Ordinarily, the answer to this question would be found by taking the trouble to read the platform upon which the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) was elected. I choose not to do so, for two reasons:

1. It won’t be long (especially if the 2005:4 US GDP numbers really do signify a slowdown over the next year or so) before we get the rueful ‘things are worse than we thought’ speech that consigns their platform to the recycling bin.
2. The Conservatives don’t have the numbers to implement their program without opposition support.

(Oh, okay, the real reason is that I can’t be bothered to read it. Sue me.)

Stephen Harper has a MA in economics from the University of Calgary, so you might expect him to have good instincts about economic policy. That may indeed be the case, but those instincts seem to have been repressed in favour of the instinct to get elected. The proposal to cut the GST earned a rightly-deserved chorus of derision and scorn from economists – but it also got votes.

And today brings us (hat-tip to Tilting at Windmills), a Reuters story in which Monte Solberg, a leading CPC MP and possible Finance Minister, discusses industrial subsidies:

Industrial subsidies, long a point of contention for Canadian right-of-center parties, may be a necessary evil, [Solberg] added, admitting that the Conservatives were coming round to the idea that firms sometimes needed subsidies.

"It would be better to have a worldwide agreement (against industrial subsidies). But because some people subsidize, we have to match that," he said.

Asked if plane and train manufacturer Bombardier Inc., a particular target of subsidy critics, could continue to benefit from federal government largesse, he said: "We’re reluctant converts."

When it comes to choosing between smart economics and electoral expediency, there appears to be little reason to think that the Conservatives will behave much differently than their predecessors.