I wasn’t comfortable with it until I heard a constitutional expert explain on CBC Newsworld that prorogation is normally used when parliament has an especially large, complex set of legislation to consider, and it’s deemed best for MPs to return to their ridings, meet with their constituents, and look at matters from that perspective.
Before I saw that I’d been wondering, “What do most Canadians really think about this?” I have a hard time believing many people are happy about it — only the most hardcore partisan NDPers and Liberals (or the most hardcore Harper-haters) I imagine. But I really don’t know. I doubt many MPs really know. Shit, I suspect few of us regular folks really know what we think ourselves yet.
Six weeks to settle down and sort things out in a more grounded way seems like the least-worst option right now.
The health of the economy, meanwhile, does not depend on Parliament. In fact, this Parliament is probably the worst thing to happen to the economy. While it’s wrong to dismissively suggest there’s nothing wrong with Canada’s economy, it’s also wrong to suppose that the cause of our problems (and more problems to come) are of our own doing or within our power to undo them.
We export a lot, and if foreign companies that buy our stuff are going out of business, we’re essentially going to have to suck that up. Obviously we can do something, but it isn’t at all clear what, yet, and the one thing we can and absolutely must do is project an impression to the world that things here are under control — “Canada is a safe place to invest” — and our politicians are utterly failing in that regard. The best thing is for them to step back right now.
Only a week ago I would not have said that. We really don’t want our leaders to step back, but considering the circumstances right now, today, it’s the bitter pill that has to be swallowed. We can’t go back in time. We need to focus on what we can do — which first means figuring out what the hell that is, which means watching the rest of the world (where our problems came from), waiting, thinking, and talking.
What we cannot do is save industries like auto and forestry from severe losses. We can help workers who lose their jobs, but my understanding is we already have programs in place for that. We can maybe protect many corners of those industries, maybe soften their losses, keep them afloat until things turn around, but there are ways in which doing so actually does more harm to our economy in the long run.
Consider the auto industry. GM in the US just “bared their soul,” saying they need “up to a $4 billion immediate loan from the Federal Government, to ensure minimum liquidity levels through December 31.” [my emphasis] Oh, and by the way, they’ll need another $4 billion in January too. But don’t worry, they only need another $2 billion to make it through February and March — assuming the rest of the $18 billion they’re asking for will be forthcoming. And then even with all that, their long-term viability is still ”conditioned upon significant sacrifice and deleveraging of GM’s balance sheet,” which means reducing their debt from $62 billion (!) to a mere $30 billion by renegotiating agreements with current lenders, bond holders, and unions.
So hypothetically, GM could be bankrupt by the time this prorogation thing expires. But that’s not a reason to keep MPs working in Ottawa because there realistically isn’t a damn thing they can do about it. The facts are that the auto industry is going through fundamental changes and GM has been a poorly managed company for decades. A result of that is Oshawa loses its Silverado/Sierra plant, which is unfortunate but largely out of our control. That’s just one example but it highlights the underlying principle: little more than a century ago all those jobs were unimaginable, and a century from now — maybe even a decade from now — more people will have better jobs that we can’t imagine today… unless the government gets in the way of that.
There is some hope that a hypothetial New GM or some other company will move in to make something else there — or make the same thing more efficienty. But having the government meddling to keep the plant running, despite mismanagement and diminished demand, may actually prevent something better from coming along by having something occupying an economic space where it doesn’t properly fit.
And consider forestry. People aren’t buying wood because house construction, especially in the US where there’s little we can do, is coming to a halt, and the printing industry not in great shape either.
As to housing, if the government intervenes to keep construction of new houses going, the price of everyone else’s house is going to go down (see William Watson) – and lower housing prices is what set off the finance crisis last year to begin with.
As to pulp and paper (check out these “business at a glance” pages from AbitibiBowater’s latest annual report for a brief idea of the largest company’s revenue sources), it’s no secret that the newspaper industry is in decline — and that decline has nothing at all to do with macroeconomics or mismanagement. Publishing is changing radically because of disruptive technology and cultural changes. A whole new generation is learning how to do almost everything without paper.
Saving the pulp and paper industry might prevent money, people, knowledge, and other resources from getting to industries where Canada needs to be moving for the future. Saving forestry might help kill our competetiveness in high-tech. Forestry will continue to decline globally, high-tech will continue to thrive, and if Canada doesn’t continue adapting towards the most vital industries, we’ll be screwed. Free markets are suited to adaptibility, grandstanding politicians are not.
Obviously there will always be a forestry industry in Canada, but the fact is it will become smaller relative to the rest of the economy. It would be excellent if the industry is Canadian-owned and strong globally, but making that happen isn’t something that can be done from Parliament Hill — at least not without doing harm to another industry that has to lose to make up for what forestry gains in attention and funding.
My biggest worry (aside from more totally unexpected events) is that if Harper gets his prorogation, maybe instead of MPs going home to see things more realistically, they go home and get an earful of even more misguided ideas from their constituents. I know that shows a real lack of faith in Canadians. Unfortunately, if our parliamentarians truly represent the beliefs and wishes of Canadians, right now it looks as though my fears are justified.
I want that to not be true. I want Canadians to be more competent than that, but I need to be assured. This is why I’m coming out in favour of a prorogation, to send MPs home for a while, to prove my worst fears wrong. Even better would be if one or two (or all!) of them take a walk in the snow while they’re away.
Pingback: A Whole Lotta Keynes | B Frank