(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.

The long, slow death of Parliament

The end of 2011 will bring to a close a year during which the theme of death seemed to come up in our political discourse with increasing frequency. Whether it has been real death (the tragic passing of Mr. Layton), apparent death (the fall of the federal Liberals), or policy death (party subsidies, the wheat board) the concept of demise has been prevalent.

As we look towards 2012, the question I find myself asking is whether Parliament's obituary will be the next one written.

A lot of ink has been spilled and characters typed over the past several years about the decline of Parliament. Many chart the beginning of the decline to the centralization of decision-making in the Prime Minister's Office under Mr. Trudeau - something which continued through successive governments.

However, since 2006 this decline has accelerated. Minority Harper governments resulted in greater centralization in order to ensure consistency in messaging. It became increasingly about control.

At the same time, prorogation was used as a tool of convenience; a means of cutting off Parliamentary debate in order to avoid accountability. It was used first to avoid a confidence vote and a year later to avoid debate on the disclosure of documents. Finally, weak opposition and fears about elections exacerbated the problem as parties opted to bicker rather than debate.

These developments on their own are worrying enough. Unfortunately, there is more.

The standard of debate in Parliament has also been declining, and again the pace of that decline has accelerated. To anyone watching, the spectacle that has become our democracy is off-putting to say the least.

Obfuscation has been taken to new levels, insults are used with more vigour and intent, and personal attacks are no longer surprising anyone. All the while, real debate on the very important issues of the day doesn't take place.

And here's the thing. I don't think the government minds this decline at all.

In recent years, the Harper government has mastered the art of talking over Parliament. An argument can be made that the government made frequent efforts to circumvent it, and then used the resulting dysfunction as part of their pitch for a majority. Well they have that majority now and things have only gotten more toxic.

Using the argument of an electoral mandate, the government is doing all it can to push through its legislative agenda. However, this argument ignores the fact that the majority of Canadians chose other parties - a reality the Conservatives would be quick to point out should the situation be reversed.

So the vicious cycle continues with the opposition getting more desperate, the government taking greater license, and the institution looking less and less relevant as more and more decisions are taken and implemented far from its glaze.

***

This year our politics has seen tragic death in Mr. Layton's passing, and apparent death in the Liberal's fall. Are we also witnessing Parliament's death?

Every day that a Parliament does not work is a day a government can avoid accountability. This is what we are seeing today. Canadians need to reflect on Parliament's decline and ask themselves whether this is in their interest.

Role Reversal

Once upon a time there was a majority government that was prone to episodes of arrogance, and which would frequently demonize its opponents. When necessary, hardline tactics were used to end debate. They could be ruthless when necessary, capitalizing on the missteps of their opponents to secure victory.

At the same time there was an opposition. A collection of MPs, many of which shared similar views even if they did not share the same party affiliation. They were spirited, divided and frustrated. They did not consistently give the appearance of being a government in waiting.

This was the scene a decade ago. The government was Liberal and the opposition was the divided right (along with the NDP and the Bloc).

Fast forward ten years and the roles have been reversed.

The Conservatives are united and have their majority. They are a government which regularly faces accusations of arrogance and fear-mongering.

The progressive vote is now very much divided, with the NDP as the official Opposition and the Liberals trying to define themselves. Looking at the front benches of either, one struggles to see the makings of a full Cabinet.

While there are obvious differences to between the two eras, there are nevertheless interesting parallels that can be drawn - particularly for the opposition. I am going to focus on two: the pressure to merge; and the opportunity to influence.

1. The pressure to merge

In the late 1990s and into the early 2000s, there was growing pressure for the parties of the right to merge. In the end, it took three things to make it happen. Mr Harper's leadership (with Mr. Mackay's acquiescence), the push from the conservative establishment, and the fear over what a (pre-sponsorship scandal) Martin government would do to the right in an election.

Looking at things today and we do not see the same pressure points, yet. Permanent leadership among the NDP and Liberals is needed for a real dialogue to occur. The absence of the election around the corner also means that the parties are not feeling that same level of fear Conservatives had when it was widely assumed Martin would take power and immediately seek his own mandate.

Finally, the progressive vote is only now starting to see what a Conservative majority looks like. Over the next 12-24 months - and two budgets - the answer to the question "what will a Harper majority look like" will be answered. Depending on that answer, the progressives may start to see greater impetus to merge.

