Robocalls: Making the Case for Engagement

Much has been written over the past few days about the use of robocalls, particularly during the 2011 federal election. We have all had them. Usually during dinner. Their timing is great...#sarcasm

At the heart of the story are a growing number of allegations that robocalls were targeted at Liberal and NDP voters in swing ridings, informing them that the polling station had changed. These calls have been traced to a company in Edmonton with ties to the Conservative party.

At this time it is not clear who was responsible for these calls, nor whether they were part of a Conservative party-orchestrated plan to mislead or disenfranchise those who would typically vote for other parties (text vetted by crack team of A Guy Watching Politics lawyers). However, should the allegations be proven it would not bode well for the image of the Conservative party.

Now let's be honest with one another. There is no real chance that anything will change on the Hill between now and the next federal election. We will not re-cast our votes, regardless of how any debate or investigation might play out.

Yes, the government could be embarrassed. Potentially people could lose their jobs, and perhaps face criminal charges. But the government will remain the government until as late as 2016.

Sigh.

If you were the government and you had to choose when to have a scandal emerge, this would be the time. Unlike the Auditor General findings which unleashed the sponsorship scandal in the later years of a Liberal mandate, this issue comes at the beginning of a Conservative one. All to say, they have time on their side.

This is where you come in, dear voter.

These allegations are part of a pattern; a pattern of a party which remains in perpetual campaign mode. As much as the election around the corner flowed from successive minority Parliaments, it also flowed from a Conservative government which has never seemed able to resist its more base, partisan instincts.

It is also a pattern characterized by an avoidance of accountability and a rejection of the principles upon which the Conservative party first successfully won power - accountability, transparency, and the elimination of scandal from Ottawa.

This is why we need to remain engaged. These issues are not just about things that happen in Ottawa.

- Misleading voters about the plans of a sitting MP is, in the Speaker's words, reprehensible.
- Labelling opponents of legislation with child pornographers is despicable.
- And supporting (or turning a blind eye) to efforts to disenfranchise those would vote against you is borderline criminal.

The government is not going to change between now and 2016. But we can. We need to be more vigilant and engaged. The voter should not fall victim to the idiom that time heals all wounds; that in four years time no one will remember or care.

We need to challenge ourselves to define what we expect of government, and then explore all efforts to hold government to account. This is what engagement means.

Thank-you robocalls for the reminder.

Follow the Leader?

The question of leadership is in vogue right now. In Canada we have two federal leadership campaigns either underway or imminent, while in the United States we have the current battle for the Republican nomination after which comes the campaign for President.

While there are numerous and obvious differences between these contests in terms of policy and party dynamics, each one is giving visibility to the notion of leadership and the expectations we have of those elected to lead. For some, a leader is simply a manager. Others seek a visionary. For many substance and policy take a backseat to electability and the ability to deliver power.

In truth, a leader needs to be all of these things. They need to articulate a vision and direction, not just for the party of which they are a member but for the broader electorate. They also need to demonstrate an ability to provide effective stewardship. While this can mean different things depending on your political stripe, in the end it comes down to being able to demonstrate competence.

All of this leads us to that third category - the ability to deliver power. Electability is the ultimate litmus test for any leader, but it is often the one most difficult to gauge at the time of a leadership campaign.

***

At its heart, a leadership campaign is made up of two simultaneous conversations. The first is a conversation between the candidates and party members. As such, the starting point of the conversation contains a lot of common ground and shared principles. Everyone is on the same team, so to speak.

However, a parallel conversation is also taking place between the candidates and the broader electorate, particularly those who are not committed to or aligned with one political party.

What's important here is that these voters do not necessarily share the same views as those committed party members, and in some cases might outright oppose them. Nevertheless, increasingly the path to victory depends on these non-aligned, swing voters.

The ongoing campaign for the U.S. Republican nomination provides a good example of the challenges a leadership candidate faces as they look to strike that delicate balance between winning the party faithful, and appealing to the swing voters.

