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.

Missing Links

So far in this election, Ontario voters have been treated to a series of policy pronouncements and talking points which break the campaign down into a series of issues. Every party does it, and with good reason.

As noted in my last post on the forgotten voter, each party has spent considerable time and resources identifying what it thinks will be the election strategy that offers the best chance of success. The result is a campaign which is focused on key voter groups and ridings.

Of course in such a short campaign, this makes sense. At some point, one needs to be targeted. And on one level, I suspect that voters have a certain amount of respect for a focused campaign. The party which employs a "spray and pray" approach is inevitably caught out. In the end the voter can always spot a flailing party that tries too desperately to be all things to all people.

The need to focus should not, however, excuse our prospective leaders from the importance of tying the various issues together and making what I see are some important linkages in our public policy.

As an example, health care is not a "stand alone" issue, nor is it simply about social policy. It is an economic issue as much as it is a social one - perhaps more so. In order for a society to prosper, it needs a healthy, fit and active population. Health care has as much to do with productivity, innovation and economic well-being as does tax policy.

Yet when we hear health care being debated it is too often dominated by questions of cost and whether we can afford the system we have. These are important questions, but they should not be the only ones.

Transportation policy is another area where we should expect better. In this case, it is not that the other dimensions are ignored; rather, we seem to have hived transportation policy into a series of separate and distinct conversations - about cost, or about urban planning, or the environment. The party which is best able to link these elements into a cohesive, plausible narrative is the one which will get my attention.

Better progress is being made on the question of the environment, where parties - particularly the Liberals and the NDP - are more eager to link addressing issues like climate change to the opportunity of building a green economy. They have done so, in part, to blunt the criticisms that addressing climate change will cost jobs. Still, at least the broader linkages between the environment and the economy are being discussed (albeit for defensive reasons).

Education is probably the one area where parties have been successfully able to draw a broader picture, for obvious reasons. The linkages between education and employment and prosperity have been drilled into all of us since we were children. When politicians say that education is the silver bullet we get it, even if we don't hold them truly accountable for the need for change.

***

Too often during a campaign our engagement is in 2D. Issues are presented in a very linear manner, broken down into what appear to be simple causalities when in fact they are not. It is all very flat and if you look closely you come away with a feeling that something is missing.

In reality, policy discussions in areas like health care, transportation and the environment should be in 3D. They should strive to present a broader perspective on the issue and how the different elements come together.

The interdependence between the various areas of public policy needs to be presented so that voters can consider the bigger picture and make decisions which see Ontario for what it is - the sum of its parts. For this to happen, we need to demand it. We need to be engaged and let those looking for our vote know that this is what we expect.

Caution, may cause dizziness

We are now into week two of the Ontario election and you can start to see how each party is trying to shape the narrative and define for the voter the infamous ballot box question. As party leaders fan out across the province, they do so armed with speeches and talking points which have one simple objective - define the election on their terms.

Sounds like a good time to pause and consider this further. So let me start with the following observations...

1. Dalton McGuinty does not spend every waking moment coming up with ideas about how to tax Ontarians or take jobs away from those born here.

2. Tim Hudak does not define success by killing health care, laying off teachers or turning the environment into a permanent greenhouse.

3. Andrea Horwath does not have the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto tattooed on her arm, and is not looking to nationalize everything.

Yet, obvious exaggerations aside, these types of suggestions are often what we tend to hear as leaders and spin doctors try and shape a narrative for the voter. Why?

To start, each party has its core support; those that will consistently vote for them. These voters not only need to "hear themselves" reflected in the comments of the candidates, they also need to have their worst fears articulated for them. Like it or not, this will help a party mobilize their voters on election day - a key driver of success.

A second observation is that core support is not enough to take any party to victory. This means that in order to win, a party needs to pick votes from their opponents (difficult and therefore not a huge source of support), or convince a good portion of the undecided block of essentially centrist voters to vote for them (a potentially rich and decisive source of support).

How does one do this? Make yourself appear safe and your opponents...not so much. Put another way, parties are always looking for a wedge issue. They want to hit upon something that brings them closer to a voter while at the same time driving their opponent(s) further away.

