[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Oexmelin]

"Politically abhorrent", really? What sinister political objective do you think I have in attacking your special pleading here?

Nothing sinister - it's just that the point about one of Quebec's major, self-evident point of difference of language has been politically made so repugnant to a certain political discourse in Canada it consistently has to be mitigated by the allegations of "other differences matter". You certainly are not alone in this - it is a standard rhetorical move in those discussions. And no one, that I know, is disputing this. I am simply disputing that a change between political culture of Alberta and Newfoundland is somehow equivalent to a change between political culture and the very language used to describe it, frame it, reference it, between Quebec and Alberta.   

What you fail to see, is that it has far less relevance to the rest of the country, who may be forgiven for believing that there are, at least, "six solitudes" 

I don't fail to see anything, mostly because I have access to media in both languages. It is clear the way Quebec is being portrayed in English-language media is *precisely* as one province out of many. And thus, indeed, the two sollitudes have no role to play in a political debate that has already wholly been translated for local consumption.

Why insist that only one criterion of identity apparently really matters as far as "power brokers" are concerned?

Because we have an anomaly to explain - the difficulty of otherwise national figures to succeed as politicians in Quebec. Your explanation, as far as I can see, is that "Quebec wants it that way" - is extremely thin and doesn't really explain anything. What way is that exactly? why hasn't Alberta done this? How is this weirdly coordinated across the citizenship of Quebec? Do we receive instructions about who to vote for?

Other than that no-one who hasn't grown up in Quebec could possibly understand it, even if they spoke perfect French

This is clearly not what I wrote.

A politician who grew up in the political and social climate Alberta is unlikely to have anything to say to a polity in Newfoundland (or vice versa)

So, there are no national political figures in Canada? When Brad Wall speaks to the media, you can't understand a thing he says?

I know the vast differences in political and social climate (even in language) because my family, a couple of generations ago, came from Nova Scotia and had relations on the Rock.

Seriously?!? I speak to you of lived experience, of having, and having had to experience daily crossing the borders of language, and you invalidate it, and claim intimate knowledge, because your *ancestors* moved from Nova Scotia?! I hope you will forgive me for saying it so: you have no idea what you are talking about.

does not impact the argument that language is only one of many criteria which separate polities.

Yes. And that argument is amazingly trivial. Of course there are. The point is how fundamental it is, compared with other criteria. So far, your entire argument seems to be that it is not, by virtue of other differences existing.

[Oexmelin]

From my own visits I fully get the de-industrialization angle, but what do you mean by suffering from white collar spite?

I am afraid it may not be much ammo. What I mean is, like any city that was formerly very working class, Hamilton doesn't really fit what a "great city" should be for white collar, educated, people of the service sector - not enough culture, activities, not sanitized enough, no fancy modern buildings, no cool restaurants. It was sad to see in my students, who felt ashamed to be from Hamilton - as if people of the town, or the town itself, did not belong in college. This I could see, too, in municipal politics, where people felt vanquished and constrained by the town's poor image in collective discourse, before any social initiative began, as if "this is Hamilton" meant so many projects would never succeed before they even started. Yet I did like the rough pride of my neighbors about their town.

Hamilton has also gone the US rust belt way, with a declining center and an affluent suburb, Burlington playing the part of the "acceptable" town of suburbia with the added advantage for people there to say they are thankfully not stuck in Toronto traffic.

[Malthus]

Nothing sinister - it's just that the point about one of Quebec's major, self-evident point of difference of language has been politically made so repugnant to a certain political discourse in Canada it consistently has to be mitigated by the allegations of "other differences matter". You certainly are not alone in this - it is a standard rhetorical move in those discussions. And no one, that I know, is disputing this. I am simply disputing that a change between political culture of Alberta and Newfoundland is somehow equivalent to a change between political culture and the very language used to describe it, frame it, reference it, between Quebec and Alberta. 

The issue, though, is not whether that change 'matters', but rather how, and how much compared to other things.

I have no idea why "politically repugnant" has to be added to this debate. I'm not claiming you are a shill for Quebec separatists, am I?

