It is very difficult to reconcile Liberal values with the sale of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country with an abysmal human rights record and one which will undoubtedly use these vehicles when taking action to quash dissent. Yes, the contract was entered into by the previous Conservative Government and the Liberals claim that there would be costly penalties for cancelling the contract, although they won’t release any details so we have no way of judging. It is also clear that a number of jobs would be lost if the contract does not proceed.
Concern about jobs also complicates the Liberal Government response to the request for $1 billion to help shore up Bombardier until it can proceed with production of new C Series aircraft. For many, financial assistance from the federal, and Quebec, government would essentially be rewarding mismanagement by the company. A widely publicized example has been the failure to meet contract obligations with respect to new streetcars for the City of Toronto. Much of the work was outsourced to Mexico and the resulting produce failed to meet the required standards. There is also a concern that government assistance could be challenged as an unfair trade subsidy before the World Trade Organization.
On the other hand, the loss of the C Series aircraft contract, and its very adverse impact on the future prospects for Bombardier would mean the exodus from Canada of aerospace talent and the loss of thousands of jobs. Current speculation is that the federal and Quebec governments will provide the requested financial assistance, but in return for taking the majority of seats on a new board that would oversee the aircraft production – thereby creating “a two-headed beast of a state-owned enterprise.”
Infrastructure Investment for What Purpose?
As I discussed in a previous blog and in an article in the February 2016 issue of Municipal World, there are a number of ways in which the increased infrastructure spending promised by the Liberal Government could be allocated. From a political point of view, the most appealing approach is to scatter the money widely across the country, with special consideration for areas that have elected members of the governing party – a common practice particularly evident under the preceding Conservative Government. At the other extreme is a very focused and selective approach that concentrates the infrastructure investment in a handful of Canada’s largest cities, the key economic drivers for this country in our global economy and is likely to have the most positive economic impact. Further complicating the situation is trying to balance the need for a quick injection of spending – to stimulate the lagging economy – with the need to allow time for proper planning of infrastructure projects that will have the greatest long term impact. In addition, the Liberals have indicated that investments will be equally divided among the three priority areas of identified three priority areas of public transit, green projects, and social infrastructure. Implementing the various expenditure objectives within a federal system of government, and one in which municipalities are the key players in infrastructure investment, will require even more balancing and reconciling of interests.
How Much Centralized Control?
As noted in an earlier blog, the new Liberal Government has made it clear that the advice and recommendations of public servants will again be welcomed in Ottawa. The promised return to what is often termed “evidence-based decision making” is a most welcome shift from the Harper years when political considerations managed by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) dominated all decision making.
At the same time, however, the federal government needs to be able to move its policy priorities through the public service and the cabinet (and then through parliament) if it is to implement those priorities. The size of the Liberal majority in the House of Commons virtually assure the passage of legislation once it arrives there. But the path to legislation can be long and bumpy, with many worthwhile initiatives getting bogged in bureaucratic inertia or jurisdictional wrangles and turf protection.
To deal with this perennial problem, the Liberal Government is apparently planning to introduce a structural device successfully used in Britain under the Labour Government of Tony Blair. It is a Results and Delivery Unit that will collect data from departments to monitor progress toward policy implementation, with Ministers appearing periodically before a Cabinet Committee to report on that progress. To some extent, this new delivery unit sounds rather like the old PMO. Reconciling the greater freedom now being given to public servants and individual Cabinet Ministers with the need to push forward with the Liberal Government’s priorities will require yet another delicate balancing act.
More Grey than Black and White
Those who feel strongly about particular issues are quick to criticize when governments take a contrary position or appear to delay and dissemble. But as these few examples illustrate, many of the matters that governments must address don’t have an obvious right answer. No matter what decision a government makes about such matters inevitably disappoints a portion of the population. As a result, we shouldn't rush to judgment without being more appreciative of the complexities of government decision making.