Mitt Romney is the preferred candidate of the Republican hierarchy. Why? Because he is seen as the candidate most likely to attract moderate, centrist voters - the voters who will decide the Presidency. But before he can fight that battle, Romney needs to win over the rank and file of a fractured Republican party and conservative movement.

His challenge is that these members, and in particular those aligned with the tea party and the Christian conservative elements of the party, don't see themselves in him. As much as he may speak to the broader electorate (a debatable point, yes), he does not speak to large swaths of the party he wishes to lead.

All of this puts Mr. Romney in something of a trap. To win over the party he has to take positions and adopt rhetoric which appeals to them. Doing so, however, will hamper his chances with swing voters should be win the chance to take on President Obama.

What he needs to do is articulate a vision for both - something which will be extremely difficult to do in such a fractured political environment.

***

What, dear reader (hello, anyone?), does this have to do with Canada? For me, it serves as a good reminder for those who aspire to lead the NDP or the Liberals (or both...?) of the importance of not losing sight of those two, parallel conversations.

The candidates vying to replace Jack Layton know that winning over NDP members will not guarantee them Official Opposition status after the next election, never mind power. They also need to remember that the positions they take now as they appeal to the rank and file have the potential become future talking points issued by their opponents. The same holds true for the Liberals.

So what is a candidate to do?

- Speak to Canadians.
- Articulate a vision that bridges the gap between the party and the country.
- Define what your government will stand for and present a credible path towards achieving the goals you set out.
- Avoid the trap of simple solutions, such as "cut this" or "tax that."
- Be honest about the challenges we face and the choices we will need to make.
- Engage people by speaking to both their worries and their dreams.
- Be yourself; authenticity is critical.

The candidate that can best measure up against this scorecard stands the best chance of winning the leadership and positioning themselves for a general election. Anyone up for it?

What good is policy if you can't debate it?

Closure is a word that people outside of Ottawa more commonly associate with turning points in their lives. A break-up, coming to terms with the loss of a loved one, or more generally dealing with major events such that we can move forward. For many it is part of a healing process.

Not for the first time, things take on a different meaning in Ottawa. These days, closure is a word used by politics watchers as they consider a Parliament in which debate on key policy issues is limited and then cut off by the government.

It has become the go-to tool of the new majority government and, much like the way the election around the corner killed debate under successive minority governments, the use of closure is depriving us of meaningful discussion at the very time we need it.

Woe Canada.

There are some great policy issues which deserve a spirited dialogue, regardless of the side of the fence on which you sit. The crime bill, gun registry, the wheat board, pension reform - debates which have come and gone, and which were cut short.

What will happen with the 2012 Budget? With proposals on reform to Old Age Security? How thoroughly will our Parliamentarians debate new trade agreements, or changes to immigration policy?

We all deserve an opportunity to hear about the perceived merits and limitations of the policy initiatives brought forward by the government. This is why we have a Parliament.

Circumventing that in the name of expediency is wrong. Arguing that in electing a majority government, Canadians gave tacit approval to an agenda that was not discussed during a campaign is simply false. And replacing evidence-based policy with initiatives driven by conviction is, to be frank, scary.

***

Canada, like so many countries, is at something of a cross-roads. The world is changing around us. Whether we are talking about the environment or demographics, the economy or security, we are faced with difficult and potentially defining choices.

Faced with these choices, we need to remind ourselves that the biggest challenges and greatest opportunities deserve the broadest possible debate.

Considering Consultations

In the coming weeks, the Harper government will table Budget 2012 - a budget which is expected to lay out those areas where the government will look to reduce spending in order to eventually eliminate the deficit. For politics watchers in Canada, this budget could be a big deal.

Ongoing discussions in the U.S. and the EU regarding austerity and the affordability of public services have once again put the topic of deficits near the top of the political agenda. That, coupled with the sense that a long-term objective of the Harper government is to re-shape the role (and size) of the federal government, is resulting in growing speculation about what we can expect.

With so much speculation out there, it is worth taking a moment to consider how budgets are "built", and in particular the role of consultations.

Governments, regardless of their stripe, do not build budgets in a vacuum. They consult - internally across departments, and externally through discussions with leading economists and key stakeholder groups. One element of this dialogue are the on-line pre-budget consultations initiated by the Department of Finance, found here.