2. The opportunity to influence

During the late 1990s, the conservative right gradually came to have some influence on policy. Deficit reduction and clarity act are the two big examples where their influence could be seen.

This is not to say that they drove these policies or exacted them out of the government. However, the fact that views they were expressing were shared by many Canadians helped move the Liberal government to act. Put another way, they were on the right side of the argument. This had the effect of allowing more Canadians to see the right as being able and ready to govern.

Looking at things today, the progressive opposition would do well to find similar such opportunities to get on the right side of the argument. They need to develop cogent positions which mirror the public mood and try to influence.

The first opportunity will come over the coming months as the government prepares what promises to be an austerity budget. This budget (and the next) will introduce sharp contrasts between the conservative and progressive views on the role of government. In other words, there is a great opportunity to do more than oppose - they can present an alternative.

***

The Conservative government isn't going anywhere for the next few years, and are well-positioned for the next decade. Those are the facts. However, the same could be said of the Liberals during much of their 13 years in power. The lesson - everything changes, so be prepared.

The progressive parties have time to prepare. Part of that preparation should include a meaningful discussion on merging. It should not be simply ruled out. They also need to use the coming months to start to develop policy positions which both reflect and influence how the public views the role of government.

In other words, they need to start down the path of looking like a viable alternative. It will take time, but it has to be done if they want to see roles reversed again.

Everything's changed and nothing is different

Taking a break can be instructive. You can learn a lot just by stepping back, and not getting so immersed in the things which typically hold so much of your attention. For me it was not about breaking out of the Ottawa bubble - after all, this is my home. No, it was more about stepping out of the politics watcher bubble.

Call it a personal prorogation.

It was needed. 2011 has been an intense year for a politics watcher. A federal election in the spring, and a series of provincial elections in the fall. Lots to watch and digest. Which brings me to today and where things stand on the federal stage.

Roughly eight months on from when the federal writ was dropped and everything has changed.

- A minority is now a majority, and the Conservatives have complete control over both houses of Parliament.

- The NDP has become the Official Opposition, but are now (tragically) leaderless.

- The Liberals have fallen to being the third party in Parliament, and are in the midst redefining themselves and finding permanent leadership.

- The Bloc is in the process of fading from memory.

I would bet that back in the spring when Mr. Harper asked for his strong, stable majority his wildest dreams would not have looked like things do today.

And yet re-emerging from my personal prorogation, it feels like nothing has changed.

Tone

The tone of our politics has continued its slide downwards. The hostility among MPs is on the rise, with personal attacks popping up with greater frequency. The government has looked smug and dismissive; the opposition desperate and frustrated.

The loser in their war of words? You, me, debate and public policy.

Parliament

Just when you thought Parliament could not look any less relevant to those outside the bubble, et voila. This is particularly frustrating.

Looking in from the outside, it often appears that many people worked tirelessly to get elected to Parliament for the sole purpose of showing that it can't work.

We have limited debate. Closure and other tactics are invoked quickly. MPs of all stripes continue to favour the embarrassment game in place of substance.

Policy

Whether it is a "tough on crime" approach that ignores all evidence that demonstrates it won't work, or a gun registry position that ignores the views of law enforcement in the name of the "base", the government insists on using its majority to play on the margins of what is significant and meaningful.

I get playing to the base - there is a time and place for it. It is part of politics. However, I am not certain this is the time. Particularly when I see what is happening in the world.

If ever there was a time to look like a government and not a party, this would be it. But this doesn't seem to be the case.

***

The federal election may have changed the landscape, but not the view. In many respects, it would appear that the Harper government got everything it wanted, so that it could do everything it was doing before.

If the stakes weren't so high, it would be laughable. Sadly, it is not.

Every day the world reminds us how interconnected we are, how fragile things can become, and how much more we accomplish when we work together. Canada and its politics need to heed this lesson.

My Apologies

Just wanted to post a quick note of apologies to those of you who follow me on Twitter (@PoliticWatcher). A virus that was going around "infected" my account and some people may have received direct messages from me. This message was not sent by me. I apologize for any inconvenience.

I have not posted in a couple of weeks, but plan to start up again shortly. If you have any ideas for posts or areas of interest, please let me know at politics.watcher@gmail.com.

A Guy Watching Politics

Plus ça change?

