Came in from Ottawa a few minutes ago, through a spectacular sunset over the Canadian Shield. The land looked radiant along the north shore of Lake Ontario, with the fading sun glinting off the shale ledges and limestone boulders that flank the highway. February can be a cruel and unforgiving time of year along this stretch, but tonight it just had a majesty in the brooding dark rock and the crowning mantle it wore, of snow.
Actually, my spirits were higher on the way back to the Big Smoke than on the way north at dawn yesterday. The cabinet thing is over, so now Conservative MPs can stop sleeping with the Blackberries and get a life. Driving along, I was thinking about when I was in cabinet, trying to remember the good things and the not-so-good. It took me three fingers to count the positive stuff, and I ran out of hands for the rest.
Yeah, it’s cool having a car and driver pick you up in the morning, like it’s cool when absolutely everyone calls you either “sir†or “minister,†and it’s cool to actually pick up the phone and create chaos with a single call. But it is definitely a drag to check your identity at the cabinet room door, and become an unqualified apologist for every action the government takes. Ministers have power, but – like Mephistopheles – power comes with a terrible price. The long hours, endless irritating meetings and realization at how little you actually control pale in comparison to the fact it suddenly becomes impossible ever to admit failure, or bad judgment or even a tiny little error. After all the bragging about government infallibility, there is no turning back. You are perfect, or you are not ministerial.
So, for guys like me who screw up with pretty impressive regularity, well, cabinet is a bad idea. Like I wrote here last night, I’d rather just be a hell of an MP, and try to encourage others to do the same thing. If enough do, it might end up being better for Canada than 26 perfect ministers.
We had national caucus this morning. I cannot tell you what was said (well I could, but I won’t), because caucus only really works when people know it is private. In the caucus room all are supposed to be equals, which means ministers, MPs, senators all sit on the same padded wooden chairs, and anyone can stand up and chew out the prime minister or question government policy or lobby for their constituents.
I would lie if I told you I was comfortable walking up the Hill to that meeting this morning. I knew there would be MPs in there pissed at not having made cabinet, and showing it in their body language (and there were). I knew the media would be lying in wait to tackle those MPs who jumped all over Belinda for changing sides and would now have to defend our new Vancouver minister for doing just the same thing (and they did). I knew that my coming back here after being away for 13 years, walking in to a party once again in power might irritate others who toiled for years in opposition (and that happened, too).
But, at the same time, this was my first chance in a long time to walk up the limestone steps beneath the Peace Tower, open the brass doors, stride through the marbled Hall of Honour and into the caucus room with its stunning Art Deco murals and soaring stone walls. So, I sucked up my uncertainties, filled my lungs with Ottawa air, looked straight up at the tower built in the hopeless idealism that war was done forever, and went inside Parliament.
The caucus room has double doors, the inner ones sheathed in leather so no sound can seep out. RCMP plainclothes officers are all around the place, and the media is kept behind a rope about 15 feet from the room’s entrance. Inside there is a small booth off to one side, with translators in it, and across the front a table where the caucus chairman, the whip, the prime minister and the leader in the Senate sit. To the left is a podium with a Canadian coat of arms on it, and in the background the flags of the provinces. Lined in front are the chairs, this morning packed with MPs and senators – some old, familiar faces, some famous faces, and the anxious faces of three dozen or so newly-elected members who are trying to figure out what, exactly, is going on here.
It was Harper’s event today. He let the media cameras in for about five minutes, before they were dispatched. He spoke for a long time, in a manner unlike that of Mulroney. The man’s style is collegial, and after the meeting he sat there and talked to whomever wanted to talk, until they all were done. I have witnessed many leaders in action, from Trudeau to Turner, Mulroney to Chretien, Martin and Harper, and it was the first time I had seen one listen.
So I am home now, with lots on my plate in Halton over the next few days and weeks. There’s a federal budget coming, and I want to hear ideas from people before Jim Flaherty gets it carved into stone. I spoke with him in caucus this morning, and let him know we’re having some Town Hall meetings, and to expect pre-budget input. He seemed surprised, pleased.
