PING!
Posted on 01/07/2007 8:37:34 PM PST by GMMAC
How Canada became a conservative nation.
North Country
by Gregory Levey
The New Republic Online
Posted January 5, 2007
The day after George W. Bush's reelection in 2004, I found my email inbox flooded with marriage proposals--not all of them in jest. As a Canadian living in New York, I had suddenly become a hot commodity to my despondent Democratic friends, who, along with most Americans, tend to think of their neighbor to the north as a bastion of liberalism. In the movie Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore portrayed Canada as the utopian wonderland long dreamt of by the MoveOn.org crowd, where gay marriage is legal and health care is universal. On the other side of the political spectrum, Pat Buchanan calls it "Soviet Canuckistan."
But, lately anyway, this perspective seems wildly anachronistic. For the past year, Canada has been governed by a Conservative Party whose policies and strategies might have come straight out of a Republican playbook. Stephen Harper, who took office last February, has a deep respect for the Bush administration and has introduced a hawkish foreign policy and a very conservative social and domestic agenda. This is not the Canada of my would-be-wives' fantasies.
In 2003, as the United States went to war against Iraq, Harper--then the Canadian opposition leader--published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal repudiating the Canadian government's decision not to join the war. "This is a serious mistake," he wrote. "The Canadian Alliance--the official opposition in parliament--supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values." Since taking the helm, his foreign policy has adhered to this worldview, and he has devoted considerable resources to beefing up Canada's military capabilities in order to further it. This differs sharply with the Liberal governments that preceded him, which steadily eroded the country's military capacity and emphasized "soft power" and moderation in their approaches to conflict zones in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Though Canada has not sent troops to Iraq, in May the Harper government voted to extend and expand Canada's mission in Afghanistan, where an average of about 2000 troops have been deployed since 2001, despite the fact that Canadian soldiers there are being killed in vastly disproportionate numbers and the war is consequently becoming increasingly unpopular in Canada. It has also been far more supportive of Israel than its Liberal predecessors ever were. Harper's Canada was among the first Western countries to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority after the election of the Hamas government last year. A few weeks ago, he called Hamas "genocidal" and reiterated that Canada would not deal with it. In September he single-handedly blocked a resolution of the Francophonie--the 53-member organization of French-speaking nations--that lamented Lebanese suffering during last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah without mentioning the hardships endured by Israelis.
Lately, his government has even begun to take on Iran, which Harper has called "the biggest single threat the planet faces." In the fall, Canada sponsored a draft resolution in the United Nations critical of Iran's human-rights record, and Iran responded by attacking Canada's treatment of aboriginal people and immigrants. Since then, Iranian parliamentarians have dubbed the Canadian embassy in Tehran the "Den of Spies" and have accused it--perhaps not totally unreasonably--of acting as a proxy for the United States. On the Israel-Hezbollah war, meanwhile, Canada's foreign minister, Peter MacKay, said that Iran was "certainly behind much of the difficulty that's going on in the region by funding Hezbollah, by supporting them in terms of their activities against Israel. They have a great deal of responsibility and blood on their hands."
But the Harper government doesn't lean to the right only on foreign affairs. Domestically, it enthusiastically supports increasing the production of Canadian oil--over the objections of environmental groups--and has provided tax breaks to Canada's oil companies. It has also said that meeting Canada's obligations to decrease carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol would mean devastating the economy. It is no coincidence that a large part of the Conservative Party's electoral base is from the oil-rich West, from which Harper himself hails.