Earlier tonight Kathy Dunderdale was elected Premier in Newfoundland and Labrador. Her victory brings an end to the fourth provincial campaign to take place this fall. Already, we have seen voters in P.E.I., Manitoba, Ontario and now the Rock head to the polls, with Saskatchewan to follow in November.

As we near the end of election season, I thought it was a good time to come back to an observation I made earlier following the federal election.

"The 2011 book on Canadian politics has two chapters. Chapter One was the May 2 federal election. Chapter Two will be the elections in those five provinces. Depending on the outcomes, Canada could look quite different by the end of the year."

Well, Chapter Two is nearly finished and in each case so far, the incumbent has been returned to power. The popularity of Premier Brad Wall suggests that he will also be successful in his bid to retain power. So what conclusions can we draw from these results?

To answer, let's go back to a couple of questions I asked in this post written as the provincial campaigns were about to begin.

1. Will the global economic environment affect the outcomes?

When considering this first question, look no further than Ontario. At the same time Ontario voters considered the choices in front of them, they were treated to nightly news stories on the U.S. economy and the sovereign debt crisis in the E.U.

They saw a world defined by instability; a reality which tends to drive people towards stability and what they know. Mr. McGuinty clearly benefitted from this anchor mentality. More to the point, he played to it and cast himself in the role of tried and true. Put another way, he made the global economy a core part of his message, where others perhaps were too insular.

Elsewhere, stability and consistently was also chosen. How much of this was down to people honestly feeling that the incumbent offered the best option versus "the devil you know" syndrome is open to debate.

2. Will we see a consolidation of conservatism in Canada, or will voters decide to elect an off-set to a federal Conservative government?

Looking at the results, it is fair to say that there has not been a major shift to the right in the provinces. Yes, Mr. Hudak increased the Conservative seat count in Ontario and held the Liberals to a minority. But for many his campaign is seen as an opportunity lost, given how poor the Liberals were looking right into the summer.

Outside of Ontario, Conservatives did more or less as expected. Some picked up a bit (P.E.I.), others lost a bit (Newfoundland and Labrador). No major shifts.

Perhaps the more important question concerns the left, and the vibrancy of the progressive vote. The results in the provinces thus far show an NDP that is holding strong (Manitoba) and gaining strength (Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador). The results also show a Liberal brand that, while tarnished, is not yet being painted with the same brush as their federal cousins.

In terms of whether those provinces that elected Liberal or NDP governments were electing "off-sets" to the federal Conservatives, I am inclined to say no with the exception perhaps being Ontario. I think the very open federal Conservative cheering/campaigning for Hudak was not received positively by voters and could have affected the results in some ridings.

***

So let's go back to the original suggestion - that depending on the outcomes, Canada could look quite different by the end of the year. Does it?

Yes, but not in an obvious way. The players are all more or less the same and the positions of each government are well-known. The difference lies in one principal area - stability.

At the federal level, the next election is no longer around the corner. The government has a majority and time on its side. That is a major change.

Majorities in the provinces (with one very strong minority) also point to stability and consistency. Of course we will have to wait and see what fate brings us in B.C. and Quebec when their turns come, but for the most part the table is set and we know who is coming to dinner.

So where does that leave us?

My hope is that stability and the recognition among our politicians that they are effectively stuck with one another for 4-5 years will act as a prompt for action.

- Action on the economy and how to navigate through a turbulent world.

- Action on health care and how to ensure our system adapts so that it can remain sustainable.

- Action on the environment and how to address the dangers climate change poses to our health, well-being and future.

We have a lot that needs attention and the implications could be far-reaching. All to say, ladies and gentlemen in Ottawa and the provincial capitals you may as well roll up your sleeves and start working. Together.

Talking Turnout on Thanksgiving

Here at A Guy Watching Politics, I still cling to the belief that possibly, perhaps, if there is nothing else to do, there are some people out there reading this blog. What can I say? I am a glass half-full kind of blogger...

With that in mind, I am putting out this open question and asking for your views:

Why is voter turnout so low?

Of course there is no single reason, so let me start the discussion with some observations based on a conversation I had on-line earlier today.

We are trapped in a vicious cycle; a dangerous chicken and egg scenario in which politicians are failing to offer us real choices and thoughtful options, and where we are disconnected from our politics and complacent about the challenges our society is facing.

