When Britain鈥檚 Labour party released its election manifesto in 1983, a horrified supporter called it the longest suicide note in history.
It appears the federal NDP have set out to claim that dubious distinction.
Covering 109 pages, the party鈥檚 new platform, if enacted, would damage the economy, commit the federal government to endless deficits, though this is seen as a positive, and render the effective delivery of key social services unaffordable.
Among the promises made are: Enactment of universal free pharmacare; making dental care free within 10 years, along with vision care, mental-health care and hearing care; constructing half a million affordable housing units; doubling the Home Buyer鈥檚 Tax Credit to $1,500; 鈥渂uilding toward鈥� making post-secondary education free; extending Employment Insurance sickness benefits to 50聽weeks; restoring door-to-door mail delivery; guaranteeing a right to have electronic devices repaired at 鈥渁ffordable prices鈥� (I鈥檓 not making this up); establishing a federal minimum wage of $15; requiring employers to spend at least one per cent of payroll on training workers; ensuring net carbon-free electricity by 2030.
Look, I could go on, but you get the idea. How is this to be paid for? NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has not the slightest idea.
He would start by hiking the corporate tax rate three points, and raising income taxes on anyone making more than $210,000. But the revenues those would bring in are a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of his promises.
Let鈥檚 do some math. Singh promises $10 billion in federal funding for totally free pharmacare. But the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculates that a less-generous program, requiring a means test, or contributory payments by patients, would cost about $20 billion. The price ticket for Singh鈥檚 unconstrained program would probably come closer to $30 billion.
If the feds put up $10 billion, where does the other $20 billion come from? The provinces? Good luck with that. sa国际传媒鈥檚 share alone would be $3 billion 鈥� more than double the current Fair Pharmacare budget.
Then, there鈥檚 free dental care. Here we have some numbers to work with.
Ontario has just announced a free dental-care program for low-income seniors. The cost estimate is $100 million.
Low-income seniors comprise 12.5 per cent of all seniors, and seniors as a group are currently about 20 per cent of our country鈥檚 population. Therefore, to extend free dental care to every Canadian, as Singh promises to do, would cost approximately $10 billion.
It鈥檚 impossible to say with any precision what free vision care, mental-health care and hearing care would cost, but the number has to be at least $20 billion.
To make post-secondary education free to students would cost in the realm of $25 billion. This is on top of the $15 billion governments already spend in this sector.
These promises alone total in the region of $85 billion. That鈥檚 roughly 25 per cent of the federal budget, if anyone鈥檚 counting.
Then again, how do we transition to carbon-free electricity when 20 per cent of the country鈥檚 electrical power comes from oil, coal and gas-fired plants?
Wind turbines, biomass production and solar generation collectively produce less than seven per cent of our needs. That figure would have to be increased four-fold (from seven to 27) 鈥� a practical impossibility in the time frame Singh declares.
What this gusher of spending would do, however, is bankrupt our entire social safety net. sa国际传媒鈥檚 share of the free pharmacy and dental programs alone would be about $4.5 billion.
Where could the health ministry (total budget $23 billion) find that kind of money? Which services go to the wall?
And how does the economy respond to higher taxes, larger EI payments to fund the 50-week sickness benefit, compulsory employee training and a raft of other corporate regulations there is no room to discuss here.
Along with the spectre of federal deficits out to the horizon, the answer is that a recession is virtually ensured. Along with more job flight abroad.
We鈥檙e told the political aim of this platform is to shore up the party鈥檚 left wing. Perhaps. But it will do so at the cost of driving moderate NDPers elsewhere.
Singh compared his plan to former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas鈥� groundbreaking social agenda. But there is a critical difference. Douglas, like other NDP premiers in Saskatchewan, believed in thrift and balanced budgets.
These are foreign concepts to Singh and his party.