Dorothy waited up, but the dog went to bed. Definitely not cabinet material.
17 comments ↓
When are these town hall meetings taking place? How will you inform us, your constituents?
We are booking space now, and folks will be told the details by media release, email, this blog and direct contact. — Garth
Excellent log today.
Ok, Budget ideas.
Flaherty and the other two of the Ontario ‘3′ have me a bit nervous. Do they analyse themselves, their past performances? You can ask him that if you like and if so fine, fresh slate. If not, take him aside and urge him to read a chunk of todays blog particularly your insight sharing into ministerial ‘roles’. He isn’t a fool and neither are we.
Watched Ms. May talk to the municipalities re: Koyoto today (a re-run)on CPAC. Very bright woman, compelling argument. Apparently Koyoto Part 2 sits this spring, right at budget time. It’s not in Harpers top priority list, so I wouldn’t have expected much in the budget. I think it prudent to investigate quickly the ramifications of the timing of the spring sitting on K2 and set a good chunk of budget on whatever Harpers replacement plan entails to initiate and get them moving on it. If the look on the municipalities faces as she spoke was any indication of what may come (no pun)it’s going to be an issue- a big issue, front and centre due to K2’s timing. If it’s left out of the budget announcment and becomes a public media nuisance after the fact, parliament will be backpaddling.
Second, I hope an announcement of budget monies specifically for encouraging corporate workplace daycare will put all the moms and dads at ease. The payout is a given, expected this summer, but emphasis on the rest of the plan prior to phase out of the province deals is needed and needed at the first spring budget.
Third, paying those farmers sounds good, hope they stick to the plan.
Last, no surprises. An open, accountable, efficient budget. If it changes due to unforseen circumstances we want to know about it.
That’s it for my thoughts.
(funny, you’re the only MP candidate I’ve ever seen ‘listen’ to questions during a campaign)
Thanks Garth for the continuing look at life on the “inside”. It’s fun compairing your ongoing experiences with those in your book during your first tour of duty. Just curious…when do you expect your new-look website to be ready?
I’m anxious to see the budget. Is this tax season (Rules – tax breaks) in jeopardy of changing or will it stay the same until next year?
Thanks for keeping the ‘blog’ going, Garth. It’s nice to able to follow your thoughts as you return – albeit in a different way – to Ottawa and to federal politics. Your perspective helps to balance and to perhaps counteract the view we get from the media, and it’s intriguing to hear how you have a different approach to being an M.P. than the first time around.
You have changed, of course, as we all have over the years. As we become more experienced in dealing with life’s transitions, and our personal views become more seasoned and reflective, we become more mature, and can start to really assess our priorities in life.
Thanks for sharing yours with us. It really is appreciated.
RJC
Hypocrisy reigns supreme. Who screamed louder than Stephen Harper about his MP crossing the floor? Who promised to appoint only elected Senators to the Senate? These shockingly bad decisions have tainted what should have been a good-news day. Maybe all politicians really are the same after all.
Budget: I hope you will encourage the Minister to proceed ASAP with reduction of tax on dividends. And also to enact the the proposal to allow investors to sell and re-invest without triggering capital gains. Thank you.
Maryanne,
I think Harper was in a tough spot, and did the best he could given the situation. If he didn’t do what he did, people would be yelling and screaming about having no representation in cabinet for the big cities of montreal, vancouver, and toronto (I still don’t know why this is needed, but all the critics and media were already screaming about this on election night). So he made his best attempt to achieve this.
You can’t call the Emerson affair hyprocrisy, really. In the case of Stronach, there was a clear exchange. Belinda voted with the liberals in order to sustain that government, and in return, she got a cabinet position, and appointed to the privy council. With Emerson, what is Harper getting out of it? It won’t help him sustain his government, it won’t guarantee any confidence motions pass. I’m not thrilled with it either — but I think it might turn out to be a case of short term pain for long term gain. I’m sure Harper will work hard to deliver on the 5 priorities, and I think Senate reform will still be important in the long term (Fortier was appointed, albeit only temporarily).