I don't fail to see anything, mostly because I have access to media in both languages. It is clear the way Quebec is being portrayed in English-language media is *precisely* as one province out of many. And thus, indeed, the two sollitudes have no role to play in a political debate that has already wholly been translated for local consumption.

So you are claiming that English Canada sees this issue one way, and Quebec sees it another - which is fine - but that doesn't privilege one POV over the other.

Because we have an anomaly to explain - the difficulty of otherwise national figures to succeed as politicians in Quebec. Your explanation, as far as I can see, is that "Quebec wants it that way" - is extremely thin and doesn't really explain anything. What way is that exactly? why hasn't Alberta done this? How is this weirdly coordinated across the citizenship of Quebec? Do we receive instructions about who to vote for?

I don't think it is as mysterious as all that: Quebec, as a result of its history, has generated a powerful mythology of the ethno-nationalist variety; merely having this mythology has paid rich dividends in attracting a certain kind of political power at the federal level.

Obviously language is a big part of that. But so is history and culture. Other places either lack the mythology (yet - give Alberta time), or lack the power to translate that mythology into solid political power (hence, the plight of Native Canadians and Atlantic Canadians).

Notably, language is an important, but not a necessary, criterion for generating this effect: see the recent example of Scotland.

Quebec is not unique in this effect, and an international perspective helps to understand why it is the way it is. 

This is clearly not what I wrote.

So, there are no national political figures in Canada? When Brad Wall speaks to the media, you can't understand a thing he says?

'So, when Harper speaks in French, people in Quebec can't understand him?' - I know that is not what you meant; so please, reflect that I am talking about exactly the same thing you are - that is, command of locally-significant nuance and local knowledge.

Seriously?!? I speak to you of lived experience, of having, and having had to experience daily crossing the borders of language, and you invalidate it, and claim intimate knowledge, because your *ancestors* moved from Nova Scotia?! I hope you will forgive me for saying it so: you have no idea what you are talking about. 

I'm sure an appeal to dueling personal anecdotes would resolve a debate in academia, where appeals to the purely subjective have weight. I am merely pointing out that your argument of a fundamental similarity is incorrect on the facts - something that, no doubt, you will dismiss as "trivially true". 

Yes. And that argument is amazingly trivial. Of course there are. The point is how fundamental it is, compared with other criteria. So far, your entire argument seems to be that it is not, by virtue of other differences existing.

"Trivial" is not the same as "wrong". Sometimes ignoring the trivially true leads to error.

I fail to see how your point could be supported, when it is pretty "trivially" obvious that someone from Montreal has more in common with someone from Toronto, than either has with someone from Newfoundland. Why is it even arguable that the Montrealer is "fundamentally" different in perspective, outlook, self-interest etc. from the Torontonian, just because he or she speaks French as his or her mother tongue? Outsiders would both classify them as "big city central Canadians" and they wouldn't be wrong to do so.

You have advanced nothing, other than assertion, and your personal experience, as to why language is the single most fundamental aspect of identity and ought to trump all the others, and so is or ought to be *the* regional difference.

[Oexmelin]

I have no idea why "politically repugnant" has to be added to this debate. I'm not claiming you are a shill for Quebec separatists, am I?

I added it there, because it is congruent with my observations to how such debates typically unfold, with a wide variety of people whose common ground is that they hold some common political views. Note: I did not qualify, either you, your ideas, or others, as shill, or personally repugnant. I simply stated that any assertion of a fundamental difference between Quebec and other provinces, or indeed, any such distinction that lumps together something like "Rest of Canada" as repugnant to a certain political conception of the country. These people see it as meant as a rhetorical move to discredit the diversity of the Canadian experience, and claim special status for Quebec. And no doubt it *is* often meant as such (see Grallon above). But nowhere did I make this argument. Quite the contrary in fact. But simply agreeing with the fact that language brings some important distinctions - which, in many other settings would be unproblematic - suddenly becomes extremely hard to do. 

So you are claiming that English Canada sees this issue one way, and Quebec sees it another - which is fine - but that doesn't privilege one POV over the other.

