Oh what a tangled web we weave...

There is nothing more thrilling for the Canadian public than a government butt whup’in. The exposure of scandals and corruption keeps the chairs at Tim Horton’s warm. So when the Conservative government announced the axing of beurocratic “perks” the average Canadian has mixed feelings. What the heck are we going to complain about now?
Initially, at least for me, the announcement was laced with jubilation and then cautious questions and concerns. First of all, why did we need an economic catastrophe to finally consider restricting the big government spenders? Or, does this mean when we come out of the recession we’ll open our taxpaying pockets all over again? Or even before we get to a recovery, is this just lip service to the panicking public? All fair questions but none of which will be answered, at least in the next year… or will they?
Axing government perks sounds prudent, self sacrificing, noble and even has a scent of Canadian pride. Proud that leadership asks “more of themselves than of its citizens”. However, the meat and potatoes of this “axing of perks” (so to speak) is not necessarily as noble a policy move as the surface reflects.
One of the perks referred to in the “axing” is the illustrious “…poison-pill-proposal to gut public subsidies of political parties….” This means that all political parties would be dependant on public contributions as their primary (or only) source of financial viability. Considering the campaign contribution reforms already enacted, (ie. $1000 maximum) it would provide the Conservative Party a phenomenal competitive advantage over virtually any other political party (considering the current balance sheet of opposition parties as well as contribution demographics). Political party finances are the entrails of future public success and failure (unless of course there is a massive grassroots network).
Gutting opposition funding (with the rationale of global economic catastrophe) is like juggling nitroglycerine, its not IF things blow up, its WHEN! It can even appear to be the antithesis of the Federal Accountabilities Act (the act that negated ruling administrations from using public funds to propagate their parties). Therefore the current thirst for a Coalition “coup d’etat” is not necessarily a greedy grab for power as much as it may be a frantic lunge to protect against certain future financial and political annihilation. It may not be openly discriminative as was the sponsorship scandal but it reflects the same outcome while staying true to the “Conservative mindset”. Though coo-does for brilliance and “spin” it certainly doesn’t reflect an atmosphere of co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.
Personally I’m not in favor of the Government supporting political parties, however, I don’t think Canada is entirely ready for the alternative… exclusive use of public contributions.
What concerns me so much about an apparent change of administration is its possible immediate affect on CRA’s position on truckers subsistence allowance. As I stated in my book, subsistence allowance is not necesarily a matter of law but of administration. If a new administration enacts policies that hamstring the system for truckers, then the entire lease/operator industry may administratively loose their constitutional right for fair opportunity.

To adapt Sir Walter Scott “…Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice politics…”