The result? We only superficially (if at all) see the real challenges and opportunities we face raised during elections. And no one offers more because we do not demand it.

In good times, this would be disappointing and frustrating. Today it can be dangerous. The interest to engage and the willingness to present real policy options are "muscles" that need to be consistently worked and exercised.

My concern is that as move through what promises to be a very tumultuous period, we will do from a position of weakness. We have switched off from politics at the very time our presence is needed. And our political parties have failed to put real (and possibly difficult) choices on the table at the very time we need to think differently.

- We have allowed ourselves to be governed with an eye to the election around the corner, elevating short-term electoral considerations at the expense of long-term policy debate.

- We have allowed real policy options like tax increases or spending cuts to be stigmatized, and as a result further polarized our politics into "us versus them" camps.

What are we going to do about it? The responsibility for arresting this slide rests with all of us. Politicians, the bureaucracy, the media and the public all have a role to play in changing how Canadians engage.

Electoral reform and greater use of technology or social media are important. But before we get wrapped up in changing how we vote, perhaps we should take a step back and ask ourselves how we can give greater visibility to the issues on which we should be voting.

***

So, over to you reader(s). What do you think about the state of our engagement? Why is turnout so low, and what can we do about it? Share your views; let's talk turnout.

Election Reflections

Well there you have it, Ontario. The election is over and the results are in. A minority Liberal government has been tasked with navigating the province through what promises to be tumultuous times.

Having followed the campaign for the past several weeks, I wanted to share with you my take on the results and what it all could mean. Ready?

1. The Liberals (part 1)

For most of this year, the Liberals were expected to lose. More to the point, they were there for the taking. Ontario voters appeared to express a desire for change and the government looked tired. And yet, they survived - albeit with a minority.

A lot has been written over the past week about how the PC's dropped the ball and squandered their chance (see below for more on the Hudak campaingn). However, to focus solely on that aspect takes away from what must be seen as a very well-run Liberal campaign.

- they presented a vision
- they stayed on message
- they did not shy away from their record
- they recognized that voters had begun to move away from the change story and towards one of stability

Taken together, this approach gave voters a clear sense as to what to expect from the government. They provided clarity at a time when so much around us in constant flux. Yes, they lost seats and were moved into a minority position, but I bet if you asked any Liberal in June whether they would be happy with such a result, they would have said yes.

2. The Liberals (part 2)

After the champagne and victory speeches, some Liberals will be looking at these results and wondering if history is repeating itself. For all of the talk about preventing the conservative hat-trick, the Liberals should be a little worried about the map and where they see their support coming from.

Like their federal cousins, the Ontario Liberals are becoming an urban party dependant on the big cities for electoral success. They are in danger of slowly getting hemmed in, ceding more and more of the province to their rivals. All it takes is a scandal, a stuttering economy or some other event to tilt things against them. Watch this space.

3. The Progressive Conservatives

On any other day, someone who in their first campaign as leader increased his party's seat total and limited his principal opponent to a minority would be celebrated. Not so for Mr. Hudak.

The PC party ran a bad campaign, there is no way around it.

- they took themselves off message by making the first week about "foreign workers", a position which likely affected them in the 416 and 905 areas of the province
- they defined the election as a referendum on McGuinty, and did not spend equal time articulating what a PC government would look like
- they failed to appreciate how the dialogue on the global economy was affecting the voter

Of these three points, I believe the "we're not McGuinty" strategy was the most ill-advised. In employing it, they incorrectly assumed that simply by biding their time they could form the government; that they did not need to offer a vision.

Raise your hand if you can name three things a Hudak government would do. Exactly.

4. The NDP

The NDP increased their seat count and used the campaign to generate more exposure and awareness about their leader, Andrea Horwath. So far so good. And now they hold the balance of power, though with only one seat separating the Liberals from an outright majority the NDP position is not as consequential as say Jack Layton's when Paul Martin was PM.

That said, it will be interesting to see how the NDP plays their cards; where they decide to push and seek concessions in exchange for support. How they react to deficit reduction, environment policy, transportation policy will be interesting to watch.

5. The Voter

The low turnout was more than disappointing. It was wretched. Any reader of this blog will know that engagement by the voter is of tremendous importance to me. With so much happening in Ontario, Canada and around the world, one would hope that voters would see fit to take more interest.