A parallel set of consultations are conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance; consultations which draw heavily on input from an extremely diverse range of stakeholders. You can view the briefs submitted over 2011 here, and the final report here.

These consultations can be interesting for two reasons. First, for the wide range of views that are expressed. Stakeholders representing a range of interests provide their views on how government should tax, spend, regulate and more generally provide stewardship over the economy.

Second, because majority governments have often used the Committee report as something of a trial balloon, floating ideas in order to gauge reaction. In some cases, a report may be more radical, thereby allowing the government to position itself as the reasonable compromise.

I have no issue with any of this, and in fact feel that the process does allow one to get greater perspective of the multiple views that exist in relation to the challenges and opportunities we face. However, I do think the process could be improved in one major way.

Right now, we have a one-way street. Government (through the Finance department) or Parliament (through the Committee) asks for views, and stakeholders oblige. However, at no point in the process does the government table any meaningful information about what it is considering.

Imagine a process whereby the government tabled a white paper, or series of broad options or policy objectives under consideration. In other words, showed us what at a high-level they were thinking and solicited our reaction and input to that thought process.

That would be a true consultation. And it would be a consultation which would promote more of a dialogue about the choices we are facing, and the difficult job a government has in balancing between competing interests.

Perhaps most importantly, it would provide a degree of transparency which would open up the policy process and hopefully lead to greater engagement by a broader cross-section of the voting public.

Thoughts?

Choices

Over the coming weeks that old beast we call policy will rear its ugly head, as politics watchers prepare for and then comment on the 2012 federal budget. In this budget the government will present the fiscal health of the country and then lay out its plan for tackling the deficit.

A reduction in public spending will be the main focus of the government's plan. The expected scaling down of some government activity was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister this weekend in a letter to his caucus, in which he wrote that Canada's future prosperity will require "tough choices."

The use of the word "choices" interests me. More to the point, it is Mr. Harper's additional comment that the choices to which he was referring would need to be made "together with the Canadian people" which has caught my attention.

To start, the fact that choices need to be made is entirely correct and in keeping with what we should expect of government. Governing is about making choices, and given what is happening in Canada and around the world it is clear that there are a number of policy areas which warrant discussion and decision-making.

My question is where is the discussion?

Some time in the coming weeks you and I will get to see the government's decision. We will get to see what they intend to do (and will safely pass with their majority). What we won't have is a real opportunity to actually consider the choices. And there is no evidence to suggest that any meaningful changes to the budget presented would be accepted by the government.

What we get is, for all intents and purposes, a done deal. There is no choice on offer that can reasonably be described as being one that will be made "together with the Canadian people." Equally frustrating, there is no sense as what options the government has considered as it built this forthcoming budget.

In the absence of any meaningful transparency, I found myself reading two articles today. The first is on health care and the need for the government to think more broadly about how we fund the system and the role of the federal government.

The second is about austerity, arguing that governments have made austerity the defining issue of the day without having a good debate about the other options we face.

Two articles, both thoughtful reads and illustrative of the type of dialogue we should be having as we debate policy. Unfortunately, we are about to debate decisions that have been taken - something which is tantamount to being able to say your peace, even when you know it won't change things. We deserve and should aspire for better.

Defining Progressive for a 21st Century Canada

In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion about what Canadian politics will look like over the course of 2012. Much of that discussion - including here - has focused on the government, and how a Harper majority will act during its first full year.

The focus on the Harper government is understandable, particularly when one starts to consider the upcoming budget. However, politics watchers should be focusing equally on the events that will play out among the NDP and the Liberals.

Why?

Over the course of the 2012, the NDP and the Liberals will each be very busy. The former will choose a new leader. The latter will review, well, everything, as it prepares to choose a new leader in 2013.

However, there is a more important undercurrent to the efforts of both parties. As they move through their respective processes, the NDP and the Liberals will be taking big steps towards redefining what it means to be a progressive party in twenty-first century Canada.

