When numbers count

William Watson

Next April, I think I’ ll try paying my taxes the way Trudeau funds the military. We shouldn’t be fixated with an arbitrary number, I’ll tell the people at the Canada Revenue Agency. Look at my record. I’ve been there for you year in, year out. And the number I talk about is a whopping big increase in my contributions over these past few years. Why in 1985 I paid about a tenth of what I pay now. Imagine: a 10- fold increase! I have certainly been doing my bit, don’t you agree?

I’m guessing they won’t agree but will instead hold me to the tax commitment Parliament made on my behalf.

We should have been worried. We should have been very worried. Before Justin Trudeau’s hot- mic gaffe at Buckingham Palace Tuesday night, Donald Trump was being very nice to us. After asking Trudeau at their joint press appearance how we were doing on our commitment to raise defence spending to two per cent of GDP — a commitment the NATO countries agreed to in 2014 — he seemed satisfied with our assurance that we were at 1.4. Actually, we’re only at 1.31, but we’re on schedule for 1.4 by 2024- 5, the same year we’re also scheduled to balance the budget. Oh, sorry, I forgot: the balanced budget is gone. That was last election’s promise. This election’s promise was that all budget bets are off.

It’s true that on Wednesday Trump followed up by saying Trudeau had been “two- faced” on defence. It could have been worse. He could have said “black- faced.” But “two- faced” is actually pretty descriptive of where we are. On Tuesday Trudeau had skated as artistically as he could, with one verbal double axel after another: “The number we talk about is ( a) 70 per cent increase over these past few years.” That’s almost Trumpian in its slipperiness: “The number we talk about.” That’s like “alternative facts.” Do we each get our own preferred number? And how about “these past few years.” Could you be more Trumpishly imprecise? We live in the age of inflation: you can make spending changes look as big as you want if only you go back far enough.

Trudeau went on to stress that “it’s important to look at what is actually being done … Canada has been there for every NATO deployment. We have consistently

‘ two-faced’ is actually pretty descriptive of where we are.

stepped up.” Yes, if we had a submarine or helicopter or warship that wasn’t in dry dock or the repair hangar, we sent it — so long as other countries provided refuelling and emergency towing when needed. It’s a good thing that in planning D- Day General Eisenhower didn’t accept this argument that the important thing is not numerical targets but taking part. OK Greatest Generation Guy, it’s the 21st century now!

I think I might try Trudeau’s “it’s the participation certificate that counts” approach next April when it comes time to pay my income taxes. We shouldn’t be fixated with an arbitrary number, I’ll tell the people at the Canada Revenue Agency. Look at my record. I have consistently stepped up. I’ve been there for you year in, year out. And the number I talk about is a whopping big increase in my contributions over these past few years. Why in 1985 I paid about a tenth what I pay now. Imagine: a 10-fold increase! I have certainly been doing my bit, don’t you agree?

I’m guessing they won’t agree but will instead hold me to the exact tax commitment Parliament made on my behalf.

Will Trudeau take this new understanding of contribution — that shares of GDP aren’t important, absolute scale is what really counts — from defence into other areas of public policy? Debt, for instance. Ottawa says the federal debt is stable as a share of GDP so not to worry. But what if we look instead at what’s happened in terms of scale “over these past few years.” According to the Department of Finance, Ottawa’s total interest-bearing debt is up from $950 billion in 2015- 6 to $1,025 billion last fiscal year, an increase of $75 billion. Over the same period, federal program spending rose from $ 274 billion a year to $333 billion, an increase of $59 billion. That ain’t hayseed.

Back to defence. At least to begin with, Trump accepted Trudeau’s hand-waving:

“They’re getting there,” he told reporters. “They know it’s important to do and their economy is doing well. They’ll get there quickly I think.” Why was he playing nice with us? Random spin of his brain? Or does he want something? Help getting the USMCA through Congress maybe? Do you suppose he thinks we have more influence with Nancy Pelosi than he does? And might that mean that — if only for a brief shining moment — we have leverage over him?

Compare Trump on Trudeau with Trump on British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. In an October radio interview with Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage, Trump said “Corbyn would be so bad for your country. He’d be so bad, he’d take you in such a bad way. He’d take you into such bad places.” He seems to think Corbyn would be bad.

Yet on page 101 of the Labour “manifesto” it says in black and white: “Labour’s commitment to spend at least two per cent of GDP on defence will guarantee that our armed forces are versatile and capable of fulfilling the full range of roles and obligations.” ( You know, if I were constantly being called a socialist or even communist, I wouldn’t call my party platform a “manifesto.”)

You find the Trump- pleasing two per cent pledge in the manifesto of the British Labour Party but not in the platform of any Canadian political party. Strange, strange world out there.