Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Abandonment of employment
The Test for Abandonment
[47] The parties agree that it is an implied term of every employment contract that an employee must attend work. They also agree that when an employee fails to comply with that term he or she will be taken to have abandoned (i.e., repudiated) the contract, entitling the employer to treat the contract as being at an end. Lastly, the parties agree that the trial judge properly stated the test for determining whether an employee had abandoned his or her employment, namely, whether, viewing the circumstances objectively, would a reasonable person have understood from the employee's words and actions, that he or she had abandoned the contract: Assouline v. Ogivar Inc. (1991), 39 C.C.E.L. 100 at 104 (B.C.S.C.); Danroth v. Farrow Holdings Ltd., 2005 BCCA 593, 2005 BCCA 593, 47 B.C.L.R. (4th) 56 at para. 8.
Why we need hard copies of books and printed photographs
I love the blogosphere. My blog -- for better or worse -- has taken thousands of hours of my time to create.
Electronic photographs are great. I have hundreds on my phone and I can share them around the world in a matter of moments.
So why am I whining that we need hard copies of books and printed photographs?
Remember Super 8 movies? Yes? Well, if you still have them, can you play them?
That's the problem.
Today's e-book readers will not be here to read today's e-books for very long. My blog will be off-line and unreadable in a matter of a decade at most. The Blackberry that holds my electronic photographs will be replaced by who knows what and the photos, will be like dust in the wind... .
The point is our e-documents will not last unless we make them into hard copies that need no interface to read.
When must civil applications be tried?
[25] Applications brought pursuant to Rule 14.05 are generally brought when there is no matter in dispute and when the issues to be determined do not go beyond interpretation of a document. When issues of credibility arise, the matter should proceed as an action.
[26] Affidavit evidence on applications is properly confined to statements of fact within the personal knowledge of the deponent or to other evidence that the deponent could offer if testifying as a witness in court. Non-contentious facts may be included in affidavits based on information and belief only.
...
[30] Although the applicant seeks an order of the court directing TKD Canada to call, hold and conduct an annual members meeting to elect directors under section 106 of the Canada Corporations Act, before any such order of this type could be made, the court must make a number of factual findings and legal determinations.
...
[32] The respondent relies upon Collins v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] O.J. No. 2317 (ON S.C.) in which the court held that the following factors must be considered in determining whether an application should proceed as an action:
(1) whether there are material facts in dispute;
(2) the presence of complex issues requiring expert evidence and a weighing of the evidence;
(3) whether there is a need for the exchange of pleadings and for discoveries; and
(4) the importance and impact of the application and of the relief sought.
[33] It has also been held that it is beyond the proper role of an application judge to determine the credibility of the deponent and to resolve material facts in dispute: Newcastle Recycling Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality), 2005 CanLII 46384 (ON CA), 2005 CanLII 46384 (ON C.A.).
[34] In order to determine whether any relief is available to the applicant under section 106 of the Canada Corporations Act, it is necessary to make a number of findings of fact which will involve the weighing and assessing of the credibility of several witnesses as to various events that occurred in the period from July 2010 through to the meeting of November 24, 2010 where the present constitution was established.
[35] In my view, there are numerous material facts in dispute which arise from a very voluminous and conflicting evidentiary record. The issues are complex and require oral testimony with full cross-examination so that they may be properly weighed and assessed. There are not simply legal interpretation disputes present but rather, for example, disputes as to who actually was in attendance at particular meetings and whether or not their attendance was required to establish a proper quorum for the conduct of the meeting. In my view, these kinds of complex factual and legal disputes cannot be properly determined on a summary basis on conflicting affidavits.
A sensible economic plan
While there remains much to be done to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on foreign trained professionals working in Ontario, the Dalton McGuinty's proposal to encourage employers to give them a first job is a good first step.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Conrad Black -- the Voice of Reason on prison reform?
The Court must exclude inadmissible evidence, even if called by the party injured by the evidence, if justice requires
[3] The appellant's defence also should have been relatively straight-forward. His position was that a business associate had given him the cheque to repay a debt and he believed the cheque was genuine. Regrettably, the appellant, who was not represented by counsel, decided to make the manner in which the case was investigated an issue in the case. Accordingly, he called the officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Redick, as his own witness. He then proceeded to ask him a series of very ill-advised questions as to why the officer arrested him and why he did not conduct certain other investigations. The result was that prejudicial opinion and investigative hearsay was placed before the jury. Further, the trial judge failed to give the jury a limiting instruction as to the use to be made of that evidence and in fact invited the jury to use Detective Redick's opinion and other evidence to support the Crown's allegation that the appellant must have known that the cheque was forged.
