Steady As She Goes

Five years of a Conservative-led government has not yet quite expunged the record of corruption and incompetence left over by the previous Liberal-led governments. We are assured, however, that our doughty and capable Stephen Harper and his Cabinet are working on it. And obviously, in the process, confirming to a continued slight majority of Canadians that they're doing a fine job representing our interests in this great country.

The issue of Canada's political parties relaxing their mandate to search out financial support, living on the public dole has once again come into focus. Much of that is related to the unease Canadian taxpayers feel about the Bloc Quebecois, a political party representing only the very focused interest of the Province of Quebec, and that entirely toward the end-goal of secession from Canada, receiving virtually all of its funding from taxpayer subsidies.

Does that make any kind of logical sense? The Bloc is already helpfully assisted in its mission to ensure Quebec breaks free of constricting Confederation, a situation that has forced it to accept the largess of equalization payments from those other provinces identified as having too much loose cash to spend for their own provinces. Quebec, kicking and screaming, also reluctantly accepts its label of unique, as representing a 'nation'.

Why not, as Stephen Harper logically recommends, save taxpayer funding for other, more needful uses to benefit the country, and allow the political parties to raise their own funds? It will certainly discommode the movers-and-shakers within, with the added onus to ensure they can pay for their agendas, but some of the parties have adequately proven it is possible; they can all learn to do so, to become self-sustaining absent direct tax-paid party subsidies.

The previous attempt failed, because it was an unwelcome surprise plunked into the 2008 financial statement by the finance minister as a change to the Elections Act, spurring the other three parties into an impromptu attempt at a coalition government challenge. Its time has come, however, and the $27-million that has comfortably supported all parties should be rescinded.

"Our view is that there is a role for some public finance, but it has got to be tied to a party's own efforts, or to the willingness of voters to actually contribute this money", explained Mr. Harper. Logically through a voluntary political party contribution by an individual - for which they are then handsomely compensated through a generous tax write-off.

An Post Media interview with the Prime Minister clarified many things, and touched on the government's administrative and governing successes in the past five years. Mr. Harper made it quite clear he is not at the moment interested in propelling the country into an election the public is not eager to go through. Reasonably, he also pointed out that he would prefer to obtain a majority government.

An interview with his main opponent, the Leader of the Official Opposition, revealed that Michael Ignatieff, mindful of the public's disinterest in a potential election at the present time, avows his own disinterest in prompting one, though he is literally champing at the bit. It would, however, be in his own best interests not to push an election, given the low regard in which he is held by the public.

Provocatively and ingenuously he asks a rhetorical question, whether Canada is stronger under a Conservative-led government. "No", he helpfully emphasizes. "...Is the economy stronger than it was five years ago? And is Canada more respected in the world than it was five years ago? I think the answer to those questions, all of those questions, is 'no'" he confidently averred.

Well, he would, after all. Artfully ignoring the fact that the Canadian electorate is not entirely ignorant of world conditions that brought about a global economic collapse, and archly neglecting to mention that he and his deputy have travelled the world leaving statements behind that reveal a truly peculiar version of loyalty to their country.

Such as when Mr. Ignatieff claimed that Canada did not deserve a seat on the Security Council under the current Conservative-led government. Such as the more current trip by Bob Rae to the U.A.E., (which in a state of idiotic pique did its utmost to align the Arab/Muslim bloc and its admiring friends behind a move to deny that contested seat to Canada) where Mr. Rae uncategorically emphasized his support for the United Arab Emirates, blaming Canada's government for offending their tender sensibilities.

"What I'm pushing for is to make sure that when we have an election, Canadians know what the heck this election is about: clear choices, middle-class families, an economic policy focused on middle-class families, or, prisons, planes and corporate tax cuts", explained Mr. Ignatieff. Classically choosing to overlook all the initiatives the government has undertaken on strengthening all of the criteria beneficial to Canada's economic policies and its middle class.

Embarking now on yet another cross-country tour in a clear pre-election strategy to energize Canadian voters toward the Liberal brand, we can anticipate that his popularity-level as a potential prime minister in a Liberal-led government will not enhance his image any more than the previous, summer-long tour did and the one before that.

Practise does often make for perfection; in Mr. Ignatieff's case it appears to make for disinterested boredom in a message with too many obtuse holes of omission and confusion offensive to thinking Canadians.