Whether this redefinition results in two or only one progressive party remains to be seen. There will be plenty of time for a hard look at the need for and the likelihood of success of a merged party.

At this juncture, the more pressing need is for the progressive elements of the Canadian political landscape to take some time to do what, frankly, they failed to do properly over the past decade. Rather than lay out a credible and consistent vision of what a progressive party represents, both parties let the Conservatives do it for them.

That is not to say that the NDP and Liberals were silent. More that since 2006 they have been essentially on the back foot; reacting to the Conservatives' formidable communications regime.

The Liberals were the big losers in this game. However, the NDP's recent electoral success masks to an extent their own challenges. In many respects, their success was the result of Mr. Layton's appeal and the Liberal implosion.

Now, deprived of Mr. Layton the party has shown signs of drift at the very time its rookie caucus needs direction. Moreover, I would bet that few Canadians could tell you what an NDP government would look like. On a number of policy files this fall, the Liberals tended to play a more effective opposition role.

So, what to do...

To start, move away from the traditional left-right dichotomy and present a progressive vision for Canada. This vision needs to shift the dialogue such that progressive does not become a new way of saying left.

Rather, progressive needs to be defined as being about balance; about carefully and openly considering the challenges and opportunities the country faces, and collaboratively developing solutions.

It should define what fiscal responsibility means in progressive politics. Progressive cannot be simply about opposing spending cuts or raising corporate taxes. It needs to represent a balanced approach to what is an legitimate issue.

Being progressive should also be about promoting a real dialogue about how priority policy areas (health, the economy, the environment, education and foreign policy) are inter-connected.

More often than not, policy options in these areas are presented as being independent of one another. They are not. Progressive politics should be about connecting the various policy threads and telling the story in a way that connects with the voter.

This doesn't mean playing down to the voter. On the contrary, the voter needs to be challenged to see the big picture and the options a government needs to consider.

In the end, progressive politics must stand for something which resonates with Canadians and which is credible. It has to move our policy dialogue away from absolutes and the tendency to see options as mutually exclusive. It has to be more than a default to the Conservatives.

So come on NDP and Liberals - give it some thought and show us what you've got. Canada is waiting.

Brace yourself, 2012 is coming...

In a couple of days time, 2011 will be done and dusted. A year that saw multiple elections will have passed and the #cdnpoli world (thank-you twitter!) will turn its attention towards 2012.

The coming year offers much for politics watchers across Canada. There is the NDP leadership race, the Liberal reinvention project, the advent of a new political party in Quebec, and more provincial elections (definitely in Alberta, possibly in Quebec).

For this politics watcher, however, the things to watch in 2012 will be on the policy front.

By the time MPs return, the Conservative majority will have seen or be very close to seeing its "bread and butter" pieces of legislation come into law. The gun registry will be scrapped, the crime bill passed, and the wheat board could well be on its was to being dismantled (depending on court challenges).

With these base issues addressed, the government will more meaningfully turn its attention towards the deficit; a focus which will tell us much about how the Prime Minister sees the role of government. Already we have seen glimpses of how Mr. Harper sees the future for this federation.

First, on the health care file (Paul Wells penned a nice piece on this recently), the offer tabled with the provinces to replace the soon-to-expire health accord shows a Prime Minister who sees little role for the federal government in health care (an area of provincial jurisdiction).

His position is that the provinces should be given reasonable and predictable means to deal with what is their responsibility. National standards or federal expectations as to how the money should be spent do not fit within his vision.

Second, in the area of tax policy the Prime Minister's focus on tax reduction (GST, personal, corporate) appears designed to limit the long-term ability of the federal government to act as an agent of change. The government that chooses to do so in the future must either cut spending in other areas, or raise taxes. It is akin to being painted into a fiscal corner.

So what does this tell us about 2012? In a March 2010 post I wrote the following:

"Maybe, just maybe, the crisis presented the government with an opportunity. An opportunity to get back to its core values and roots. A real chance to enact a change in the role of government."

This is where we stand today.

A world in economic turmoil, a structural deficit at home, and a government with the Parliamentary means to effect the changes they want. Freed from the shackles of a minority Parliament, the Conservative majority is now in a position to implement its vision for Canada. And whenever questioned, the government can now point to developments taking place in Europe and the U.S. as the justification for its actions.