I made an argument that did not rely on "opposing points of view" about the issue of language. I made an argument about political dynamics, and the dynamics of political forum in national media. Heck, I made what appears to me a very, very, simple point: whatever the diversity of political interests in the country, language compounds the difficulty of conveying it across a linguistic divide, which, in turn, give political value to people who are able to cross that divide. The structure of the Canadian federation, where a majority of French speaker live in a province that has constitutionally a lot of power, means that these brokers can negotiate that value at a higher rate than other cross-cultural brokers.

Now, two things should be painfully obvious from that point: 1) anyone who can negotiate any other difference, like being able to cross the Iron Curtain that seems to separate Manitoba from Ontario, or who has gone through the terrible and life-altering ordeal of having family memory of Nova Scotia,  is going to be a valuable politician. That is a given. 2) Language is obviously not an impassable, nor a necessary, nor a unique-to-Quebec issue. I am arguing for specificity, not uniqueness. Many other issues can be made to be politically unpalatable, or incomprehensible. The Arab world amply demonstrate that a common language does not naturally create political similarities. Good thing I am not arguing this. I am arguing that this is an operative explanation for the current Canadian situation - may not be in the future, may not have always been like that in the past.

Now, if you want to go back to your old staple of the ethnic-nationalist ubiquitous explanation, feel free to do it. It is just not clear how that mythology works exactly, to "extract" power out of Ottawa, how it works to basically convince everyone in Quebec to partake in it (without, you know, resorting to stuff like language and culture).

I'm sure an appeal to dueling personal anecdotes would resolve a debate in academia, where appeals to the purely subjective have weight. I am merely pointing out that your argument of a fundamental similarity is incorrect on the facts

Oh, a jab at academia. How novel. Truly, lawyers are the most original thinkers.

I am using my personal experience of moving between two linguistic fields and three countries because it appeared relevant to the point of self-evidence and this is Languish, so I am not interested in quoting sociology left and right. If you want to say it is irrelevant, do so by telling me exactly how shifting linguistic world - in Canada - is somehow similar to changing provinces. The only way you have done so, so far, are ill-defined, and your dismissal of language is "just another difference" feels so ridiculously inappropriate in capturing what it means in practice.

why language is the single most fundamental aspect of identity and ought to trump all the others, and so is or ought to be *the* regional difference.

I have argued nothing of the sort.

[Malthus]

I added it there, because it is congruent with my observations to how such debates typically unfold, with a wide variety of people whose common ground is that they hold some common political views. Note: I did not qualify, either you, your ideas, or others, as shill, or personally repugnant. I simply stated that any assertion of a fundamental difference between Quebec and other provinces, or indeed, any such distinction that lumps together something like "Rest of Canada" as repugnant to a certain political conception of the country. These people see it as meant as a rhetorical move to discredit the diversity of the Canadian experience, and claim special status for Quebec. And no doubt it *is* often meant as such (see Grallon above). But nowhere did I make this argument. Quite the contrary in fact. But simply agreeing with the fact that language brings some important distinctions - which, in many other settings would be unproblematic - suddenly becomes extremely hard to do. 

I have a tough time understanding what it is you *are* claiming.

I thought the issue was 'why politicians from Quebec can succeed in the ROC, but politicians from the RoC cannot succeed in Quebec'.

If your claim is 'language' - well, that cannot be so, or at least not alone, because most aspiring to be senior politicians speak both.

If your claim is 'because they were not weaned in the local culture and so cannot understand it'  - well, again, what's different between Quebec and other places in that respect?

Now, if you are claiming that every time you discuss these matters, they always go the same way - why are you claiming that? The only possible reason is to discredit the arguments advanced against you - they are "politically motivated".

I made an argument that did not rely on "opposing points of view" about the issue of language. I made an argument about political dynamics, and the dynamics of political forum in national media. Heck, I made what appears to me a very, very, simple point: whatever the diversity of political interests in the country, language compounds the difficulty of conveying it across a linguistic divide, which, in turn, give political value to people who are able to cross that divide. The structure of the Canadian federation, where a majority of French speaker live in a province that has constitutionally a lot of power, means that these brokers can negotiate that value at a higher rate than other cross-cultural brokers.

