William Watson: Liberals and Conservatives both incoherent on the issue of ‘choice’

Article content

Twenty-five and a half minutes into his announcement of the Liberal housing policy on Tuesday, during the press conference part of the proceedings, when he is sometimes less scripted, Justin Trudeau said some interesting things about choice:

Article content

“We know that a multi-layered approach that takes into account the fact that families are in different situations, families have different needs, different desires for what they want and what they’re going to, you know, look for in terms of a first home, what they’re going to look for in terms of housing stability. And that’s why we’ve created a very ambitious but multi-faceted policy that responds in tangible ways to make sure that people have better options when it comes to housing.”

Actually, as Carson Jerema points out, the Liberals’ housing policy isn’t so much multi-layered as incoherent. With housing prices rising, it stokes demand with tax breaks for first-time buyers and hammers supply by making it more difficult for landlords to sell their properties or raise rents.

Article content

But forget the policy for a minute. The general principle is good and should be applauded. Families are in different situations. They do have different needs and desires. And, it almost goes without saying, they themselves are in the best position to decide what’s right for them. This approach is in the finest liberal tradition, recognizing as it does that individuals are uniquely qualified to assess what Hayek called “the particular circumstances of time and place” and should therefore be, as Friedman put it, free to choose. “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,” said the prime minister’s father when minister of justice, in what has become the classic statement of the now unchallenged notion that people should be free to choose their own sex lives. The son’s statement on housing isn’t as eloquent, pithy or courageous but, on its face at least, says much the same thing.

Article content

OK. So then why doesn’t the Liberal policy on child care also recognize that families are in different situations and have different needs and different desires for how they want to care for their children? Some will prefer to do it all themselves. Some will want help from neighbours, trusted friends, siblings or their own parents. And, yes, some will want the full-time, regulated (and therefore inflexible), subsidized (and therefore wait-listed) and unionized (and therefore strike-prone) daycare that, for some reason, is the only option these supposedly choice-loving Liberals want families to have. Why not be multi-layered on this one, too? Why not provide a certain amount of funding per child (as indeed the Tories have proposed) and let parents decide how best to take care of their own children?

Article content

Neither, in addition to daycare, does the Liberals’ devotion to choice extend to vaccination, which they want federal employees and people travelling in federally regulated vehicles to get as a condition of employment or travel. I can’t decide whether it’s to the Liberals’ credit or debit that their sudden devotion to compulsory vaccination is so transparently disingenuous. When the public sector unions push back, as they have given notice they will do, will the government go to the wall to exclude the unvaccinated from the federal workplace? Has this government or any recent government ever gone to the wall against the public sector unions? The same question will apply when human rights tribunals or like entities react to the proposed violation of people’s right to move. The almost certain outcome is that the whole question will be handed over to lawyers, who after much treasure has been spent will produce a decision years following the pandemic’s denouement.

Article content

Forcing citizens to accept the injection of a foreign substance into their bodies hardly seems consistent with the Liberals’ fiercest invocation of the primacy of choice, that regarding a woman’s “freedom to choose.” The phrase is purposely vague, though everyone understands it means the freedom to choose, not bus route, clothing style, college major or career path, choices no one but the Taliban begrudges to anyone, male or female, but whether or not to have an abortion. The Liberals might argue that the decision to get vaccinated or not has implications for other people, including restricting their freedom of choice. Of course, an abortion rather restricts the choices of the fetus in question.

Article content

As for the Conservatives, they are strenuous in asserting the freedom of choice regarding both child care and vaccination and their official position regarding abortion is, as stated on p. 134 of their platform, the one time it uses the A-word, “A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.” On the other hand, news reports say a majority of Erin O’Toole’s caucus does not share his pro-choice views, so a Conservative parliament might support such a bill even if a Conservative government does not.

It would be nice during this period of collective deliberation to hear a discussion of the different parties’ theories of individual choice and the philosophical nuances that have influenced their own policy choices. My guess is they will choose not to give us that.