[4] Thus, the trial judge instructed the jury, in part, as follows:
The cheque cleared the five-day hold period, and then, as you will see from the account printout, a series of withdrawals started. Detective Redick told you that the withdrawal pattern in Mr. Igbinedion's business account is typical of what occurs when a counterfeit cheque is deposited and a person wants to get the money. That person usually tests the water to see if they will get away with the fraud. They start with small withdrawals, and if there are no problems, the withdrawals will escalate. That is the type of activity that you will see when you look at the account printout.
And
The detective told you that he had investigated the names on the money orders, and his search told him that Wale Phillips was a person involved in another fraud and in possession of property obtained by crime.
[5] Detective Redick's evidence was admissible for a very limited purpose. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in R. v. Van, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716 at para. 26:
Lower courts have also decided that a trial judge who admits evidence of this kind must provide the jury with a limiting instruction as to its permissible and impermissible uses. The jury must be informed that they can only use evidence of this type for the limited purpose of setting out a narrative of the procedures that were followed in the investigation. They must be cautioned against relying on hearsay and opinion evidence that would be otherwise inadmissible in their determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused (Dhillon, at para. 51; Mallory, at para. 92).
[6] There was no suggestion that Detective Redick's evidence was admissible as expert opinion evidence. His evidence about Wale Phillips was hearsay, highly prejudicial and not admissible for its truth as an item of evidence from which the jury could find that the appellant knew the cheque was forged. The jury should have been directed in the clearest of terms that they could not use Detective Redick's testimony about his investigation as evidence of guilt.
I'm glad to see the Toronto Sun takes a fair and balanced approach to the Liberal platform
There are legitimate issues to raise about the platform -- I think it's a good and sensible platform but reasonable people can legitimately differ.
But the Sun's cover?
Candidly it's such nonsense that whatever it says inside is made meaningless.
Monday, September 5, 2011
McGuinty promises 30 per cent tuition cut, as Liberal platform unveiled
Dalton McGuinty unveiled his long-awaited platform for the Oct. 6 election with a massive new pledge worth up to $1,600 a year for full-time university students.
"We're taking the next step ... to make sure postsecondary education remains accessible and affordable to the middle class," said the Liberal platform, entitled "Forward. Together."
"So we're going to support all middle-class Ontario families with a 30 per cent across-the-board post-secondary tuition grant."
The new measure, which would be directly applied by the universities and colleges when they send out tuition bills, would cost the treasury $423 million annually.
Existing tuition breaks for low income students would remain in place, party officials said.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Migraines
Most people with migraine headache feel the pain in the temples or behind one eye or ear, although any part of the head can be involved. Besides pain, migraine also can cause nausea and vomiting and sensitivity to light and sound. Some people also may see spots or flashing lights or have a temporary loss of vision.
Migraine can occur any time of the day, though it often starts in the morning. The pain can last a few hours or up to one or two days. Some people get migraines once or twice a week. Others, only once or twice a year.
The exact cause of migraine is not fully understood. Most researchers think that migraine is due to abnormal changes in levels of substances that are naturally produced in the brain. When the levels of these substances increase, they can cause inflammation. This inflammation then causes blood vessels in the brain to swell and press on nearby nerves, causing pain.
There are drugs that can help -- they tend to be very costly. The best treatment, at least that I have found, is to sit or recline in a dark room and just rest.
NDP council must decide — what would Jack want?
Jack Layton was a great leader but he's gone now.
What would work for him will not work for anyone else -- imagine the winner of the election, Stephen Harper, trying to use Jack's 'sunny ways'!
What the NDP council must do is decide what is the best way to pick a successor to Jack. Trying to figure out WWJ do (where 'J' is Jack) is not necessarily the same thing:
http://bit.ly/pVGOjs
September 4, 2011
Tim Harper
National Affairs Columnist
OTTAWA
When it convenes later this week to fire the starting gun on the most important leadership race in party history, the NDP's governing council has never had a tougher task.
First, members must divine Jack Layton's words from the grave as they set the timing and terms of the race to replace the late leader.