The "tax incentive for hiring immigrants" versus "taxpayer dollars to hire foreign workers" is an interesting example of two parties trying to use the same issue as a wedge. The PCs jumped upon this Liberal platform commitment and have tried to frame it in a way that drives middle-class voters worried about their jobs to the PCs.

The Liberals (after adding more precision to their policy) jumped on the PC reaction in a way that attempts to frame the PCs as anti-immigrant - a key demographic in Ontario's urban centres.

It's too early to tell whether either approach will be successful, though watching to see which party persists with their message and which one moves on will give some sense as to what internal polling is telling them about their likely success.

Something worth considering is the fact that in many respects, the parties do not differ from one another on the big issues in a hugely significant way. When you consider this and then factor in the realization that in order to achieve success the parties are all essentially going after the same block of votes, you can see the importance of making sharp distinctions.

***

In the coming weeks, Ontarians will be bombarded with all manner of spin and argument - again. It happened last fall with the municipal elections, in the spring with the federal election and now today with the provincial election.

As you consider all that is thrown your way and start to feel dizzy, move beyond the spin. Make this election about more than what is suggested to you. Make it about what is important to you.

Speak your mind.

Pick me, I'm not him! Pick me, I'm not them!

While the unofficial Ontario election has been underway for some time, the official kick-off will come this week when the writ is dropped. However, for a campaign yet to begin we already know a fair bit about the narratives that are being drawn.

- For the governing Liberals, it's about continuity and experience, with a platform built around families.

- For the poll-leading Tories, it's about the need for a change in leadership, with a platform built around families.

- For the NDP, it's about breaking out of the Liberal-Tory axis and embracing a third way, with a platform built around families.

Spot any trends?

We have known for some time that the Hudak Tories will want to make this election a referendum on Dalton McGuinty's leadership. This focus on McGuinty and the question of trust (e.g. the surprise "health tax") will be complemented by policy proposals which could be considered "safe". Having seen how the schools issue hampered John Tory, Mr. Hudak will want to stick closely to the middle.

Mr. McGuinty will also want to make it about leadership, focusing on his experience as Premier and Mr. Hudak's past as part of the Harris government's common sense revolution. He will argue that Ontario needs an experienced leader to continue the province's transition out of the economic crisis, and to strike the right balance between economic demands and social policy challenges.

For her part, Ms. Horwath is hoping to present voters with a "third way". Drawing on the federal NDP's tactics, she will position her opponents as the status quo; as two sides of the same coin offering the same, tired politics.

So we have Mr. Hudak focused on the Liberals and saying "pick me, I'm not him." Mr. McGuinty is focused on the Tories and saying "pick me, I'm not him." Meanwhile, Ms. Horwath is looking at both of them and saying to the voter, "pick me, I'm not them."

So what will be it be Ontario? Is this enough to pull your vote in one direction or the other? I hope not. Over the coming weeks, we should be expecting to hear more from each of the parties looking for our vote. Some examples:

1. What will Ontario's position be when it enters into discussions with the federal government on a new health accord? Will it be purely about the need for cash, or will we get more clarity about how that cash would be spent? What are the priorities?

2. The economic landscape of Ontario has changed, such that we are no longer a "have province." With an eroded manufacturing sector, what are the priorities for re-building and re-focusing the economy? A government does not "create jobs", but it does create the conditions for those who do. What's the plan?

3. The HST. Following events in British Columbia, this could be a bigger issue than we might think. Like it or not, the leaders will need to clearly spell out their positions on the tax.

4. The environment, and in particular how to balance economic recovery with the climate change challenge. Doing nothing has a cost. Doing something has a cost. We need a good debate.

5. The deficit. At $14 billion and counting, we need a conversation about the deficit. If no one is planning on raising taxes, it can only be meaningfully tackled through reductions in expenditures (even accounting for higher tax revenues as the economy grows). What is the plan?

All to say, there is more than enough to discuss. We have province-wide issues, such as the ones above. We also have niche-issues in key areas - transportation in the GTA, being a big one.

Week one will not surprisingly be more focused on message, spin and efforts to define the campaign. This is normal course. Following that, however, we should see more debate. Frankly, we need it. Why?

It has to be more than "Pick me, I'm not him! Pick me, I'm not them!"

Cloud Watching and the Ontario Election

As I look ahead to the Ontario election, I decided to look back and see what's been said. My first stop happened to be a speech given by Tim Hudak, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. The speech was given in response to the last provincial budget, and was entitled "Families Need Tax Relief."

After listening to the video, I decided to do something different. Rather than simply write what I thought about the speech, I created this tag cloud based on the words used throughout.

Looking at the words and the frequency with which they are used, you can see the shape of the Tory narrative and the ballot box question they are trying to frame for Ontario voters. Their goal is simple - define the election around Mr. McGuinty and the perceived "cost" of another Liberal government.

Unfortunately, little is provided of substance or note around what a Hudak government would mean for the voter. He mentions his name once, and the PC party only a couple of times. Policy options are in short supply save for the traditional commitments to drop unpopular initiatives (smart meters) and vague generalities around reviewing programs.

It is not surprising, safe and typical. Unfortunately it does little to help the voter consider the choices in front of them.

I am hopeful that all parties can do better over the next 8 weeks or so. Thoughts?

Speak Your Mind!

This past spring, Canada essentially got its first social media election under its belt with #elxn41. Now, with fall election season fast approaching in a number of provinces the Toronto Star is teaming up with Atomic Reach to launch Speak Your Mind, a forum for commentary, debate and conversation around the key topics driving the fall Ontario election.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1037239--letter-from-the-editor-be-a-star-election-community-correspondent

I think this is a great initiative and one in which I will be participating. Here at A Guy Watching Politics, the focus has always been on using social media to promote a dialogue on the issues; to offer perspectives and share. The objective is simple - promoting greater engagement.

Not surprisingly, Speak Your Mind is right up our alley! I will be linking any posts I prepare on the Ontario election into their site. Take a look. Read, share, participate.

How we respond to the challenges and opportunities in front of us will go a long way towards defining the Ontario of tomorrow. The first step in responding is getting engaged. Let's start...

Breaking off the engagement?

The results of #elxn41 and the relative political stability that will result for at least the next four years have started me thinking about what this means for our political engagement. Are we in danger of taking a step backwards; of slipping into old habits?

During the campaign I posted this piece describing what I called "The Curious Case of Canadian Complacency":

http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2011/04/curious-case-of-canadian-complacency.html.

After discussing what I saw as some of the root causes of our complacency, I concluded with the following:

Today, one week before an election that will one way or the other shape how we view government, what are we going to do about it? Are we prepared to remain complacent? Or are we ready to step forward and become more active participants in our democracy? ... The atrophy of complacency or the momentum that flows from engagement? It is our decision.

Fast forward to today and we are in a post-elxn world with a government that not only has a strong majority in both the House and Senate, but which is also well-positioned for political dominance for a decade. My worry is that this stability will lull Canadians back into their political comfort zone - complacency.

More to point, we risk falling further back into this mode at the very time the opposite is required.

Any reader of this blog will be familiar with my concerns about the degree to which we are not engaged on the issues facing Canada - both the challenges and the opportunities. Even when we are engaged, it is often on the sensational (political scandal) or it is fleeting (the long-form census, the contempt issue).

The question I am asking is whether the "strong, stable majority" provided to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives was, in part, Canadians' way of saying "enough already - just get on with it." Put another way, did we vote for stability at the expense of engagement?

While I am concerned we may have voted this way, I nevertheless believe that the decisions that the government is going to be forced to make - on the economy, health care, the environment, security, innovation and education are of the type that Canadians may find difficult to ignore. But to truly get us engaged, we may need more:

1. We need credible policy alternatives. There are any number of ways we can address the challenges and opportunities before us. Canadians need to be better exposed to the credible options available to their government, and not just the preferred. Engagement requires choice.

2. We need credible government alternatives. The ineffectiveness of the Liberals and concerns about the NDP have made the Conservatives a default for many Canadians. In addition to needing to be exposed to different policy options, we need to have more confidence that there is more than one party which can govern the country. This does not exist today. Again, engagement requires choice.

3. We need information and transparency - they are vital to debate and dialogue. As noted in my recent post on the deficit and cost-cutting, the government wants to cut spending and has set a target, but has not been clear about on what basis cuts will be considered. Not knowing the criteria makes it difficult to become engaged on the objective. This is just one example of a lack of transparency in our government. We have an information-deficit in government that is just as in need of addressing as our fiscal deficit.

***

Will the combined effect of political stability and a naturally complacent citizenry result in a further dis-engagement from our politics? I hope not.

Interestingly, I read today that Iceland is crowd-sourcing its constitution via social media - throwing it open to citizens for their views on how a country ravaged by the financial crisis wants to be governed in the future. While one might expect a lot of extreme views, the sense thus far has been that some very reasoned and informed ideas have been offered up. That's engagement.

Will our governments ever be so bold? Will we ever be ready to jump at the chance?

What do you think?

The Curious Case of Canadian Complacency

This time next week, Canadian politics watchers will be sitting through their version of the Oscars or the Super Bowl. Yes, it will be election night and at the end of it we will know who won, by how much, who's in and who's out. We will then inevitably shift the the conversation towards asking "now what?"

With an eye towards the dust settling on #elxn41, I have found myself thinking about the notion of complacency and the impact it is having on our politics. This is not a new thought for me, but I think that events during this campaign and in fact in the months preceding it have given it fresh life in my thinking about the challenges we face in Canada.

Simply put, complacency is challenge number one. If we do not (a) understand it and (b) address it, then we are limiting our ability as a country to address all of the other challenges on the national list. And if we fail to re-set our levels of engagement, we will never truly be able to seize the opportunities in front of us.

The first question I ask myself is "why are we the way we are?" From where does our complacency originate? I have a couple of observations.

First, I believe in Canada we suffer from a form of economic complacency. Geography dealt us a strong hand. We have an abundance of natural wealth - historical wealth (lumber, fish, minerals) and future-oriented wealth (energy, potash). Geography has also graced Canada by virtue of our proximity to the U.S.

This good fortune has pre-disposed the country towards having a resource-based economy. It also contributed to the growth of a branch-plant economy which benefitted from the risks taken by others and by their entrepreneurial mind set.

I don't mean to suggest that we have succeeded or prospered by accident or without effort. Quite the contrary - our history has many stories of enterprise and vision.

However, I do think that as a country we have been content to reap the benefits of our geography when we could have done more to invest in them. We've done well, but we could have done so much better. A Canadian parable of the talents, if you will.

Second, I believe we suffer from political complacency. We believe in government, but don't hold it to account. We know what we want, but assume someone else will figure out how to deliver it. Our lack of understanding about how our system of government works has been laid bare in the past 18 months - sadly, at the very time such understanding is genuinely needed.

Why? I think there are a few reasons.

The dominance of majority governments - particularly through most of the 70s, all of the 80s and and 90s and the first half of the 21st century - has given Canadians the "luxury" of not needing to focus on what happens in Ottawa in the periods between elections. Yes, the noteworthy items (free trade, national unity) drew the requisite attention, but stability and predictability meant we did not need to be as engaged. We did not need to understand the system under which we are governed.

We also have an approach to policy in Canada which, while perhaps appropriate, can also be mind-numbing. The American theorist Charles Lindblom called it the "science of muddling through" and what he meant is that policy is typically made incrementally, in small steps. It is endlessly worked and re-worked.

This has been the Canadian model. Slow, reasoned, cautious? Yes. But engaging? No. This approach can work when one has a sense of destination or a vision. Whatever you want to say about the U.S., there is a strong sense of America.

However, in Canada I think we have incrementalism without the vision; without the sense of purpose. We have failed to tie the various policy streams together under a shared sense of what it means to Canada.

So what do we have?

Prosperity driven by geography, political stability, and an incremental approach to policy that lacks vision and common purpose. Taken together, I believe these characteristics have engendered a complacency mind set in Canada. I think they have shaped our levels of engagement, affected our see on the role of government, and limited our sense of the role we can and should play in our democracy.

Today, one week before an election that will one way or the other shape how we view government, what are we going to do about it? Are we prepared to remain complacent? Or are we ready to step forward and become more active participants in our democracy?

The atrophy of complacency or the momentum that flows from engagement? It is our decision.

How's the view (from outside the bubble)?

Having spent a few days outside of Ottawa I've had an opportunity to hear what people are saying - what they think about the election and the various campaigns so far. My take is that this election is a non-event for many.

Why do I say this? First, getting people to share their views on the election has been akin to pulling teeth. "It's not something I have thought about..." has been a familiar refrain.

Second, for those that have thought about it the sense is often one of apathy. For these people, the refrain tends to be "what does it matter what I think, nothing changes." The people in these first two camps have tended to represent the majority of the views I have heard.

For a guy watching politics, this can be depressing stuff. It shows a lack of engagement and interest in an election which could, depending on its outcome, have a major impact on a range of issues which I believe these are people are concerned about or in which they will have a fair degree of interest.

For the parties, this type of view also favours one person: Mr. Harper. A lack of engagement means a lack of interest in change. It means that the criticisms leveled at the government have not resonated.

That's the "above the fold" story. What about "below the fold?" First, the NDP story that is dominating the national political discourse does not appear to be playing out on the ground in London. While there is one NDP incumbent, don't count on any other candidates joining caucus.

Second, Mr. Ignatieff as a person does not appear to resonate with many voters, even when his policies do. I have had Conservative attack lines about Mr. Ignatieff "being in it for himself" recited to me by decided Liberal voters. This is not a positive sign for the Liberals.

Third, there are people who understand the opposition refrain about Mr. Harper and his approach to politics and democracy. However, they appear prepared to look past this and give him the nod due to concerns with the alternative.

So after a few days outside of the bubble of Ottawa, my take is that the majority of people here are not seized by this election or by any of the narratives being presented to them. This bodes well for Mr. Harper, but perhaps not well-enough to deliver him what he covets most - a majority.

At least you have your health...

With a little more than two weeks to go before voting day, the issue of health care has been generating more and more attention. This should not be surprising.

- Health care has remained near or at the top of the list of issues Canadians have deemed the most important to them.

- At a time where government austerity of some sort is going to be needed to address the deficit, how government spending on health care might be affected is a topic that needs to be on the table.

- With two weeks to go and the Conservatives still polling strongly, the Opposition parties will look to tap into public concerns about health care and possible funding cuts to gain support.

Let me start with the following observation: it should not take an election to prompt discussion of our health care system, how it is funded and the upcoming challenges we are facing.

This is already the single largest draw on provincial revenues. And transfers to the provinces from the federal government related to health care represent the largest share of government transfers.

Canadians value it. Provinces are responsible for it. All governments pay for it.

Add to that the demographic realities we are facing and the only surprise is that it took nearly three weeks for health care to "rise up" to the top of list of issues being discussed in #elxn41. Yet there it is, featuring in attack ads and duelling talking points and tweets. Here are some of my thoughts.

1. I would start by noting that the Health Accord - the agreement struck between the Martin Liberal government and the provinces - will expire in 2014. As I noted in a blog post last year, if you thought saving GM and Chrysler were expensive wait until the bill comes in for the next iteration of this accord.

The fact that this Accord is: (a) soon to expire; and (b) the big ticket of big ticket items was apparently not sufficient for it to feature prominently in the platforms of the Conservatives and Liberals. As a result, we have seen the parties simply reaffirm their commitment to the Accord and its funding during scrums. As Andrew Coyne has noted, we are essentially making policy on the fly.

While I favour a commitment to funding, I have to admit that I am dismayed by the lack of discussion about how Canada is going to address the challenges demographics will present to our system. In effect, we are committing funding without having really discussed the demand, the needs of tomorrow. This is not the best way to make policy, and all parties are guilty of going down this path.

2. Despite this being identified as their most important issue, I am not sure Canadians really understand how the system works and how it is funded. In a 2009 posting on this blog (*sigh* has it been that long?), I wrote about the division of powers and how we have the system we have - http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-get-this-i-get-that-division-of.html.

We have a system in which responsibility for delivering health care resides with the provinces, but the core means for generating the funds necessary for running it reside with the federal government. One has the responsibility, the other the cash.

Over the years, this has been addressed through funding agreements (cash and tax points) from Ottawa to the provinces. Unfortunately, from my perspective previous discussions and the subsequent agreements have focused on cash being the solution. The dialogue almost seems to be along the lines of: "If there was more money available, the current problems (wait times, access to equipment, etc.) would go away."

Money is only a solution to problem if you have properly and honestly considered the problem, and discussed all solutions. I am not sure that this has been done.

The result? Commitments to funding, accusations focusing on past behaviour and warnings about future agendas. Sadly, none of this will do anything to address health care. None of this is showing the public that there is a real willingness to do something about the area we have said matters most to us.

3. Building on the point above, we also have the Canada Health Act which essentially lays out the principles the federal government expects the provinces to adhere to in exchange for federal money.

But do Canadians really understand the Act, what it says, how the provinces interpret it? Again, I am not sure they do. Yet this is what is raised to them during campaigns and speeches. It would be more meaningful when one says they will "defend the Canada Health Act" if the audience knew what that meant.

So at the end of all of this, here is what I see:

- it's valued;
- it's expensive;
- different levels of government are responsible for it; and
- it's about to face some serious challenges - in the context of our fiscal position and more importantly in the context of our changing demographics.

In the end, we have to talk about it. Together. It can't be a line in a scrum intended to take the issue of the table. It can't be an attack ad. It has to be a discussion.

Are we prepared for it?

Day 3 - A little less coalition, a little more on the issues please

Day 3 is winding down in Election 2011 (#elxn41 for those in the Twitterverse), and it seems that the issues are slowly starting to make an appearance. Yes, Mr. Harper is still referencing the coalition frequently in his remarks. However, with the Conservative's announcement of their income splitting initiative we saw debate on a matter of policy. Cue the applause.

This is an interesting, and potentially expensive proposal. Allowing families to shift income from higher to lower earners offers the potential for a family to lower their overall tax burden. So far, so good right?

Yes, but there is some fine print:

- proposal would not be implemented until 2015-2016, once the deficit has been eliminated (and potentially after the mandate we are currently being implored to provide has passed).

- proposal would favour families with only one earner and those which currently have one earner in a higher tax bracket.

- proposal would not apply to single-parent families.

These limitations do not necessarily make this a bad idea. What they do is open up a topic for discussion. Let's hear your thoughts!

1. What are your views on the idea of income splitting?
2. To whom should it apply?
3. By when and under what conditions?

Share your comments, start a dialogue...

As an aside, for those of you who have not read Susan Delacourt's blog lately, please do so (http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/). In commenting on social media and good humour shared among those covering elections, she noted that those of us who close our eyes and jump in will get to share in this humour. Today was a great example, as comments on the 2015-2016 start date for this proposal flooded Twitter (thanks in particular to @scottfeschuk).

So with that, a little less coalition, a little more on the issues please.

Thoughts?

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

Here we go! By the end of the weekend, the election should be officially underway. To borrow from Shakespeare, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"

In truth, one could argue it's been underway for some time given successive minority governments, collective posturing and the threat of the election around the corner. Through it all, from all sides, we have been served a heavy plate of rhetoric and spin with often only limited helpings of substance offered.

Heads-up, rhetoric and spin are the MSG of politics watching. Tasty at first, but ultimately unsatisfying and leaving you hungry for something more filling.

This is where we come in.

We are about to enter into one of the true times when what's on our minds can matter, when we will be listened to, and when we have the potential to influence. This is our time to be engaged and to be responsible.

Demand more of your prospective MPs. Challenge them to define who they are, and what they represent. Don't accept messaging about "the other guy", if it is not accompanied by their own plan for governing; for representing you.

Think about what is important to you, your family, community, Canada. Think about it and let them know. Challenge the person who comes to your door to explain how they will address the things that matter to you. Make. Them. Earn. Your. Vote.

What is it for you?

- health care
- job stability
- the economy
- crime and security
- pensions
- the environment
- ethics, accountability and democracy

I want us to talk about these things and whatever else is on your mind over the coming weeks. Use this blog and some of the far, far better ones (see column to the right!) to raise issues, inform yourself and others, to debate.

And when the end is nearly there, please vote.

It's our democracy, our opportunity and our responsibility.

Thoughts?

"So what's going on in Ottawa?" and other holiday dinner conversation topics...

As someone who lives in Ottawa, the holiday season inevitably includes discussions with non-Ottawa family members and friends about politics. The conversation typically starts one of two ways.

The first is based on the perception that, as an Ottawa-resident, you have some special insight on politics. "You live in Ottawa, so tell me why they really scrapped the long-form census?" is indicative of the type of question one might find oneself on the receiving end of during a lull in the Christmas dinner conversation.

The second way these conversations start is premised on the notion that no one in Ottawa actually gets what's happening in the real world. "Out of touch" is one of the more polite phrases that come up in such situations.

While these observations are the usual starting points for a discussion, what follows is often quite interesting. Why? Because what follows is perspective.

These conversations challenge, frustrate, encourage, enliven and inform my view on what's happening in Canada and how our politics is perceived by the people I know. This is a good thing. This is engagement.

The holiday season and early parts of 2011 will serve as a form of reconnaissance for our main political parties, and for current and would-be MPs. The good ones will be paying close attention to these types of conversations and using the individual and cumulative perspective shared with them to inform their views on many of the issues which matter to you and I.

We should take this opportunity and run with it. The period leading up to an election is a chance, however small, to influence the ballot box question. It's a chance to share what's important to you, and in so doing to challenge your current and prospective political leaders to respond.

It doesn't matter if it's the economy or health care, the environment or Afghanistan, funding for the arts or law and order. Those who aspire to lead us need to know what matters to us. And they need to tell us clearly what governing would mean for them. Let's do our part.

Thoughts (and please pass the gravy)?

Great Expectations?

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. Actually, it's neither. Welcome to politics in Canada at the end of 2010. As Lawrence Martin noted this week, borrowing from Ralph Goodale, it has been a year where mediocrity has reigned supreme.

In an attempt to get some discussion going on the issues, I asked you - the reader (he said hopefully) - for ideas. The hope is that discussion can lead to engagement, and that engagement can in some small way move us from mediocrity and towards meaningful debate.

Believe it or not, I have received some suggestions. Health care, the role of our banks, and the role of MPs being three great ones. I have also been succinctly reminded that "it's the economy, stupid". Having received such a direct suggestion, I think we should start there. In the end, it will likely be the top of mind issue for a significant number of voters.

Over the past 18 months we have been told that our economy is in strong shape; that Canada fared better than most and that our banking system - a core driver of economic growth - is the envy of the world. While much of this is true, it would be wrong to suggest that all is well.

The global economy is not in a happy place, and given that it is so heavily integrated, Canada is vulnerable. The risk of sovereign defaults and the future of the Euro is casting a long shadow. In Canada we are being warned about growing household and government debt, while in the U.S. we see our major trading partner continuing to struggle.

My view on government is the following: government is not about having all the answers, but it's about asking the right questions. So, in terms of the economy what are the questions? Let's start with the following:

1. What does the future of manufacturing in Canada look like? What do we need to do to prepare? What role can governments play in helping Canadian companies become more productive and competitive, including helping them shift their production offshore?

2. Investment drives economic growth - it can provide capital and drive innovation. What can Canada do to attract investment? Should foreign ownership regulations be relaxed? If so, across the board or only in certain sectors?

3. Economic priorities and social ones are not mutually exclusive - they are interdependent. What investments should Canada be making in social services (education, health, pension reform, aboriginal communities) with an eye towards building a more innovative and productive economy?

4. A trading nation is a more innovative and competitive nation. How can Canada grow as a trading nation? What is the role of government beyond negotiating market access and investment protection?

The answers to these questions and others will impact trade, jobs, personal finances, our pensions and RRSPs. In other words, how all of this plays out will affect Canadian prosperity.

Thoughts?

Ready to Oppose?

With all of the recent commentary on the Liberal's caucus retreat, recent poll numbers and the generally positive media coverage of the Liberal Express, I have found myself wondering what the Official Opposition has learned in the past year.

The party line is that things have improved, the ship has been righted, the caucus is on side and they are ready to be a true Official Opposition. In truth, the recent signs are encouraging.

Now, as they enter the fall session in the House my thinking is that the party needs to more deliberately frame its message to the voter; to frame the infamous ballot box question. Already there are signs that this is a priority, with the "Big Red Tent" messaging.

Here are some suggestions on how to build on their summer momentum:

1. Play the arrogance card. Often. Canadians draw a fine line between respecting strength and loathing arrogance, and for many the Harper government has on more than one occasion come very close to that line. The Liberals need to make this a core part of their message.

2. Play the bully card. Often. Memorize the list of public servants who have been marginalized by the governemnt for making their views known and weave it into your messaging.

3. Do not forget the economy. Points 1 and 2 are great, but at the end of the day given a choice between worrying about their jobs or the census, voters will focus on their jobs. The Liberals need a clear message on their vision for the economy, and a credible plan as to how they will achieve it. At the end of the day, voters will ask "how much will this Big Red Tent cost?"

The improving Liberal fortunes we have heard about are, to some degree, a result of them no longer making the types of mistakes that were occurring in 2009-2010. However, their fortunes have also improved as their opponents have suffered missteps. They cannot count on this type of political generosity forever.

Now is the time to start to stake their claim to be a true government-in-waiting. This means being ready to oppose and presenting a clear option. Are they ready?

Thoughts?

The issues are coming! The issues are coming!

Well, Thanksgiving weekend is just about over. If you were like me, you probably ate more than you should and are now wondering whether you should be taking a walk. I opted instead to post on this blog. Sad. I know.

With Parliament now on a break week, we won't have our usual 5 days of Ottawa-based theatre. Oh how to fill that void...

For those of you who have followed this blog (or more likely wound up here by accident), you will have noted my ongoing concern with the lack of real discussion among our leaders about the issues Canada will face over the next few years. Sure, the issues get lip-service but really that is about all.

Maybe it's due to a lack of ideas or perhaps a fear of alienating the voters. Whatever the reason, Canada has some big challenges ahead which are not getting the airing they deserve.

Let's do something about that.

Over the next week or so, I am going to post my thoughts on those issues which I feel our political leaders should be focusing.

1. How to address what is now a structural deficit?
2. What will government do to help prepare Canada - and in particular young Canadians - for the economy of tomorrow?
3. Demographics. We are becoming an older population. What will this mean for health care, employment and immigration?
4. The environment.

To this list I would add the so-called democratic deficit. The answers to these questions will shape Canada for a long time to come. Yet we are asking theses questions at a time when Canadians are more and more distant from the political debate. Developing the right answers will require a change in the way we engage with our politicians and the way they engage with us.

So faithful (or accidental) readers, hold on and look out. The issues are coming, the issues are coming...

The grass is always greener...

Well, tonight a major political leader came out and addressed friend, foe and the undecided about a major public policy issue. There was vision and substance (though not as much of the latter as many would like), and an effort to frame the debate and build support. Alas, this did not happen in Canada. It was Obama. Again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/president-obamas-remarks-to-congress/article1281358/

As this blog is about Canadian politics and our upcoming election, I raise the Obama speech as an example of the type of discourse which is lacking in Canada. Increasingly it seems we are resorting to fear mongering ("vote Liberal and the crime bill will die, and your tax credit is gone!") or vagueness ("We can do better"), missing an opportunity to meaningfully engage Canadians on issues like innovation or democratic reform.

The debate in the U.S. is far from perfect and contains its own healthy doses of fear mongering and a lack of mutual respect. But it is a debate around issues, around the role of government and what citizens should and should not expect from the state.

As we head into our (annual) campaign season, here's hoping we can see a similar effort to frame issues and engage the public on the issues which mean the most to them.