Sadly, they did not.

Election fatigue likely played some part. However, seeing our Canadian complacency once again rear its ugly head reminded us of the need to consider how best to wake the Canadian voter and tune them into the issues such that they are prepared to get engaged.

6. The Harper Government

The federal Tories had far too much skin in the game in this campaign. They were visible, audible and clear about the result they wanted. And in the end they did not get it.

A federal government should never be so vocal and involved in a provincial campaign. It will be interesting to see how their not-too subtle cheering will affect relations between the Toronto and Ottawa.

The thing is, it was amateurish. They have to work with whoever wins, so why be so blatant as to your preference? It is persistent curiosity of mine; how can a party that is clearly very strategic and focused in so many areas remain so susceptible to such base partisanship? It's like they can't help themselves.

I half-joked on election night that a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance would resurrect the Tory "socialist" lines. Here's hoping I am wrong.

***

In August I wrote a piece on the upcoming provincial elections and the role the provinces would need to start playing as the de facto official opposition. That time starts now.

Ontario has stayed Liberal, as has PEI. Manitoba has stayed NDP and Newfoundland & Labrador will stay PC. The pieces on the board are getting in place so that everyone knows who they need to work with.

As the political landscape starts to settle, it is time for everyone to turn their attention towards governing; towards addressing the multitude of things on our public policy plate. There is a lot at stake and it goes beyond politics. I hope everyone is up for it.

Election Night in Ontario (just not on CBC)

We have waited a long time, but tomorrow night is nearly here. Old rivals squaring off against one another. One in red, the other in blue. Hope, intensity and a chance at glory. Yes Ontario politics watchers, tomorrow is election night!

Oh, yeah, and the NHL season also starts with the Habs versus the Leafs. Go Habs!

After a short official campaign and quite a long unofficial one, Ontario voters will go the polls tomorrow and, depending on which poll you are reading, will elect:

- a third straight Liberal majority; or
- a Liberal minority, with the NDP holding the balance of power; or
- a Progressive Conservative minority, with the NDP holding the balance of power; or
- a legislature where the two main parties having an equal number of seats, with the NDP opening a bidding war for their support.

I won't go into the differing polls here, but you can find some good analysis and perspective at 308.com. As the blog notes, with such wildly different projected outcomes there will surely be some pollsters looking a tad embarrassed come Friday morning.

Since I leave polls to the experts, I decided to relax this evening. However, as I prepared to sit back I was treated to one of those lovely, "only a political geek would appreciate this" moments. My phone rang and when I answered, I had a message from one of the Ottawa Liberal candidates inviting me to stay on the line for a live, "virtual town hall" with all Ottawa Liberal candidates, including Premier McGuinty.

Being A Guy Watching Politics, I was tempted to say "You had me at hello."

The call was a neat format. I was placed into the conference which was underway, and listened to Premier McGuinty finishing off a response to a question from a listener regarding seniors. I then heard remarks from the other Ottawa candidates, followed by listeners asking questions of the Premier (all questions were pre-screened - mine did not make the cut!).

I am not sure whether these had been done earlier in the campaign, or whether this was the first instance. I also don't know if the other parties had done something similar (if you know, please leave a comment).

What I do know is I quite liked it, and not just for the geekiness of it. The more interesting element for me was that for the most part there was very little commentary about why someone should not vote for the PCs or the NDP. Fear mongering was in relatively short supply. Instead I heard the candidates outlining their record as a government and their priorities going forward.

I found Mr. McGuinty's tone, in particular, to be very positive. It was calm, earnest and focused. Education was a recurring theme and to my ears he effectively used personal anecdotes to make his remarks less like a sound bite and more like a conversation.

So, did the Liberals finally start reading A Guy Watching Politics and other blogs and commentaries which are demanding more from our political discourse? While I would love to say yes, the answer is likely no.

One argument to make is that what I heard were the final arguments of a party comfortable that the outcome will favour them. This was the tone and confidence of a front-runner.

Another perspective is that this was the tone of front runners here in the Ottawa ridings. The Liberals are confident here, and therefore could appear more positive and statesman-like.

What I don't know is whether other Liberal virtual towns have taken place tonight, and if so whether they took a different tone and were more confrontational and partisan. What would one in a 905 riding sounded like, for example?