You cannot be friends upon any other terms than upon the terms of equality
(of course, Wilson resegregated the US Federal government so perhaps he didn’t want to be friends with any other than white people?)
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Rogue Panda on Rampage
Some merry pranksters in Flagstaff, Arizona (where I lived for a while in what sems like another lifetime) changed the text on a road sign from 'Left Turn Prohibited' to something else. Local authorities (I mean, seriously, who would have fallen for this!) told the public not to worry - there was no dangerosu panda rampaging through Flag!!!
Campaign launch for Hamilton Centre
Friday, September 2, 2011
Use of prior criminal record
[5] The error in allowing cross-examination on the entire criminal record was compounded by the trial judge leaving it to the jury to use the appellant's criminal record not only for credibility but to decide whether it was the appellant or the victim who was the aggressor. Where the Crown is permitted to cross-examine an accused under s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act, the record goes only to the accused's credibility. The jury is to be cautioned as to the limited use of the evidence. As Dickson C.J. said in Corbett at p. 691.
In my view, the best way to balance and alleviate these risks is to give the jury all the information, but at the same time give a clear direction as to the limited use they are to make of such information. Rules which put blinders over the eyes of the trier of fact should be avoided except as a last resort. It is preferable to trust the good sense of the jury and to give the jury all relevant information, so long as it is accompanied by a clear instruction in law from the trial judge regarding the extent of its probative value. [Emphasis added.]
[6] The appellant's prior convictions and the facts underlying those convictions could only be admitted for a purpose other than to test his credibility if the trial judge found that the evidence met the test for similar fact evidence as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908. Before the evidence could be admitted the trial judge would have had to determine whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the serious prejudicial effect and in particular would have to consider the factors summarized at para. 82 of Handy. That was not done in this case, and given the remoteness of the convictions and the different context in which they arose we have grave doubts that the evidence could have been admitted as similar fact evidence.
Correlation is not the same as causation
And, of course, a radio host was saying that is proved to him that abortions were contrary to a woman's health (he was more colourful in his language but that's what it came down to).
Now, it is possible that abortions do lead to subsequent mental health issues and that is something that should be investigated. But it seems far more likely that the correlation is as a result of women who have abortions being in disproportionately difficult circumstances leading to mental health issues (and probably lots of other issues such as poverty, lack of skills and, say, a higher rate of smoking).
Correlation is not causation.
A surprise victory in Libya
"This is probably enough triumphalism for now. The rebels' ultimate success (and short term success at that) doesn't invalidate the wide variety of criticism that was aimed at the NATO mission - the shock with which the international community welcomed Gaddafi's sudden ouster is evidence enough of that. And there's little reason to believe NATO is better equipped to intervene in other thugocracies just because its bombs hit enough of the right targets in Libya."
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
THOUGHTS ON THE LIBERAL PARTY
Professor Szostak sent me this piece and with his kind permission I post it. The piece is lengthy but certainly worth reading:
Rick Szostak
Professor of Economics and Interdisciplinary Studies,
Liberal Candidate in both the 2008 and 2011 federal elections
May, 2011
As Liberals re-group after the 2011 election, it seems to this ‘radically reforming progressive centrist Liberal’ that a middle ground needs to be sought between those who think that there are no major problems with the Liberal message, and those who demand a radical re-structuring of the Liberal Party and what it stands for.
After all, nobody foresaw the NDP surge. Pundits who could not have predicted it should be wary of proclaiming that it represents some sort of sea-change in Canadian politics. Before the surge, a very likely outcome of the election was a Liberal minority government. And that government would have been such an improvement in governance over its predecessor that Liberal political fortunes would have been assured for some time.
Looking forward, it is likely that both the Conservatives and NDP (surely one of them) will disappoint some of those who voted for them in 2011. And those voters will inevitably then consider voting Liberal.
While neither the past nor the future need be viewed as bleakly as some pundits – both within and beyond the Liberal Party – have been doing in recent days, it would be sheer folly to not use the next years to do some hard thinking about what the Liberal Party stands for.
The questions then arise of whether there are ‘Liberal values’ that can be articulated so that first Liberals and then all voters can have a clear appreciation of what Liberals stand for, and whether such values are likely to resonate with the Canadian electorate. I will argue that the answer to both questions is a resounding ‘yes.’ Importantly these are values that have long been advocated by Liberals, just never in a coherent and visible fashion. So we need not re-imagine the Liberal Party, but rather more clearly state what it has always stood for.