That base is also composed of a strong religious and socially conservative element, who have never before been vocal in Canadian federal politics, but whose presence can be clearly felt in the government's current domestic agenda. Canada's legalization of gay marriage in 2005 energized this constituency, and they provided critical support to Harper's election bid last year. As if to acknowledge their backing, Harper finishes speeches with the words "God Bless Canada"--a phrase that sounds foreign, even jarring, to the average Canadian. He also surreptitiously appointed a group of social conservatives over the Christmas holiday to an important new committee charged with overseeing controversial medical practices like fertility treatment and stem-cell research. In parliament, the Conservative Party recently launched an effort to reevaluate gay marriage's legality. It is also cutting taxes and continuing its robust opposition to Canada's famously generous social programs, while working to deregulate many sectors of the economy along the libertarian lines favored by the prime minister.
If all this sounds a bit familiar, there is good reason for that. One of the most active conservative groups backing the current government is the Canadian arm of James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which has even featured Dobson in a radio campaign opposing gay marriage. Harper's Conservatives have also openly consulted with prominent Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz, who called Harper a "genuine intellectual, brilliant in his understanding of issues."
To be sure, Canada still has a long way to go before it becomes the Kansas of the North. The political divisions in Canada are analogous to those in the United States: While Harper enjoys strong support in rural areas, particularly in Canada's rugged Western provinces, he is less popular in ethnically-diverse cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and in French Canada. The new leader of Canada's Liberal Party, French-Canadian Stéphane Dion, is expected to challenge Harper in the next election--likely to come in the first half of this year--and he currently holds a narrow lead in opinion polls. But Harper still has a very real chance of winning reelection and continuing his conservative revolution. In a poll last summer, Canadians seemed to forget their dovish tendencies, overwhelmingly supporting the Harper government's criticism of Iran and support for Israel in its war with Hezbollah.
After the Democratic victory in the midterm elections and the conservative turn Canada has taken over the last year, I doubt many of my marriage proposals from 2004 are still on the table. But perhaps my inbox will now start to fill with queries from Republicans.
Gregory Levey was Israel's United Nations speechwriter and senior foreign communications coordinator for Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. He teaches at Ryerson University and is writing a book, Shut up, I'm talking!, about his experience in the Israeli government.
PING!
reassuring
Harper -- himself, his own order -- just killed off something on the order of 30% of Canadian seniors' pensions, by guaranteeing to rewrite the tax treatment of 'CanRoys', Canadian mineral royalty trusts.
The exact evolution of Harper's statism in this matter is unknown to me; however, and for whatever reason, he by his action kissed off fully 15% or more of his former supporters.
I'll wait to see Ladbroke's or tradesports.com's line on his re-election. Absent other input, I do believe I'll have a small punt against.
That did it! We must go to war with Canada, even if it DOES bring about hell on earth! Blame Canada! Blame Canada! Only this time it ain't about Terrence and Philips' fart jokes. They're adopting Reaganomics! What will the children say?
That, somehow, ordinary business enterprises were allowed to tap into the tax advantaged structure of mineral trusts says to me nothing other than 1) your Parliament are at least as idiotic as our Regress, in that they are unable (obviously) to draft statutes in a coherent manner and with regard to the consequences of their drafting, and 2) your Parliament, evidently, exceed our Regress in utter venality and stupidity (and, believe me, that proposition is exceptionally hard to believe at all !).
To correct the lawyer-class predatory raid on legitimate mineral trusts, all that Poofyment needed to do was to write a bill saying expressly that, lawyers aside, Nortel and whomever else couldn't play, that only legitimate mineral/gas/oil producers could play. Too simple a notion for the simpletons in Ottawa, eh?
In short, you've begged the question entirely. The original statute -- YOUR nation's statute -- was entirely clear about which enterprises were to benefit from favourable tax treatment. Look up the language of the blasted statute, I've nothing to sell you at all here.
Subsequently, YOUR nation's corporate attorneys, over about 12 years near as I can tell, perverted the statute to the point where, effectively, EVERY (or damned nearly) large corporate enterprise might claim the same tax treatment as the mineral trusts.
