Commentary
When I
read that “Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says pharmacare will not jeopardize Canada’s fiscal standing as the federal government intends to abide by the spending rules it pledged in the fall” I did three things at once: laughed hysterically, wept uncontrollably, and reached for our constitutional separation of powers.
No, really. Somehow it passes for wisdom in Canada to mock American political institutions, which admittedly aren’t working well today. But our Constitution modelled on Britain’s clearly provides for the same separation America’s Founders also borrowed while seeking to make it more durable. And unlike theirs, ours has withered to the point that our real problem isn’t who we invest with executive authority, it’s the unchecked nature of that authority.
Take the Liberals’ fiscal policy… please. They’re not the only villains. But from Justin Trudeau’s
glib 2014 “the budget will balance itself” to his
few modest deficits before balance in 2019 to Freeland’s
2020 word salad about “guardrails on the road … physical and anchored to something” prior to sending us over Borrowing Cliff into Debt Abyss, they spend with careless arrogance because we let them.
The PBO says
we might see a balanced budget in 2035… if everything breaks our way. But the point here isn’t that people with unlimited authority to raise money and hurl it about tend to do so irresponsibly. At least I hope not. Surely we grasp that pattern after millennia of autocratic fiscal shipwrecks. As surely we grasp that these incumbents aren’t to be trusted with it either. The point is that our institutions, as currently malfunctioning, implicitly trust them anyway by placing minimal restraints on their folly, malice, or indifference.
If I kept listing examples of their fiscal fecklessness, like cutting another $1 billion from defence while throwing $2 billion into Vancouver housing, I’d risk exhausting my column space while leaving you curled up whimpering on the floor. But we must note how unchecked their authority is.
For instance, Freeland
writing herself a note raising the borrowing authority of C. Freeland from $444 billion to $571 billion by April 1 without explanation. Or Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault suddenly terminating federal subsidies for roads, before denying he’d said it then denying he’d meant it because the boss balked. But if the PM had backed him, who could stop him? When Trudeau suddenly did say no more gasoline cars by 2035, who could stop him?
