Picking a Leader to Fight the Oligarchs

The end of the Liberal leadership race is nigh, and it is clear that the Canadian political landscape has changed considerably since Justin Trudeau announced his resignation on January 6th, with the Liberals polling ahead of the Conservatives for the first time since the last election.

There are not a large number of critical issues in the current leadership race nor in the election that will follow shortly thereafter. They are, in fact, very limited and share a common thread. Protecting ourselves from the rising American threat, stabilising our economy and individual freedoms, getting control of the damage we are causing to the atmosphere and biosphere, salvaging our public healthcare system, rescuing what is left of independent journalism, and solving wider social injustice and inequality all boil down to the question of how we go about reining in the plutocracy.

In this week’s leadership debates, the clear performative winner was the relatively unknown Frank Baylis. He was comfortable in his own skin and in both languages, familiar with both the business world and Parliament, and willing to think outside the box to solve the problems facing us — but without addressing that key challenge at the core.

The participants in the debates learned the lessons of the 2006 leadership debates, where the barbs thrown at each other in the heat of the moment came back to haunt the Liberals in the two subsequent elections. In this week’s debates, candidates even saved each other from egregious mistakes. These debates were more about style than substance and the four candidates had a sleep-inducing love-in vibe.

All four candidates have some positions that I agree with and some that I don’t. The most egregious to me is Karina Gould’s populist idea about reducing the GST from 5% to 4%, which will do virtually nothing for those on small budgets who only buy the essentials which, for the most part, aren’t taxable, and will give giant tax breaks to the super rich buying their toys; we won’t achieve anything by cutting $3.5 million in GST off the price of a new yacht.

On the other hand, all the candidates want to get rid of the carbon tax with Karina Gould being the only one to point out in the debate that it is not universal and exists only as a backstop against provinces who aren’t taking action on climate change, and providing significant rebates.

We need to tax the obscenely rich out of existence — being only very rich ought to suffice — but there seems to be a consensus among the candidates to roll back the recent increase on the capital gains tax. This is clearly bowing to pressure from big donors and wealthy supporters; the capital gains increase for individuals only apply to personal gains over $250,000 per year, with small business exemptions reaching up to $6.25 million in tax-exempt capital gains. More useful tax policy changes would focus on ensuring those yacht buyers pay more taxes for their toys and unearned income while more household essentials join the permanent exemption list.

Baylis focused on productivity improvements to get control of the country’s deficit and debt, specifically wanting to reform the Canada Revenue Agency as an example. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we still have to “file our taxes” when the government already has most of the information needed. Finland, for example, sends their citizens their pre-completed tax forms to check and send back. These are small, practical ideas that will improve the lives of Canadians. Most government supports require your taxes to be filed, creating a barrier to those with the fewest resources.

Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland both presented strong cases that they are in the best position to deal with the threat posed by Donald Trump and its acquiescence by Pierre Poilievre, given their respective experience. Baylis was more blunt, accurately describing Trump as a bully to whom no quarter should be given.

However, Trump himself is not the problem, he is a symptom; a useful idiot to an oligarchy that is seizing what little power there was left that they did not already have.

The policy ideas I have not heard in this leadership race are around how to get the influence of money completely removed from our politics, especially in light of the United States’ current situation being a direct and foreseeable result of the Citizens United case which essentially removed those limits in their country.

Where does that leave us? Nobody has a perfect answer for the current problems and threats Canada faces, but in broad strokes, my assessment is that as none have the complete package, all four candidates together will be required on the team to get us there:

Karina Gould believes good policy will be keep the Conservatives at bay.

Frank Baylis recognises a very broken political system domestically and wants to reform it, applying both business and elected experience to what are ultimately technical problems.

Chrystia Freeland sees the plutocracy and recognises its inherent threat, and has been warning us since her years as a journalist about its danger.

Mark Carney sees the existential threat against Canada as a crisis to manage — and he is a specialist in crisis management.

On the other side, Pierre Poilievre is the threat. He sees and recognises the rising plutocracy and views it as a question for himself: what does he have to do to join the oligarchy?