Now, two things should be painfully obvious from that point: 1) anyone who can negotiate any other difference, like being able to cross the Iron Curtain that seems to separate Manitoba from Ontario, or who has gone through the terrible and life-altering ordeal of having family memory of Nova Scotia,  is going to be a valuable politician. That is a given. 2) Language is obviously not an impassable, nor a necessary, nor a unique-to-Quebec issue. I am arguing for specificity, not uniqueness. Many other issues can be made to be politically unpalatable, or incomprehensible. The Arab world amply demonstrate that a common language does not naturally create political similarities. Good thing I am not arguing this. I am arguing that this is an operative explanation for the current Canadian situation - may not be in the future, may not have always been like that in the past.

Again, the problem cannot be language per se, because every senior federal politician wishing to have a leadership role speaks both. Yet they cannot "cross the divide" merely by ability to speak French. You have argued earlier it is command of locally applicable nuance that is significant.

Now, if you want to go back to your old staple of the ethnic-nationalist ubiquitous explanation, feel free to do it. It is just not clear how that mythology works exactly, to "extract" power out of Ottawa, how it works to basically convince everyone in Quebec to partake in it (without, you know, resorting to stuff like language and culture).

It works to the extent that the mythology has popularity within a population. It works to extract power, because the interests of Quebec must be accorded more than their per-capita weight.

I have argued nothing of the sort.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing for. Perhaps a clear statement of the argument would help.

Here's mine: to address the question - which I understand to be 'why does one need to be born in Quebec to succeed in attracting Quebec approval as a national federal politician, even though that person born outside Quebec may speak French', my answer is relatively simple (one may say 'trivial', with the usual caveat that trivial isn't always incorrect  ): the mythology of ethno-nationalism leads people from Quebec to not wish to vote for outsiders. Language and culture of course are important -very important - aspects of that mythology. 

Yours, from what I understand (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong, and please do) is that it is language and understanding of local nuance that privileges those who are capable of 'crossing the divide' between Quebec and the RoC. 

Assuming this is your point (and again, forgive me if I have it wrong), it appears to me to be incorrect.

[Valmy]

Yours, from what I understand (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong, and please do) is that it is language and understanding of local nuance that privileges those who are capable of 'crossing the divide' between Quebec and the RoC. 

Which is obvious. That "privileges" one being successful anywhere in the entire world. Hard to build a political base in a place you don't understand local nuance and language. That is why ground game is so important and Ted Cruz has to ride the local roller coaster.

Assuming this is your point (and again, forgive me if I have it wrong), it appears to me to be incorrect.

Oh...because it seemed obvious

[Malthus]

Yours, from what I understand (and I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong, and please do) is that it is language and understanding of local nuance that privileges those who are capable of 'crossing the divide' between Quebec and the RoC. 

Which is obvious. That "privileges" one being successful anywhere in the entire world. Hard to build a political base in a place you don't understand local nuance and language. That is why ground game is so important and Ted Cruz has to ride the local roller coaster.

Assuming this is your point (and again, forgive me if I have it wrong), it appears to me to be incorrect.

Oh...because it seemed obvious

Argument is composed of two related parts:

(1) Language difference.  However, this can't be sufficient, because, as pointed out, every senior Canadian political leader is already bilingual. Yet that isn't enough to succeed with Quebec.

(2) Knowledge of local nuance. However, this can't be sufficient, as local nuance isn't transferrable from (say) Alberta to Newfoundland or vice versa. Yet allegedly an Albertan politician can succeed in Newfoundland or vice versa - but not Quebec. Yet a guy like Chrétien, so clearly a local Quebec product (a tough guy from Shawinigan), can succeed outside of Quebec in places like Newfoundland.

So how does this argument work?

Edit: I should point out that Chrétien spoke no English until he became an MP - he learned his as an adult, and became comprehensible, albeit with a thick accent. Yet apparently he was capable of grasping language and nuance from one end of the country to the other as Liberal leader and PM ... 