If you know, please let me know. Otherwise, let's connect tomorrow and see what the voters bring us. Polls are open 9:00-9:00, with result coming when they close. Oh yeah, and CBC is carrying hockey.

The speech Ontario should hear, but won't...

As we enter the homestretch of this too-close-to-call provincial election, we find the Liberal, PC and NDP leaders spending their time criss-crossing the province. Whether they are in a riding they hope to steal or one they are trying to protect, the remarks now start to take on a familiar shape - final arguments.

Between now and election day, the leaders will each use that mountain of polling data they have collected to frame and make their final pitch to the voter. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, their respective pitches will be built around what they feel the voter wants to hear and not what they voter should hear.

A few days ago, Jeffrey Simpson wrote about the absence of hard truths in our campaigns; about the political reluctance to "tell it like it is." This is something that has been on my mind for some time, and which this campaign (and the federal one in May) has reinforced.

So with that in mind, I decided to write "The speech Ontario should hear, but won't..."

***

Hello ladies and gentleman, and thank-you for taking the time to be here today. Whether you are a supporter or someone still undecided, welcome to the last week of this campaign. Your campaign.

Let me say that again. Your campaign.

This is not, and should not, be about me getting elected or becoming Premier. This campaign is about the Ontario you want; the province you will charge the women and men standing for office with building.

It is a big responsibility, for sure. And it is a responsibility which deserves respect and honesty. Unfortunately, in a campaign these attributes - respect and honesty - often appear to be in short supply.

That changes today. Let me start with some three simple observations.

- the politician who says they have all the answers doesn't

- be wary of the campaign which spends more time telling you why not to vote for someone, and less time making their own case for your vote

- there is no easy fix to any of the challenges we are facing

With those three maxims in mind, consider the following three issues.

If the past few years have taught us anything, it is that we now live in a world defined by change and uncertainty. Ontario is part of a highly integrated global economy which is going through significant changes. Jobs have been lost and deficits have grown as governments attempted to stem the bleed and alleviate the damage.

While we are still trying to figure out what this economy looks like over the next 4 years, we can be certain of one thing: it will not look like it did before the 2008. If I told you that my party would return Ontario's economy to its "glory years", I would be lying. Or own a time machine.

The government you elect will not be tasked with bringing the old economy back. It will be tasked with reinventing our economy for the 21st century.

At the same time our economy is changing, we are seeing tremendous change in our society. We are getting older and living longer. This will place demands on our health care system which cannot be met based on our current model.

We need to have a serious discussion about the health care system we want, its costs and how we can fund it. This is not just a question of spending more - throwing dollars at health care is not a solution. It also misses the point that health care is as much about building a competitive economy as it is about building a healthy society. We need to talk about both.

The government you elect will not be tasked with protecting the health care system we have today. They will be tasked with starting a real dialogue about how to make health care (a) sustainable and (b) a competitive advantage.

We have a deficit. And it is large. As we look at what is happening around the world, we see markets which are increasingly unforgiving on those who live beyond their means. We cannot put Ontario in this position.

A large part of our deficit is related to the measures taken to protect Ontario over the past few years. But that is not the only reason we have a deficit. Health, education and social spending are big tickets. Energy and environment policy measures cost too.

What this means is that we can't simply grow ourselves out of deficit. We need to have a serious discussion about government spending. This can mean cuts. It can mean taxes. If I told you I had the answer, I would not be telling you the truth. What I can tell you is that it is not easy and we need to talk about it.

The government you elect cannot promise to eliminate the deficit without spending cuts or tax increases - the world is too uncertain. The government you will elect will be tasked with engaging the legislature and the public on how best to address the deficit.

There are more issues we could discuss, but the point I would make is the same. Governing is not about having all of the answers; it is about asking the right questions and then working with others to find answers to those questions. This is what I can commit to you. Asking those questions and then working collaboratively to find and implement the answers.

So when you walk towards that box on election day, ask yourself the following:

- whose questions are my questions?
- who has been honest with me about the tasks we face?
- who has told me why I should vote for them, versus telling me why not to vote for someone else?

October 6th is a few days away. It's your campaign. Vote.

***

More platitude than details, for sure. But the point I want to make is that we should expect more from those seeking our vote. We have real challenges which will require difficult decisions. This is not discussed in a campaign. And it should be discussed.

Speak your mind.