Just my 2 cents…
Regarding the budget I’m hoping there can be some consideration to making mortgage interest tax deductable. With the housing prices giving no indication of dropping any time soon it’d make handling those payments a little easier, not to mention making it a little easier for first-time homeowners to break free of the rent trap.
Not to mention income splitting for married couples.
I’ll put in my 2 cents. Yes, I definitely agree that income splitting for couples should be a top priority. It is unfair that a single income family is taxed higher than a dual income if both households bring in the same amount of money.
Although I’d like mortgage interest to be tax deductible like it is in the states, I don’t know how likely this is to happen. I think it’s just too much money for the government to give up at this point in time, with all the other promises out there. Again, I’d be on board, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
On the making mortgage interest tax deductible topic….
I read somewhere that interest tax deductions is one of the contributing factors in the US for the high house prices (some people consider this to be a bubble). For sure there are other factors that also drove prices up, but interest tax deductions deductions probably played a supporting role.
I am wondering if we were to make mortgage interest tax deductible in Canada, whether house prices will go up to a new level to factor in the fact that owning a house would then be cheaper.
Any thoughts on this Garth (or anybody else)?
i’ve already commented on the income splitting idea (i believe it’s unfair to single people), but won’t elaborate again because that’ll send david fisher off on another tirade.
what i do want to say is that i’m not a fan of mortgage interest deductibility. not just because i paid mine off, but because i think i may encourage irresponsible behaviour. in this time of record low mortgage interest rates, we have people in the US with interest only mortgages – they pay no principal. they’re not building any wealth, and i think that’s irresponsible. Garth has already published his advice for people to make their mortgage interest tax deductible – based on the premise that they have investments that can cover it. In that case – great idea – you’re just reallocating your $. but for those who have no $ saved, and who are just barely hanging on, bad idea. a small rise in rates could lead to a lot of insolvencies/bankruptcies – and that isn’t good for anyone with a home, whether it’s paid for or not.
SO THE LIBERALS HAD A SOFTWOOD DEAL LAST NOVEMBER?
IF this is TRUE…Paul Martin has a LOT of explaining to do…
HE and ONLY HE had the power to resolve this thing.
But NO!
Paul Martin decided it was more expedient to use the softwood issue during an election …use it to bash the big bad U.S…to make HIMSELF LOOK GOOD…at the EXPENSE of the softwood lumber industry!
ALL the more reason to throw the Liberal bums OUT!
Garth, push for tax reduction. Everybody I talk to wants lower taxes.
Thanks Garth You are right on,these two guys need to go back to their voters and get back into a re-election.What Harper did is against what he has been preaching us.I am blooming mad. He grabs a Liberal member by his coat and gives him a cabinet post in the Conservative party.This is not the real Harper.He said Emerson knows a lot about softwood deals, i just heard news on the Mike Duffy show that Emerson is the guy that stopped a softwood deal.If Harper keeps doing this he will end up next election with a party of 2 MPs.
If there is a petition to be signed for these 2 guy’s to resign i am ready to sign it.
Garth, a lot of economists think we should back off on income taxes and offset this with increases in consumption taxes. This leaves people with more money in their paycheques, which they then have the decision-making power to either save, invest, or spend on items of consumption. This is why most economists, including conservative economists, considered the GST reduction poor policy in economic terms, a pure political play. (On that score, I’d have preferred keeping it at its current level for most things, but eliminating the GST on food.)
And yet, the GST isn’t the consumption tax we ought to focus on anyway. Instead, we ought to be reducing income taxes and offsetting the reductions (in whole or in part) with increases in pollution taxes and levies on oil, coal and natural gas. What the Harper government could do is introduce a gradually increasing carbon tax on coal, oil, and natural gas; and also levy a substantial export tax on fossil fuel exports. There is an excess of demand over supply in global oil markets, so there’s no question we could get away with a stiff export tax.
These measures would raise revenues, encourage energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and permit offsetting income tax reductions. The export tax component wouldn’t even cost Canadians any money!
Hope this helps. Good luck in Ottawa.