[Oexmelin]

If you are looking for single, sufficient explanations in politics you are bound to be disappointed. My only point was that language remains meaningful as one of the many ways in which we can read the country, however much one would like it not to be. How meaningful? For me, by virtue of the nature of language: very. For you, not very much. The reasons you have alluded to for the minimal impact of language appear to me extremely unconvincing. Some of my conviction comes from what we know of political sociology, linguistics, language learning, etc. Some of my conviction comes from lived experience. You may feel free to dismiss it entirely, of course, but I will simply put to you that if I started pontificating about what the experience of practicing law in Toronto was, and that flew in the face of everything you live on a daily basis, you may take exception to my analysis.

Now, if you want to support your point by alluding to the political situation in Canada, I would suggest that your definition of bilingualism is extremely generous. If you think that "every senior Canadian political leader is already bilingual" you are also sorely mistaken about their proficiency in French. It is one thing to be able to read phonetically prepared lines. It is another to actively engage in debate. And it is yet another to know how to pull the strings of a crowd, to connect, to find common references. Again, nothing that is insurmountable: but it takes time, and has a cost. Again, I remain convinced that getting the nuances and the differences between Newfoundland and Alberta is going to be much easier if you already share the language and the references. Again, the point is not to imagine a local politician being transplanted, and attempting to succeed in a different locale. It is to understand what happens in the delicate transition between the local and the national. And I have seen this time and again in national events, or national conversations (e.g., "National" history): it is much easier for people of the same language to first, come to a consensus, or have really good conversation among themselves and then turn to an "interpreter", a single text, or a single person, to speak for "the others". Again, this is not a dynamic limited to Quebec - but language limits the capacity for people to do that on their own in a time-efficient manner.

You are right that Chrétien is a good counter-example - but he illustrates, by his very uniqueness,  the dynamics at play. Look at past Prime Ministers from Quebec: Mulroney was an anglophone from very rural Quebec (and thus schooled in French), but all others came from bilingual families: Martin, the Trudeaus, Louis Saint-Laurent. They were in a unique position to serve as go-betweens, in ways that is very difficult for others. Trudeau Sr's vision for the country made its way into the Liberal party that was precisely tuned to groom similar people, and bring francophone elites at the heart of Ottawa in unprecedented numbers (one only needs to delve in the Canadian National Archives to witness that transformation). Chrétien was a product of such system. That he succeeded was a testament to his resilience and extraordinary political skill (I have no affection at all for the man).

I have never attempted to make my explanation a single, all-encompassing one, but simply to account for an observable dynamic. No doubt there are tons of other reasons out there, but if it allows some to get past the "ethnic-national mythology" explanation, that is often trotted out precisely as that single, convenient explanation (for so, so many things), it would have been a little useful. 

[viper37]

No comments on our esteemed leader's tax avoidance scheme?

I would not call it that way, because it sounds bad, and illegal.  What he did was totally legal.  Yet, he considered the other Canadians doing it as tax dodgers.  Strange how we always find ourselves with one set of rules for Liberals & their close supporters and another for everyone else whenever they are in power.

Must be a coincidence.

[Barrister]

Harper and Vera: Fiscal Malpractice – History shows this is no time to be racking up deficits

BENJAMIN HARPER
More from Benjamin Harper
ETHAN VERA
More from Ethan Vera
Published on: April 14, 2016 | Last Updated: April 14, 2016 6:43 AM EDT

Ever since the financial crisis of 2008, the advocacy of deficit stimulus has become increasingly fashionable. Big Banks, international organizations and governments seem to be joining in recurring calls for fiscal action. In Canada, the slowing growth of the past year is behind the new federal government's plan to "kickstart" the economy with billions of government "investment."

But like a defibrillator applied to a patient who hasn't experienced a heart attack, fiscal stimulus used improperly has negative consequences. The resurgence in Keynesian economic thinking is leading the Canadian and world economies down dangerous paths well mapped out during previous misadventures.

Keynesian theory dominated a large portion of the 20th century following its development during the Great Depression. According to this model, when aggregate demand falls below potential output, government spending (or tax reductions) can boost economic activity. In boom times, lower spending (or tax hikes) can appropriately cool inflationary pressures and allow the budget to be balanced. For more than 30 years, this thinking provided the philosophical basis for government's conduct of fiscal policy.