Cue Budget 2012.

The next federal budget will be tabled in the coming months. In the run-up to this budget we have had the public Finance Committee pre-budget consultations and the not-so-public spending review occurring across government, which is being vetted by a a Cabinet committee.

The fruit of these exercises, and in particular the latter, will help frame a budget that will take another step along the road towards redefining the relationship between the Government of Canada and us.

Shouldn't we be talking about it?

***

Many have said that 2011 was the year that Mr. Harper got what he wanted. A majority was secured and the Liberals were knocked down to a level from which many feel they will not be able to climb.

My sense is that these accomplishments are seen by Mr. Harper as means to an end. I don't think these are the reasons that he has gotten out of bed each morning. What these accomplishments do is position him to redefine the role of the federal government in the lives of Canadians.

This is topic which can allow for many positions and varying points of argument. It is a great topic in that it strikes at a core question for any country - what do we expect of the governments we elect?

Yet it is a conversation we are not having. At best we play at the margins, or debate specific issues and not the broader policy thrust and how the pieces fit together. We need to do better in 2012.

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back

Parliament's winter break has begun and MPs have made their way back home. Unlike recent times, however, everyone has gone home knowing that regardless of whether they have been good or bad Santa will not be giving them a trip to the polls for the holidays.

Deprived of any election rumblings, politics watchers are left with the more traditional end-of-year retrospectives and report cards. And with the NDP and the Liberals going down the introspection road, any year-end review undoubtedly leads to the Conservatives and how their eight months with a "strong, stable majority" have played out.

From the view at A Guy Watching Politics, the assessment would read something like:

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back.

More than anything else, a majority is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to govern without the fear of an election, of course. But is also an opportunity to rise above short-term politics and tackle the challenge of governing. It is a chance to consider the challenges and opportunities the country faces and set a path forward. It is a time for leadership.

Unfortunately, the past eight months have given us only fleeting glances of a government seizing the real potential of these opportunities. Let's start with the positives.

Recognizing the regional land mines and, perhaps, learning from the F35 debacle, the government managed a very successful procurement programme for the navy. It was fair, hands-off and has won deserved plaudits. In these situations, some will always lament the decision. That the process has come out not just unscathed but commended is a sign of good policy.

The Supreme Court appointments offer another example of the government taking a measured approach to a sensitive topic. As is his prerogative, the Prime Minister chose from a list agreed upon by an all-party committee. There was no major shift to the right as many feared, and the process was more or less consistent with what we have come to expect in Canada.

So, some steps forward on the process side. The Libya mission is also a good example of the government being open and clear about its objectives and, essentially, being on the right side of the argument. The government has also stepped up its efforts on the international trade front.

This would all be well and good if it weren't for the steps backward...

The withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord and the general demeanour of the government on what is the defining (environmental) issue of the day is more than disappointing - it is a failure to take responsibility. Climate change is more than an environmental issue. It is a health issue, an economic issue, a transportation issue, and a foreign policy issue.

Yet Canada is now seen as a country that fails to take this issue seriously. We are seen as obstructionist and lacking vision. Our brand is weak and we are considered to be short-sighted (for failing to grasp the severity of the situation) and single-minded (for being so desperate to protect the oil sands).

In terms of policy here at home, we have been shown as similar lack of vision. A gun and crime agenda has been relentlessly pursued in the face of all evidence and experience which suggest it is misguided. Dollars which could be used to advance the lives of Canadians will instead be used on jails. The valuable data housed within the gun registry will be destroyed.

But beyond these areas, the real issue - the major step back - has been the inability of the government to hold in check its partisan impulses. Some examples:

- the Quebecor-driven and Conservative-lead attack on the CBC
- the increasing use of closure to kill debate
- the not-so-subtle criticism of the Parliamentary Budget Officer when his office questions the government
- the reprehensible tactics used in the riding of Mount Royal to promote the Conservative party

Too often it appears that we have a government which goes to great lengths to engender a dysfunctional tone in Parliament, for the sole purpose of using that tone as a justification to ignore Parliament and move forward without debate and accountability. And with a disjointed opposition there is nothing standing in the way.

