Gun registry “squandered scarce resources and produced no measurable results.”
Date: Apr 21, 2005 7:25 AM
PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun
DATE: 2005.04.21
EDITION: Final
SECTION: BusinessBC
PAGE: D3
COLUMN: Michael Campbell
BYLINE: Michael Campbell
SOURCE: Vancouver Sun

————————————————————————
——–

Canadians are sold on empty moralizing

————————————————————————
——–

Once in a while I see a glimmer of hope along the road toward complete
dependence on government for everything — from selecting the television
channels we’re allowed to watch to the health-care choices we’re allowed
to make.

This latest ray of sunshine comes from Paul Martin, who in his preamble
to the newly released foreign policy review declared, “You cannot engage
in the kind of robust foreign policy [I'm hoping for] if all you are
going to do is empty moralizing.”

I think that just about says it all about our all-talk, no-action,
“soft-power” foreign policy. But why stop there? We’re full of it,
whether we’re talking about eradicating native poverty on reserves or
regional development in the Maritimes.

One of the keys to understanding government spending is that, when it
comes to numerous government programs, the opportunity to highlight our
great moral goodness is the whole point of the exercise.

I had a wonderful example of the prevailing attitude at an investment
conference I attended earlier this year, when a woman came up and asked,
in response to critical comments I had made regarding misspending in the
gun registry, why I was against gun control. I replied by asking her why
she was so satisfied with a program that squandered scarce resources and
produced no measurable results. Surely if she was sincerely interested
in getting beyond the self-serving, feel-good rhetoric of supporting
“gun control,” she would demand an effective program.

But the record is clear, the majority of us don’t demand effective
programs, whether we’re talking about foreign affairs, health care or
native poverty. Our military didn’t get into this sorry state overnight,
nor is it a surprise that our role on the world stage has become
second-rate. We set upon this course decades ago, and no one seemed to
care as long as we could keep declaring our greater goodness.

To borrow from the PM, the consequences of our preference for empty
words over action are seen everywhere — in the tens of billions of
dollars spent on programs that don’t produce meaningful results;
regional development schemes that produce more unemployment; business
subsidies that cost the economy jobs, instead of producing them; welfare
policies that create poverty, rather than eradicate it; and the
continual demise of a health-care system we still declare against all
available research is “number one” in the world.

As the foreign policy review also makes clear, our emphasis on
statements designed to make ourselves look good has resulted in our
foreign-aid dollars supporting a bloated bureaucracy instead of going to
the impoverished people who really need Canada’s assistance.

The problem is that any attempt to reduce the public-sector bureaucracy
in order to transfer those financial resources to the people the program
was designed to aid would bring howls of protest. Even the slightest
reallocation of resources is referred to as a “draconian cut.” That’s
why it’s easier for politicians to continue with the happy rhetoric
instead of enacting needed changes.

In the meantime, I’ll pat Paul Martin on the back for calling a spade a
spade. But making meaningful changes in foreign affairs, or any other
department, will require a profound change in the mindset of the
majority of Canadians.

Michael Campbell’s Money Talk radio show can be heard on CKNW 980 on
Saturdays from 8:30 to 10 a.m.