Speaking to fellow Liberals in Regina yesterday, the former PM and finance minister attacked the Tories for their lackluster deficit-elimination plan and the reliability of their numbers – numbers that have been wildly off-target in the past and are not corroborated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Now we all remember then Prime Minister Martin attacking then Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper for having a “hidden, right-wing agenda” with a plan to gut public spending, but history can be a sonofabitch. While campaigning on a promise to keep spending under control (although not actually reduce it), the federal Tories have increased program spending by 40% during their first four years in power, beginning long before a dollar of so-called “stimulus” spending went out the door.

By contrast, the Liberals campaigned in 1993 on promises of evermore public spending with little attention paid towards the burgeoning deficit, yet in 1995 Paul Martin tabled a deficit-elimination budget that significantly cut net federal spending, including transfers to the provinces. If that same budget were tabled today by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Paul Martin’s own Liberals would denounce it as a heartless, right-wing attack on all that is green and good, forged in the very fires of Mordor. For that matter, if the Liberals were to table that same budget today, all indications are that they Tories would attack them in kind.

So what is different from 1995? A good many things, but among them was  an opposition party (Reform) attacking the government from a position of credibility on the issue, and public opinion. At this time *shameless sales pitch alert*, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) was touring the National Debt Clock across Canada attempting to do the impossible: make the national debt a priority public issue with voters. Along with other organizations, political parties and writers, public opinion was turned and the government was forced into action.

Today, the governing party brags about how much it is spending on dubious “stimulus” projects, while all three parties in opposition demand “more, more, more,” without any serrious plans of their own. Without any party in parliament credibly threatening the government on the issues of spending, debt and deficits, the role of groups outside of parliament are all the more important than they were in 1995.

For our part, the CTF has restored the National Debt Clock and is once again touring it from coast-to-coast. Governments must get the message: cut spending, balance the budget and stop the clock. They vaguely hear this message right now, but are unlikely to act unless public opinion demands that they do.

The National Debt Clock Tour costs $3.65/km. You can do your part by chipping in a few bucks to bring it a little closer to Ottawa and share a link to this page with your friends via email, Facebook and Twitter.

Today, Philip Resnick and Reg Whitaker in The Tyee wrote an open letter calling on the Liberal, New Democratic and Green leaders to make such a deal.  While infinitely shorter than the Harper and Flanagan essay, the letter’s tone and suggestions are remarkably similar, especially in its call for electoral cooperation and a coalition government.

Some may cry foul over any coalition government overthrowing a party with a plurality of seats, such as last winter’s ill-fated attempt.  While that coalition arrangement was illegitimate in the eyes of most voters, a coalition that is announced before voters cast their ballots – knowing that such an arrangement will follow should no party win a majority of seats – would be legitimate. The quality of such a government is an entirely separate debate.

One cannot help but see “Our Benign Dictatorship” leap off the page of this open letter in both the diagnose of the “problem” (in their respective times) as well as the prescription for what should be done.

The following article appears in the January 25, 2010 edition of the National Post, & Canada Free Press.

Few politicians are thought to have Senate reform in their blood the way Prime Minister Stephen Harper does. Having campaigned for it beginning in the late 1980s and winning two general elections with it as a significant part of his platform, it is time for the Prime Minister to invest the political capital necessary to reform Canada’s upper house of Parliament.

By some accounts of legend, around AD 40 Roman Emperor Caligula attempted to appoint his favourite horse to a senior government position in the Senate as a way of showing contempt for the office. While Caligula may have been a mad tyrant, one would be hard pressed to find many Canadians with a more positive view of their own appointed Senate.

One hardly needs to make the case for why it should be reformed anymore, but rather how it should be. As a young MP serving as the Reform Party’s constitutional affairs critic, Harper passionately championed a wholesale makeover in the form of a “triple-e” Senate. Pushing his more modest, but still hugely positive, proposals during the last Parliament, he became the first sitting Prime Minister to appear before a Senate committee. Few then doubted the Prime Minister’s sincerity about finally bringing the needed change he had promised.

With the expected appointment of an additional five Senators to the Red Chamber prior to March 3, the Conservatives will hold 51 seats to the Liberals’ 49. For all intents and purposes, they will have the numbers required to pass legislation without major impediments.

To this point, unelected Liberal Senators have blocked the Prime Minister’s reform package — modest proposals for elections and eight-year term limits — to avoid the embarrassment of retaining their own seats while the chamber slowly filled with democratically elected representatives. The pressure to resign in such circumstances would be inconvenient for those eyeing a maximum $100,000-per-year pension upon their second retirement.

With the exception of Michael Fortier, the Prime Minister justified his two rounds of Senate appointments following the coalition crisis as a necessary evil to balance the numbers in order to eventually reform the institution — presumably now. With the Senate roadblock seemingly out of the way, there are only three scenarios in which the soon to be reintroduced legislation can fail: 1. There is an election; 2. Opposition parties in the House of Commons defeat it; or 3. The Prime Minister does not push it wholeheartedly.

Stephen Harper has proven that when he is serious about passing legislation that his opponents have reservations about — such as stiffening the Criminal Code — he has little trouble bending them to his will. It is doubtful that when push comes to shove enough opposition members would stand up and be counted as voting against such legislation, especially if it were deemed a government priority and therefore a matter of “confidence.”

No doubt, many opposition members will attempt to tie up and stop such reforms from ever coming to a vote, as did Liberal Senators during the last Parliament. Therefore, the Prime Minister should ante up and declare his reform legislation, both to elect senators and limit their terms, a vote of confidence and a government priority.

While fault will lie with the Prime Minister if reform legislation fails to pass before the next election, success in passing it may prove to be one of this government’s greatest achievements yet. Canadians should hope that the Prime Minister’s word is still solid on this issue and that the post-coalition Senate appointments are not a resumption of older times. Say, AD 40.

National Post

Derek Fildebrandt is national research director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation.