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.

Democracy...it's more than an inconvenience

The first of the debates scheduled for #elxn41 concluded last night, and this morning the papers, blogs and twittersphere are filled with commentary, reaction, spin and pronouncements about winners and losers.

Like many, I watched the debate and did not see anything that I thought would move a sizable number of votes one way or the other. Bases were shored up, though I am not sure much more occurred.

With this in mind, I opted against using today's post to prepare my own summary and instead want to focus on one of the discussion points that struck me.

Throughout the debate when topics such as Parliament, coalitions and the contempt finding were discussed, Mr. Harper conveyed what to me was essentially a tone of irritation. It was a consistent non-acceptance of the views expressed by the majority of the House of Commons.

"I don't accept these truths" was one of the lines used by Mr. Harper in response to points raised about the contempt finding. Not, "I don't agree" or "we have different views". "I don't accept."

Democracy is more than an inconvenience. It should not be portrayed as an irritant, or something that gets in your way. Yet this is basically what Mr. Harper was saying.

Democracy takes work and demands compromise. To function properly it requires information and transparency - they are like oxygen. Within our system of government the notions of accountability and responsibility are supposed to be paramount.

These principles are not meant to be a high standard we hope our leaders attain; they should be the bare minimum we accept from the people we elect to make decisions on our behalf, to spend our money, to commit our troops, to be stewards of the public trust, and to govern us.

I did not hear that last night from Mr. Harper. I heard irritation and a sense of being inconvenienced. I heard that he wants a majority so he doesn't have to be bothered or distracted from governing how he wants to govern.

He wants to do his job - fine. But he did not accept that the debate, dialogue and compromise so sorely lacking from our political process is a fundamental part of his job.

These are not "nice to haves", and are not impediments to managing an economy or considering how to provide sustainable health care. On the contrary, they are pre-requisites to governing.

I hope that this theme is picked up tonight in the second debate and in the commentary that follows over the remainder of the campaign, though I am not sure.

In expressing his views the way he did, Mr. Harper is counting on possible election-fatigue as being a factor for voters. He is also counting on voters seeing these things as "Ottawa issues" and not mainstreet issues.

Is he right? What are you prepared to accept?

The Election Around the Corner (or, how policy discussion is stifled in Canada)

We live in interesting times. Politicians, policy-makers and the public are being confronted with a veritable wealth of issues which warrant debate, dialogue and decisions. How we consider issues related to the economy, health, the environment, security and democracy will have more than an impact on the Canada of today; it will help shape the Canada of tomorrow.

So why aren't we having this dialogue in any meaningful way?

I blame an odd, made-in-Ottawa creation. A creature that is difficult to pin down, almost impossible to see, but incredibly influential. It's called "the election around the corner" and beware...it's killing the public policy discourse in this country.

Readers of this blog (yes, I still cling to the hope that we have actual readers) will recall that the absence of debate in Canada is a sore point with me. Too often, we see debate taking a backseat to the drive to create a wedge.

In the case of the government, this has meant using issues to ignite the base, support fund-raising and paint the opposition into corners. In the case of the opposition, it has meant looking for opportunities to embarrass the government or score quick political points without actually taking the time and effort to define themselves as a real alternative.

Why? Because everyone is fixated on the polls and the fact that the types of issues which we should be working together to address are not the types of issues that can be dealt with easily or quickly.

Put another way, long-term issues require thoughtful consideration, engagement and ultimately hard decisions - decisions which will inevitably anger as many people as they please. In other words, they are fraught with risk for the politician who knows that he or she may be knocking on doors in 6-8 weeks asking for a vote.

The focus on the election around the corner has resulted in more and more emphasis being placed on issues management and communications. Policy development, by comparison, has taken a backseat unless it can be demonstrated that it will either put the opposition in an awkward position (if you are government), or if it will be seen to be contrary to the latest controversial position taken by the government (if you are in opposition).

So instead of substantive debate we get, "Did you know that the Liberal-NDP-Separatist coalition favours putting people in jail if they don't fill out a census form?" Or, "Did you know that a Cabinet Minister may quit and work at a law firm - does that sound right to you?" Climate change versus Jaffer-Guergis; health care versus renovations on the Hill; the economy of the 21st century versus the gun registry. Sadly, were the winners ever in doubt?

Now some people will say, "Welcome to politics. What did you expect?" I appreciate this view, but only to a point. There are far too many important issues at play these days for us to simply accept that this is what politics should be about. This is where the electorate comes into play.

An engaged and informed citizenry is fundamental to an effective and functioning democracy. If we want to change the tone on the Hill or shift the focus towards those issues which truly will shape the Canada of tomorrow, we need to be engaged and we need to set a different level of expectation for our politicians. Are we prepared to do this? I hope so.

Interestingly, the polls have not moved in any meaningful way since 2006. Think about that for a moment. In five years public opinion has not shifted significantly in one direction or another. The focus on the election around the corner has more or less...kept everyone where they are. Perhaps there's a message in there...

This public policy message was brought to you by A Guy Watching Politics. On a Friday night. Sad, I know.

Thoughts?