As the years went by, the results were increasingly disastrous. By the 1970s, western countries were experiencing high unemployment and high inflation – supposedly impossible under simple Keynesian models – along with spiralling deficits and slowing growth.

In practice, governments were rarely able to identify and implement fiscal policy in the manner dictated by Keynesian theory. At best, the lag times between fiscal stimulus and economic cycles were just too great. At worst, stimulus spending was driven by political considerations. As a result, stimulus was deemed necessary when the economy slowed, while cutting stimulus seemed unnecessary when things were better. Over time, the excesses of government intervention resulted in structural deficits and ballooning debts.

A younger generation of economists began to question the logic of the Keynesian model. Isn't deficit-financed government spending just borrowing money that would otherwise be spent by consumers or invested by businesses? Isn't this just redistributing economic activity, while adding to the national debt burdens? As economist Russell Roberts quipped, fiscal stimulus is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end, with the naïve hope that the water level will rise.

Canada had its own chapter in the story of failed Keynesian fiscal policy. Under Pierre Trudeau's governments of the 1970s and 1980s, the country experienced growing deficits, slowing growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation. A decade of cautious austerity under Brian Mulroney did little beyond moderate the bleeding. Finally, with the looming risk of a debt crisis, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin undertook a painful combination of tax hikes, vital service reductions, and provincial transfer cuts to cure Canada's debt ailment. Not surprisingly, a consensus developed to leave demand stimulation to monetary policy and budgets close to balance.

Why, then, did governments around the world unanimously turn to fiscal stimulus as a tool to fight the 2008 financial crisis? G20 leaders suddenly found themselves in conditions resembling a crash in economic activity like the Great Depression. These were not just times of falling aggregate demand, but of complete failures in the financial system. During a financial failure, investors can't find lenders, producers can't find consumers and workers can't find work. It is in these circumstances that governments, through deficit stimulus, can restore confidence in the short term, so that money can flow unaided in the long term.

The circumstances that face Canada today bear few resemblances to either the Great Depression or 2008. Canada's recent slowing growth was initiated by a fall in the prices of key commodities, unlike the aggregate demand problems Keynesianism purports to address. Structural supply problems will be aggravated, not improved, by large, long-term deficits.

It is unfortunate that a rare, effective use of Keynesian principles has been so quickly followed by the old habit of taking them beyond their appropriate application. History clearly shows the limitations of a fiscal deficit. After its appropriate use in the 2008 crisis, it seems those lessons have been forgotten. The patient is conscious, their heart is fine, but they'll be getting those electric shocks all the same.

Benjamin Harper and Ethan Vera are students at Smith School of Business (Queen's University) and members of Queen's Global Markets, a student run macro-economic think-tank. Mr. Harper is the son of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/harper-and-vera-fiscal-malpractice-history-shows-this-is-no-time-to-be-racking-up-deficits

Here's the son of a former PM I can get behind.  And he's completely correct too.

[Rex Francorum]

West, to me, used to mean anything West of Ontario, but it was a label for movement more than for identity, i.e., people moving West, relocating West, etc. "The" West, to me, is a newer label and does tend to exclude BC.

Yeah it is a moving territory, depending of the era. In Québec we had our "North" which was pushed to the geographical North over time.

[HVC]

Harper and Vera: Fiscal Malpractice – History shows this is no time to be racking up deficits

BENJAMIN HARPER
More from Benjamin Harper
ETHAN VERA
More from Ethan Vera
Published on: April 14, 2016 | Last Updated: April 14, 2016 6:43 AM EDT

Ever since the financial crisis of 2008, the advocacy of deficit stimulus has become increasingly fashionable. Big Banks, international organizations and governments seem to be joining in recurring calls for fiscal action. In Canada, the slowing growth of the past year is behind the new federal government’s plan to “kickstart” the economy with billions of government “investment.”

But like a defibrillator applied to a patient who hasn’t experienced a heart attack, fiscal stimulus used improperly has negative consequences. The resurgence in Keynesian economic thinking is leading the Canadian and world economies down dangerous paths well mapped out during previous misadventures.