I will make the following points:
1) There is in fact a very clear difference in philosophical outlook between the Liberal Party and its competitors
2) The Liberal outlook is one that can be embraced by a majority of Canadian voters.
3) It may at times be more difficult to communicate our outlook in brief soundbites
4) Nevertheless this can be done if we always explicitly tie our specific policy proposals to both one or more of our core values and to our philosophical outlook more generally.
5) The problem with our 2011 platform was not its individual policies but that people did not readily perceive any guiding philosophy behind it. It was thus too easily perceived as incoherent or as ‘Liberals throwing money at problems.’ People were not convinced that we had a clear vision for the future. We must thus articulate a set of core values that motivate our policies.
6) Less obviously it can be argued that our guiding philosophy is more likely to attract quality candidates. The Liberal caucus, despite its reduced numbers, could still field a better cabinet than the other parties. Perhaps the best antidote to the attack ads that will inevitably greet our next leader is to emphasize that governance requires a team.
Point 1): There is in fact a very clear difference in philosophical outlook between the Liberal Party and its competitors
There are five ways that individuals can make any decision, including ethical decisions:
· They can carefully evaluate the consequences of different choices they might make, and choose the best option.
· They can follow their intuition, and do what makes them feel good.
· They can do what they see others doing, or follow ‘traditions’ of the way things have always been done in their community or family or peer group.
· They can try to act in accord with certain values they hold dear, and thus act courageously, or humbly, or in a caring manner.
· They can follow certain decision rules that they have previously come to accept. These may be things like ‘always fear strangers’ or ‘always expect rain.’ In the ethical realm, likely rules include the Golden Rule and respect for some set of rights.
All political parties, like all people, rely on a mixture of these five types of decision-making. But they differ in emphasis. Liberals are predominantly consequentialist in orientation. While we have core values (see below) we are generally willing to do whatever works best. There are two types of conservatism: one is rooted in an appreciation of tradition (and a fear that ignorant people are likely to make matters worse if they change anything), while the other stresses individual rights. These two strains of conservatism fight for dominance within the Conservative Party. The NDP is guided primarily by an appeal to certain values: fairness and compassion, most obviously. The Green Party, more than any others, relies on an appeal to intuition: the (correct) feeling that we need to do more for the environment.
So the Liberal outlook is ‘consequentialist’ or ‘pragmatic.’ All other parties will also argue that their policies have good consequences, but these consequences are secondary. Perhaps the clearest example here is Conservative crime policy which flies in the face of expert advice on how best to fight crime but succeeds electorally due to not-too-subtle appeals to both traditions of retribution and to rights of victims (and some of our less laudable emotions, though also compassion for victims).
Point 2): The Liberal outlook is one that can be embraced by a majority of Canadian voters.
All individuals utilize all five types of decision-making. We buy clothes that others buy. We follow intuition in dating decisions (but could often benefit from being more consequentialist here). We follow rules and values, in part because we simply do not have the time to carefully evaluate each decision we have to make in life. But most people like to think of themselves as primarily making conscious well-considered decisions. And thus if the Liberal Party is successful in communicating a message that we are naturally predisposed toward a more careful appreciation of consequences than other parties, this message will be welcomed by a majority of Canadians.
But we should not transmit an exclusively consequentialist message. The sage Liberal politician stresses consequences, but reaches out with appeals to other types of decision-making. Critically we need to proclaim that we are careful and humble (and importantly that we appreciate how wonderful this country is already), in order to alleviate the reasonable fears of traditionalists that change is more often bad than good. We need to embrace both rights and values by proclaiming that our goal is to allow all Canadians to live a productive and fulfilling life (for one cannot be a consequentialist without first deciding what consequences one seeks). We need to appeal to Canadians’ justified pride in country, and appeal to their emotions in describing the future we seek.
A consequentialist message that appeals secondarily to other types of decision-making is quite feasible, and can prove popular.
Point 3): It may at times be more difficult to communicate our outlook in brief soundbites
The messaging is tricky. It is easier to appeal to our emotions or values or rights or love of tradition, than to (primarily) make an argument from consequences. To argue for the good consequences of Liberal crime policy in a ten second sound bite is difficult: few are as moved by ‘we will be guided by the evidence’ as they are by ‘criminals deserve to be punished.’
