Matthew Lau: How blue is Pierre Poilievre?

Article content

What about Pierre Poilievre? He is certainly an excellent rhetorician who made his name by harshly condemning bad liberal politics. He has a large online followers and his social media accounts show smooth videos. He enjoys broad and enthusiastic support among Conservative party members, is the clear leading candidate in the Party Leadership Course, and has by far the most support from the Conservative caucus. All these things make it clear that Poilievre is a competent politician. But nobody says he’s necessarily a good prime minister.

Article content

Poilievre’s campaign focuses on freedom and the reduction of the cost of living – both good ideas. He has already proposed some solid policies to reduce government costs, including refinancing the CBC and eliminating the Canada Infrastructure Bank. He says his main competitors, Jean Charest and Patrick Brown, have no credibility over the affordability issue because they are both coal taxes. The problem for Poilievre, however, is that his own credentials as economically conservative are patchy. The Conservative government, of which he was a member for almost 10 years, while far more responsible than the current Liberal government, was not a model of tax conservatism.

During that decade, the Conservatives consistently spent too much, even though the large stimulus budget of 2009-10 was under a minority government and the Liberals and NDP can be accused of forcing many of these expenditures. To the extent that the Harper government has accomplished some good things, it is not clear what the Poilievre can really take credit for. He often wondered if it was his idea to create a new tax bill for child fitness activities, but that was not a conservative policy, and resignation was one of the few good things the Liberals did.

Article content

Then there is the question of supply management in agriculture. If Poilievre wants to campaign on free markets and affordability, he can not support supply management – a policy more discreditable than a carbon tax. But Poilievre said last week that he would maintain the supply management system. Farmers paid for their quotas, he said, and buying them out would be more expensive than keeping the current system. The first half of that statement is correct; the second half is clearly wrong. The quota value on the balance sheet of the agricultural sector was $ 41 billion at the end of 2020, but supply management is worth destroying even if the government has to pay farmers the market price of their quota to do so.

Article content

That price is about the same as the net present value of the surpluses that farmers receive with their quota compared to what they get in a free market. Whether their billions come from consumers being ripped off forever or whether they get it all as a lump sum from taxpayers, the size and direction of the transfers are the same. The difference is that today paying a lump sum and destroying supply management, enabling competition and encouraging economic productivity. Lower prices for agricultural products mean a larger quantity is traded, which generates an economic surplus for all.

Moreover, it is not obvious that the government must or should compensate the farmers before it destroys the value of its quota. Should the government compensate the beneficiaries of any protectionism or other government-granted privileges if it deregulates? If the general answer is ‘No’, what makes this case the exception? If the concern is that the farmers will be financially destroyed, if their quotas become worthless, then the farmers should try to buy some insurance on it or sell it to the speculators and then rent it back. Regardless of whether the government has to pay farmers for their quota or not, the end of supply management would be profitable, and Poilievre’s commitment to maintain it is a serious mistake.

Article content

Although clearly a competent conservative politician, Poilievre still has to prove that he is a good conservative prime minister. I was interested in reading an Ottawa Citizen profile of him a decade ago that he is an avid chess player. Skill in chess, as Sherlock Holmes points out, is a mark of a shining spirit. There is further evidence that Poilievre has strong political skills, but also perhaps that he should be kept from power rather than pushed into the street. Fortunately for Poilievre, he still has plenty of time to convince the Conservatives and all Canadians that he really is a good Prime Minister.

Matthew Lau is a Toronto writer.

Share this article on your social network