Keynesian theory dominated a large portion of the 20th century following its development during the Great Depression. According to this model, when aggregate demand falls below potential output, government spending (or tax reductions) can boost economic activity. In boom times, lower spending (or tax hikes) can appropriately cool inflationary pressures and allow the budget to be balanced. For more than 30 years, this thinking provided the philosophical basis for government’s conduct of fiscal policy.

As the years went by, the results were increasingly disastrous. By the 1970s, western countries were experiencing high unemployment and high inflation – supposedly impossible under simple Keynesian models – along with spiralling deficits and slowing growth.

In practice, governments were rarely able to identify and implement fiscal policy in the manner dictated by Keynesian theory. At best, the lag times between fiscal stimulus and economic cycles were just too great. At worst, stimulus spending was driven by political considerations. As a result, stimulus was deemed necessary when the economy slowed, while cutting stimulus seemed unnecessary when things were better. Over time, the excesses of government intervention resulted in structural deficits and ballooning debts.

A younger generation of economists began to question the logic of the Keynesian model. Isn’t deficit-financed government spending just borrowing money that would otherwise be spent by consumers or invested by businesses? Isn’t this just redistributing economic activity, while adding to the national debt burdens? As economist Russell Roberts quipped, fiscal stimulus is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end, with the naïve hope that the water level will rise.

Canada had its own chapter in the story of failed Keynesian fiscal policy. Under Pierre Trudeau’s governments of the 1970s and 1980s, the country experienced growing deficits, slowing growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation. A decade of cautious austerity under Brian Mulroney did little beyond moderate the bleeding. Finally, with the looming risk of a debt crisis, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin undertook a painful combination of tax hikes, vital service reductions, and provincial transfer cuts to cure Canada’s debt ailment. Not surprisingly, a consensus developed to leave demand stimulation to monetary policy and budgets close to balance.

Why, then, did governments around the world unanimously turn to fiscal stimulus as a tool to fight the 2008 financial crisis? G20 leaders suddenly found themselves in conditions resembling a crash in economic activity like the Great Depression. These were not just times of falling aggregate demand, but of complete failures in the financial system. During a financial failure, investors can’t find lenders, producers can’t find consumers and workers can’t find work. It is in these circumstances that governments, through deficit stimulus, can restore confidence in the short term, so that money can flow unaided in the long term.

The circumstances that face Canada today bear few resemblances to either the Great Depression or 2008. Canada’s recent slowing growth was initiated by a fall in the prices of key commodities, unlike the aggregate demand problems Keynesianism purports to address. Structural supply problems will be aggravated, not improved, by large, long-term deficits.

It is unfortunate that a rare, effective use of Keynesian principles has been so quickly followed by the old habit of taking them beyond their appropriate application. History clearly shows the limitations of a fiscal deficit. After its appropriate use in the 2008 crisis, it seems those lessons have been forgotten. The patient is conscious, their heart is fine, but they’ll be getting those electric shocks all the same.

Benjamin Harper and Ethan Vera are students at Smith School of Business (Queen’s University) and members of Queen’s Global Markets, a student run macro-economic think-tank. Mr. Harper is the son of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/harper-and-vera-fiscal-malpractice-history-shows-this-is-no-time-to-be-racking-up-deficits

Here's the son of a former PM I can get behind.  And he's completely correct too.

yeah, well Trudeau knows quantum physics

http://gizmodo.com/everyone-should-be-able-to-explain-quantum-computing-li-1771397386

[viper37]

CLP's treasurer for Quebec has been arrested for electoral fraud, relating to his own municipal campaign.
5000$ fine and suspension of democratic rights for 5 years (no vote, no partisanship stuff).

Funny how such people always manage to find their way to the Liberal party.

[HVC]

Forgotten about Mike Duffy and friends only a few years ago? Corruption doesn't know a political leaning, it thrives on oppertunity.

[crazy canuck]

CLP's treasurer for Quebec has been arrested for electoral fraud, relating to his own municipal campaign.
5000$ fine and suspension of democratic rights for 5 years (no vote, no partisanship stuff).

Funny how such people always manage to find their way to the Liberal party.

The right to vote was suspended?  Are you sure about that?