Point 4): Nevertheless this can be done if we always explicitly tie our specific policy proposals to both one or more of our core values and to our philosophical outlook more generally.
We can only overcome appeals to emotion by confronting them directly: ‘I am as angry as you when I hear of a savage crime, but as your government we think that crime policy cannot be grounded in an appeal to retribution but rather a cold-hearted calculation of how we can get the greatest reduction in crime for our spending on crime policy.’
Take this as our core message – that we understand and appreciate appeals to emotion or values or rights but always focus on what works best to achieve the goals shared by Canadians – and pound away at it issue after issue, and by the next election the Canadian
people will know what we stand for. And they will vote for us.
And Canadians agree on much more than we might think. There are important differences in emphasis: some Canadians want balanced budgets, but also quality health care; while others want quality health care, but also balanced budgets. As CBC’s VoteCompass demonstrated, if we can get Canadians to reflect on the balanced approach they want on a host of issues, then they will generally find that Liberal policies achieve the sort of balance that they want. The problem is that ‘balance’ is a hard message to communicate, and thus former progressive conservatives are too easily convinced that we are too loose with money, while moderate New Democrats fear that we are too concerned about business prosperity.
And thus our core message needs to be supplemented with a set of more precise values that Canadians can identify with.
Point 5): The problem with our 2011 platform was not its individual policies but that people did not readily perceive any guiding philosophy behind it. It was thus too easily perceived as incoherent or as ‘Liberals throwing money at problems.’ People were not convinced that we had a clear vision for the future. We must thus articulate a set of core values that motivate our policies.
Can we articulate such a set of core values? And could we have tied our 2011 platform to these? The answer is ‘yes’ to both. This does not mean that the 2011 platform was perfect. Indeed, one purpose in outlining our core values is to facilitate our efforts over the next years to outline even better policy proposals. But the point to stress here is that we do not have to change what our Party stands for, just better communicate this, both internally and externally.
Ethics in General
I am very tired of hearing about the sponsorship scandal. However, it is clear that the Liberal Party, especially in the West, suffers from an undesirable association. To be sure, this reputation is exaggerated, and the Conservative government is even less laudable in its behavior. But Canadians want and deserve something better than this. Thus the clearest path to government is to make a credible commitment to ethical behavior.
The problem here is that many people claim to be ethical but then disappoint. One can forgive the average Canadian for becoming jaded. Liberal candidates, and especially the Liberal leader, need to identify their own unique ways of making a credible commitment to ethical behavior. We must recognize the danger that citizens will be skeptical. However, to give in to this fear and thus not confront the issue of ethics directly will invite even greater cynicism. We must be willing to proclaim that we have a set of ethical beliefs, that we have reflected a great deal on ethical issues, and that we are committed to ethical behavior.
More specifically, we must move past generalities to speak to a set of values that are shared by the vast majority of Canadians: honesty, personal and social responsibility, caring, prudence, and respect. If we do not do so, too many voters will assume the worst.
Voters think the Liberal Party takes power for granted. We should not be shy about proclaiming our dedication to public service. We are as horrified as anyone when politicians or bureaucrats abuse positions of trust, and should say so.
Last but not least we must institutionalize this commitment to ethics in important ways, including by strengthening whistleblower protection in the federal government so that civil servants feel free to expose wrongdoing by others. [At present, whistles are almost never blown; we very much doubt this means there is nothing to report.].
I mention whistle-blower protection here as an example because the strategy we must follow is to closely tie our values to our policies. As argued above, a set of policies not clearly motivated by a set of values is easily disdained by voters. But a set of values not clearly associated with policies will be even more distrusted by voters. The two must always be linked.
Personal Responsibility
The most important single ethical value that the Liberals need to celebrate, especially in
The Liberal Party believes that the primary goal of public policy is to allow all Canadians to live a productive and fulfilling life. This should be the core standard by which all public policies are evaluated.
Of all the elements of the 2008 Liberal platform, the one that resonated most with voters in
Voters liked the idea but were skeptical: it did not fit with their vision of what a Liberal would do. We need to make the following sorts of statements repeatedly:
“Social and personal responsibility are complements, not substitutes. We all wish to take care of our families and ourselves. Yet almost all of us recognize responsibilities beyond these. Indeed I can hardly help my children to read without my heart going out to children who lack parents able or willing to help them. Yet my goal in aiding others is to help get them to a place where they can look after themselves and their families and in turn contribute to the wider society. How many of us can honestly claim that we have not been helped along the way by parents or mentors or friends or even strangers who gave us support or encouragement when we needed it? Why then act as if there is something wrong with helping others?”
