restore Canadians’ faith in democracy by reaching out to consult with people, by allowing more free votes by MPs, and by creating an independent Ethics Commissioner who reports directly to Parliament.
Stronach could have lifted this straight out of a Paul Martin speech. Who's going to argue with making elected officials more accountable and forcing them to live up to a higher standard?
There you go. There are a couple of things I agree with more or less, but on a number of issues Stronach sounds like the Fraser Institute would get behind her. Business good, government bad. The market will take care of everything ('a bigger economic pie') and America knows best. On some other issues she sounds just a little bit like she admires John Ashcroft. This is not good.
She pays some attention to health care and education, but then I'm sure she knows those are hot button issues with Canadians and particularly where health care is concerned, she's not awfully specific about what she intends to do. If my correspondent would like a more nuanced reply, I'd suggest that Stronach needs some more nuanced policies.
You asked.
Update: edited for spelling and grammar. It was late.