***

Eight months in as a majority and the Conservatives have shown glimpses of good government. Unfortunately, they have also shown an inability (or unwillingness) to keep their more partisan instincts in place.

They remain less a government and more a party; fixated more on their opposition and their political base, and less on the issues of the day. This may be good for the Conservative Party, but Canada loses.

Doing the limbo under an already low bar

A lot has been said in recent days about the Conservative party's not-so-subtle campaign against Irwin Cotler in the riding of Mount Royal. To have the Government House Leader not only acknowledge the use of such tactics, but to go on and defend them has, as many have remarked, laid bare the depths to which our politics has fallen.

It is akin to setting the bar low, and then limboing under it. It takes a freakish skill and you can't care how you look. In this case, it is the Conservative government which has stepped up and responded to the challenge "how low can you go?"

To say that this is unfortunate is an understatement. We are seven months into a majority mandate, and for the first time since 2006 the "election around the corner" has been pushed to the back of our political minds. Or at least we hoped it had.

Rather than embark on the business of governing, stay above the fray, and do their job while the two main opposition parties turn inwards as they look for new leadership, the Conservative government has remained in their perpetual campaign mode. Sometimes it seems like they just can't help themselves.

Political stability should have brought a levelling off of the constant campaigning. It should have brought responsible government and meaningful opposition. And it should have brought debate, particularly on the more pressing issues of the day (hint - this does not mean prisons or the gun registry).

Unfortunately it has brought us very little of these things. What it has brought us is a vicious circle. Each week that we are subjected to events like those in the riding of Mount Royal sadly reinforces for many a sense that Parliament doesn't work and that there is no point to being engaged.

Rather than act as a lightning rod or a catalyst, these events simply accelerate the lack of engagement in our politics. People are tuning out, and there is no imminent election or stability among the opposition to grab their attention.

In this environment, Canada loses.

***

Political tactics and constant campaigning are undermining the already shaky foundations on which our belief in Parliament stands. We need to not only expect better; we must demand it.

Unfortunately letting someone know that this is not acceptable cannot be done by turning one's back. Improper actions should result in greater scrutiny, not less. If your concerns fall on deaf ears, talk louder.

There might not be an election around the corner, but some 308 people are in a 4-5 year job interview. And you are in charge of hiring. Don't let them forget.

(Somewhat, kind of) Ethical Oil?

This morning I awoke to find a fair bit of chatter on Twitter among the #cdnpoli crew about "ethical oil." The catalyst for the discussion was this excellent article in the Edmonton Journal by Trish Audette.

Reading the article got me thinking more about whether proponents of the ethical oil argument were being too limited in their definition of the word ethical.

At its heart, the word ethical relates to morals and principles which are commonly held. In effect, it speaks to the notion of right and wrong.

The ethical oil camp has rightly suggested that democratic principles, the treatment of women and broader support for human rights are areas where "ethical distinctions" can be made between states. So far so good.

However, their definition of ethical seems to suggest that environmental issues are secondary to notions of conflict and human rights; that environmental "rights and wrongs" do not warrant equal consideration when we ask ourselves whether the oil sands are ethical.

This is the same type of limited thinking that is used when one is asked to make a choice between jobs and the environment. The argument often boils down to "well, dealing with climate change will kill jobs." It is a form of mutual exclusivity which has thus far impeded real action on what is a global challenge.

If defined more broadly, the concept of ethical oil can serve as a useful guide to influence decision-making - by governments, businesses, and consumers. What is needed is a definition which is not designed to reach a specific conclusion; something which the current one often seems intended to do.

For Canadians to participate in this debate, we should strive for a definition which takes a balanced look at what ethical means in the context of an increasingly integrated 21st century society. One which equally considers rights, security, democracy, health, environmental footprint and climate change.

Until we come up with that definition, we should use caution when we describe our oil sands production as ethical. "Somewhat, kind of, ethical oil" might make more sense.