The trick, of course, is to provide just the right sort of help. Government bureaucracies are often not nimble enough to do so. Yet in our modern impersonal societies only government bureaucracies can potentially guarantee that nobody goes without the help they need. Thus we need to move past blind ideologies to a pragmatic approach of ruthlessly evaluating programs to see whether they succeed in helping people to help themselves. We should also be open to provision of services by non-governmental agencies as long as we can carefully monitor the quality of services provided. We want to strike the best balance between fairness (which government bureaucracies can potentially provide) and innovation (which non-governmental agencies can better achieve).
My training as an economist leads me to focus on incentives. We want to provide people not only with the ability but also with the incentive to look after themselves and their families: to reward individuals for working, caring for their children or parents, and volunteering, while penalizing them for shirking their basic responsibilities.
Policies that flow from this emphasis on personal responsibility include:
- tax credits for working Canadians
- reducing the clawback of in-kind benefits that are associated with moving off social assistance
- workfare rather than welfare
- expanded drug rehabilitation programs
- quality daycare so that single parents especially can support their families, while their children are cared for in a way that prepares them for a fulfilling life
- providing the homeless with (small) homes and counseling tailored to their individual needs
- making it easier for aboriginal Canadians to move toward economic opportunities and/or start businesses on reserves
- supporting programs to offer low-cost banking services to the poorest Canadians
- a public education program to reduce the incidence of sexual assault (in part by increasing the rate of reporting of such crimes)
- increasing the tax credit for charitable donations
Often these programs can save more money than they cost. Moving individuals off welfare into the workforce generates savings. Treating the homeless in emergency wards or jails is much more expensive than providing decent if minimalist shelter for them. Often, though, the benefits are in the future but increased costs are incurred in the short term.
Responsibility for the Future
One huge opportunity for an avowedly consequentialist party is to argue that we are most likely to prepare the country for the challenges of the future. We need then to reflect on what those challenges are most likely to be, and what we should be doing now to meet them. One critical message in this regard is ‘The earlier we start coping with environmental challenges the cheaper it will be.’ Such a message has potential appeal across all types of philosophical outlook.
Much of a future-oriented strategy must be economic in nature. There is no magic formula for maintaining economic prosperity but rather a set of useful strategies:
- Making sure we have a safe financial system that directs savings toward the most profitable opportunities. We should work (with the provinces if possible) to enhance our sorry international reputation in policing corporate fraud, while strengthening other aspects of financial regulation which do serve us well.
- Encouraging global trade liberalization in general, but respecting the need for environmental and labor protection
- Ensuring healthy competition within and between economies. We should be leading the charge to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers
- Facilitating the movement of labor and capital from declining to growing sectors
- Moving the unemployed into the work force
- Providing training options for all unemployed Canadians (not just those on assistance)
- Encouraging scientific research
- Encouraging certain types of technological research. Subsidies for all research are too readily abused. Subsidies for environmental technologies make both economic and environmental sense.
- Ensuring that we have the necessary transport, education, and health infrastructure to achieve our goals.
- Ensuring that governments do what governments do best and markets do what markets do best
- Targeting infrastructure investment and other irregular forms of government spending on periods of downturn in the private economy
- Accumulating large surpluses during good times so that governments have fiscal flexibility during bad times.
- Urging the central bank to keep interest rates low, even after the present crisis ends
Progressive Prudence
Though I think that quibbling over the details of the 2011 platform is not the best way of moving forward, I would suggest that the first few pages of that platform – in which we discussed the Liberal record on fiscal responsibility and our future plans – should have been more central to our campaign. As a candidate in
The battle against government waste is too often championed by conservatives rather than liberals. An ideologue that dislikes government (like the present leader of the Conservative Party) has no real incentive to reduce waste; he would rather cut across the board and point to remaining waste as an excuse for further cuts. An ideologue that thinks governments can do everything is likewise ill-equipped to trim waste. It is Liberals, who believe pragmatically that governments can in certain situations be a force for good in the world, but fully appreciate that governments are not perfect, that should lead the attack on waste. Only we have the right incentives: by succeeding in trimming waste we will free up both funds and popular support for initiatives where governments can make a positive difference in people
The real challenge of governance these days is first of all to put institutional structures in place that maximize the value taxpayers get for their money, and then convince them that their money is in fact well managed. Liberals must see this as their task, and convince Canadians that we are devoted to that task.
