There is no chance in hell Trudeau would support a pure proportional representation system, since he would only have ended up with a minority government if one had been in place. In fact, he would only have gotten 18 more seats than the Conservatives in this election if we had such a system. Recall that he only achieved 39.4% of the popular vote.
This is my fear, too, Peck. That having tasted a majority government with just under 40% of the popular vote, the Liberal government might be a little less likely to be interested in a move to the MMRP system. I hear you on the desire for majority governments versus coalition or minority governments. I guess I'd rather have the latter if it was a truer representation of what the electorate wants in terms of policy making and legislation.
The only unfortunate part about this statement is that it is simply not true.
Federal program spending in 2014-15 stood at 13 per cent of GDP, a shade higher than the 12.6 per cent in 2005-06, when Harper bounced the Liberals from office.
Infrastructure spending also rose by a far larger multiple.
I see what I did there. My apologies. I did not intend to infer that overall spending in these areas was decreased under Harper, but that there were notable and specific examples of programs which were either cancelled outright or which were allocated funds which were never received; which as a body of work has lead to dissatisfaction with where the Conservative government did and did not spend in these areas. My biggest area of concern here is around the cuts to staff scientists and research in Ministries like Environment and Fisheries and Oceans, Arctic research and climate change commitments.
I'd enjoy reviewing the infrastructure numbers, Peck, any links you could provide would be welcome reading on this end. I guess I've seen the development in ridings like Tony Clement's where the government spent massively in advance of the G8 summit, and the federal support for the Pan Am games. Both of which left lasting infrastructure, but public questions about how the priorities were established.
To be fair, I understand the need to cut spending to be able to afford corporate incentives to help build a business case for establishing industry in Canada. I also understand the potential impact of an increase in corporate tax on the business community in Canada and what that might mean for revenue.
The real solution is to encourage private infrastructure spending, primarily through the tax system. If I have a criticism of Harper, it's that he didn't do enough to encourage private infrastructure spending. Trudeau however seems to view infrastructure spending as only a government problem, but the reality is that the Government simply doesn't have the financial ability to really tackle the issue through direct Government spending, at least assuming he isn't willing to run $100 billion annual deficits (but then again, maybe he is!).
You and I are absolutely on the same page here. It may not be my only criticism of the Harper government, but I agree that public/private partnerships are definitely part of the solution. I also believe that Trudeau's inability to see this (yet?) is a function of his own maturity, and perhaps the elitism of the Liberal machine which advises him. That machine scares the shit out of me too, for what its worth.
-- Pat