And, now, quite arrogantly, you call pensioners ''coupon-clippers'', as if the typical Canadian retiree were or ever had been involved in the machinations of lawyers and this faux-populist taxgrab misadventure. They, to a man, to a woman, invested their funds on the basis of statute as stated, and had not a single thing to do with corporate attorneys perverting the clear language of the original statute. Yet, it's fine with you -- let gov't change the rules ad libidem on any citizen, any time that gov't finds convenient.
Quite the charmer, you are. I assume you'll not be running for office in Canada anytime soon. Or, perhaps I'm wrong, and you simply represent the advance wave of even more broken promises by the Canadian gov't.
If that's your view of government, and from your comment, this inarguably is the case, then I have just four words for you.
Sod off. Join DU.
Canada's improving. Can we say the same about Western Europe?
GMMAC, do you know if Khan crossed over or is suppose to do it on Monday?
Already happened (last week)
Thanks canuck_conservative. Nice pictures of BC too!
Looks to me like Canada is headed in the right direction.
Dead on, you have clearly set out the framework for this debate. It does not matter how they try to slice it, they are lying through their teeth. What kind of government tries to blame pensioners by saying "was it wise to believe us in the first place?" I don't know what you call it but it is not conservative.
Oh, I'm well acquainted with the machinations of non-mineral companies in this affair. See post 7.
By any name you choose, this ex post facto recission of statute is nothing other than arbitrary state confiscation of private wealth.
The author list a number of reasons why he believes Canada has taken a conservative turn.
SAJ doesn't respond to any of them but instead brings up the issue of income trusts.
He's an investor, maybe he lost some money?
Maybe he believes that tax laws are written in stone?
Who is lying through their teeth? What exactly are they lying about?
Where is the source for your quote?...
or are you putting words into people's mouths to bolster your preconceptions?
Typical spatso post...pick an isolated issue and use it to disparage the whole of the governing party and the country.
Under Flaherty's new rules, existing trusts will begin paying taxes in 2011 and can raise as much as 100 percent of their market value by selling new units or shares over the next four years. The measure was necessary to ``restore balance and fairness to Canada's tax system,'' he told reporters on Oct. 31.I don't know what you'd call your post but it isn't fair and balanced.The U.S. and Australia shut down similar structures when their governments determined the securities were draining tax revenue, Flaherty said. In 1987, the U.S. House of Representatives clamped down on publicly traded master limited partnerships. Australia made a similar move in 1981 to halt a surge in trust conversions.
`Buyer Beware'
Such moves should serve as a warning to investors who buy securities that are driven by tax advantages, said Mintz, who's currently a visiting professor at New York University. ``It's buyer beware,'' Mintz said. ``Tax-motivated transactions are always risky.''
Since the US and Australia did much the same thing,
I guess conservativism doesn't exist anywhere on the planet.
How does this differ from any taxation?
Meanwhile the Conservatives have dropped the national sales tax by a percentage point
with another point to follow.
Yippee for me!, more money in my pocket.
As for:
"Subsequently, YOUR nation's corporate attorneys, over about 12 years near as I can tell, perverted the statute to the point where, effectively, EVERY (or damned nearly) large corporate enterprise might claim the same tax treatment as the mineral trusts." - SAJ
Why, aside from your other self-serving omissions, not also note these 12 years correspond precisely with the Librano$ Chretien-Martin regime?
Bottom line:
The Harper government inherited a situation where, thanks to the Liberals, a significant portion of the nation's corporate sector was about to legally dump its share of the tax burden onto the tax-paying public as a whole thus - to say the least - making NUMEROUS promised tax cuts impossible.
Accordingly, Stephen Harper acted decisively by breaking a small promise to assure he could keep several much larger & far more nationally beneficial ones.
Up here, we call that LEADERSHIP.
And what, pray tell, was so difficult about Mr. Harper approaching Parliament and saying, ''OK, folks, we're changing the statute back to its original intent'', which policy would keep essentially everyone happy (bar the NDP and some number of large companies) AND not cost himself a whole flock of votes into the bargain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.