Prudent policies include:
- Parliamentary committees should be mandated to review in detail all government programs. Ministers and senior civil servants should be prepared to defend each expenditure. Expenditures that cannot be defended should be eliminated.
- We need better score-keeping with respect to the reports of the Auditor-General. Every year a host of inefficiencies are uncovered. Have governments succeeded in eliminating previously noted problems? Canadians have no easy way of knowing whether this is so. The Auditor-General should answer this question clearly and succinctly.
- External efficiency-experts should review government programs.
- In some cases, where expert opinion diverges, an unbiased panel should research the costs and benefits of the program, and propose whatever changes a dispassionate analysis of the numbers warrant.
- The incentives for Ministers should be changed so that these are encouraged to find cost savings rather than build empires. A Minister that trims waste is a Minister whose voice should carry weight.
- The Parliamentary Budget Office should be made truly independent of the government.
- The work of civil servants should be celebrated. A frontal attack on waste should not be confused with a frontal attack on those that serve us. Every large bureaucracy, public or private, is wasteful for (virtually) no individual spends others
- Canadians should be provided with better information on how their tax dollars are spent. Most Canadians do not fully appreciate how much of their tax dollars goes toward debt payments or transfers to provinces. Lacking this information, it can hardly be surprising if they doubt they are getting their money
- We should experiment where possible with allowing citizens to directly determine government spending priorities. Why have bureaucrats decide which sporting organizations or cultural activities to fund when citizens could make these choices on their income tax forms?
- We should regulate financial institutions so that among other things only a small proportion of their assets can be devoted to any novel financial instrument
- We need better information systems in health care. These can immediately deliver better patient care as health care workers have ready access to a patient’s medical history. They also create the potential for better identification of medical interventions that do no or little good at considerable expense.
- While we are attacking waste in government we should also alter our business regulations to increase corporate democracy, reform abuses of executive bonuses, and enhance competition
These policies free up not just funds but public support for new government policies. If we are credible in our evaluation of programs and attack on waste then voters who are now skeptical will be willing to entertain new programs such as:
- Pharmacare. Not only is this a natural extension of Medicare but as with many other programs it contains important cost savings: patients without drug plans at present resist being discharged from hospital in order to continue getting drugs for free. Moreover total expenditures in
- Training more doctors and nurses, and ensuring these are available everywhere they are needed
- Workfare. In the short run it is more expensive to provide people with jobs than with handouts. In the long run this is likely not the case. And note that workfare (if properly administered) immediately erases concerns that those on public assistance are abusing the system. And it is not hard to identify work that needs to be done in our societies (such as various urban beautification projects). Workfare can be a powerful poverty reduction program.
- Other poverty reduction initiatives, such as the tax credits for the working poor proposed in 2008.
- Programs in the education area that increase high school completion rates and ease the financial burden of post-secondary education. [We can, for example, forgive student loans for graduates who either do not obtain high-paying jobs or who agree to take on designated jobs with a high social value. We can also, as promised in 2008, delay the payback period for a couple of years.] The long run benefits of a more educated population may again outweigh the short run costs.
- Early childhood education for at-risk children can provide them with basic literacy and numeracy skills so that they do not start school at a powerful disadvantage compared to children from more stable homes. The long run benefits of such programs may be huge. They increase the productivity of our population, and also encourage better health outcomes.
- Subsidies for environmental technology development and use. While much environmental policy can have a positive impact on government revenue (by placing fines on polluters), we also want the financial freedom to be able to pay as appropriate for environmental enhancement (including increasing the budgets of our National Parks).
- Increased support for the disabled (disability benefits should be comparable to seniors benefits)
- Public art. Sculptures, mosaics, subsidies for architectural innovation, and public performances of music and dance: we can and should support artistic activities that are experienced by the whole population.
It cannot be stressed too much that the policies proposed above combine the best of ‘fiscal responsibility’ and ‘social justice.’ It is this combination that the vast majority of Canadians want. And we are the only party that can credibly deliver it. The present Conservative Party cannot credibly commit to social justice, and the present New Democratic Party cannot credibly commit to fiscal responsibility. It is by doing both in concert that we win. And by focusing on what it takes to win the West – where concerns with fiscal responsibility run deep, but there is still a solid interest in helping people to help themselves – we develop policies that will win everywhere.
Courage
Special interest groups often lobby against policies that serve the common good. The political calculation is simple: a policy that gives a hundred people a million dollars each but costs 30 million Canadians a hundred dollars each is bad for the country but good for the politician that supports it. The hundred that benefit will vote for her; the 30 million who lose will lose too little (and may not be aware of it) to change their vote.
A government with the courage to stand up to special interests in order to do what is right for Canadians can dramatically improve the beneficial impact of government expenditure.
Again the problem is that it is easy to promise such a thing but tempting not to deliver. Canadians should insist on a more credible commitment. My proposed commitment is this:
If the majority of experts and the majority of Canadians support a particular policy, it should be instituted over the objections of a vocal minority.
To be sure, the government must still evaluate the policy on its merits, querying the claims of experts, and seeking common ground that satisfies objections without sacrificing the public good. Nevertheless, if the above principle is firmly established in the public mind, then the political calculation changes: some of those who suffer a little from bad policy will vote for the display of courage that good policy entails. This result is particularly likely if packages of courageous policies are presented to the public. We may all find ourselves in the vocal minority from time to time, but can still appreciate the general advantage of policies that serve the overall public good.
We will not win seats in
Courage is also called for in pursuing policies with benefits beyond the electoral cycle. Early childhood development programs by their nature have benefits decades down the road. Dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome is similar in this respect. It may take many years before improved medical information systems yield financial savings. In all these cases, political leaders need to raise public awareness of these future benefits.
Reason
To be a consequentialist is to carefully evaluate public policy options. This in turn means striving to dispassionately evaluate the strengths of competing arguments. And thus consequentialists are guided to appreciate reasoned discourse. Those who appeal to consequences only after arriving at policy positions by other means are much less likely to value reasoned conversation.
I was greeted with respect and kindness almost universally by the voters of
Point 6): Less obviously but importantly it can be argued that our guiding philosophy is more likely to attract quality candidates.
What sort of people are attracted to run for each party? Clearly good people – sensible people who care about their country and want to contribute to public policy – can be attracted to any party. But the Liberal party will have some advantages:
· If it is accepted that careful evaluation of consequences is the best guide to policy, then an avowedly consequentialist party will naturally be most likely to attract candidates who will examine each policy on its merits.
· If cautious evaluation of policy proposals, as opposed to following some simple concept of rights or values or emotion, forms the backbone of a party, then that party will naturally encourage internal conversation. In turn, good people are more likely to run for a party in which their voice is heard. Parties that think they have a simple answer to every problem will be less likely to attract the thoughtful.
· A party that loudly proclaims the handful of values outlined above will be most attractive to candidates who identify with those values.
As with the policies outlined above, we need to proudly proclaim the strength of our team and argue that there are good reasons why our team is strong. As noted above, we can deflect much of the force of the inevitable attacks on our next leader if we stress that we take a team approach to government.
A thought along these lines: Why did we not say things like the following loudly during the last campaign?: “Ralph Goodale ran a $13 billion dollar surplus in his last year as Finance Minister. John McCallum chaired a cabinet committee that found billions of dollars in cost savings. They are both running again…”
A Biographical Note:
Rick Szostak spent several months door-knocking as the Liberal candidate in
The following ideas undoubtedly also reflect Rick’s life experience as a professor of economics, writer of a book on ethics, and hard-core pragmatist. As an economist, Rick is dedicated to fiscal responsibility and effective stewardship of government funds. Yet he is also committed to a much cleaner environment, the steady elimination of poverty at home and abroad, and enhanced consumer and shareholder protection. He met thousands of voters who share these values but mistakenly think of themselves as “conservative.”
Rick would like to hear from others about these ideas. Email your comments to rick.szostak@ualberta.ca and we will put these on the website (subject to a light-handed editorial control)
Rick’s proposals are grouped around core ethical values. This reflects both his experience as an ethicist and his belief that too many people, especially in the West, misunderstand the core values that motivate today’s Liberal Party.
Many of the thoughts expressed above were included in a speech Rick gave to the Senior’s Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada in
