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

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

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

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

Woe Canada.

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Considering Consultations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Choices

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

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

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

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

My question is where is the discussion?

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

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

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

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

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

Brace yourself, 2012 is coming...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where we stand today.

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

Cue Budget 2012.

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

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

Shouldn't we be talking about it?

***

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

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

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

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

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back

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

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

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

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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.

It's My Planet Too

Imagine you owned a home and that home required major work. A new roof, foundation repair, something structural and unquestionably expensive. You know it will be hard on your wallet to get it done, so you decide not to - even though the reasons for doing it are compelling and the cost of not doing anything could be far greater down the road.

Instead you decide to spend money on aesthetic improvements, like painting, or on amenities. Things that make you feel better when you are in the house, but do nothing to address your real problems. An outside observer would call this decision-making shortsighted.

Heads-up Canada, this is exactly how we are making climate change policy in our country.

Jeffrey Simpson has just written a good piece in the Globe and Mail on how Australia is trying to come to grips with the climate change question. His piece accurately describes the challenges a government faces when trying to tackle a long-term problem with solutions which are seen as expensive, and which do not deliver a "visible" benefit for some time.

Canadian policy-makers have been trying to get their head around this issue since the 1990s, with little success. Yes we ratified Kyoto, but did not take any of the difficult decisions that meeting our commitments required. We have done small things to improve and promote energy efficiency, but have studiously avoided meaningful debate on the oil sands and pricing carbon.

Sadly, despite being a country with a lot at stake, our federal government has played at the margins on an issue which could define the next century. Policy-makers have mastered the art of having "half the conversation". Some examples...

- The government has made great fanfare about its plans for asserting and protecting our Arctic sovereignty, yet has not highlighted the fact that climate change and its effect on sea lanes has helped to make the arctic such a pressing issue.

- Tremendous effort has been expended dealing with natural disaster at home and abroad, but there has been little if anything from government about the role climate change is playing on weather patterns and disasters which are becoming less freak and more the norm.

- Energy policy, and in particular discussions on the oil sands, rightly highlights the security aspect of Canadian energy but wrongly fails to acknowledge the trade-off in terms of the environmental impact of oil sands development.

By only having half the conversation, our policy makers are limiting discussion about the linkages between climate change and a host of public policy issues. Why? Because of the potential political ramifications. Those who do try are attacked and marginalized, first by their political opponents and then by a public which too often is more concerned with the here and now and not the long game.

Not for the first time, it may come down to the provinces to move the yard sticks in Canada. Lead by British Columbia and Quebec, the provinces (and their stateside colleagues) may be able to implement policies which demonstrate leadership and de-mystify the economic impact arguments of this opposed to taking real action.

As promising as that may be, it also serves as another indictment of federal policy on an issue which is no longer emerging. Climate change is here and Canadians need to see the Government of Canada tackling the issue with the seriousness it deserves.

So to MPs currently on summer break, please take a moment to consider what climate change might mean for the people in your riding. Think about it from a health issue, consider the economics (short-term and long-term), consider the impact of weather on food production. Think about your role as a steward for this country; about being a government holding Canada in trust for current and future generations.

Please. It's my planet too!

The Liberal Platform - offering a choice; tacking left

The Liberal platform was released yesterday, generating a lot of discussion and commentary. While I am not planning on presenting a full proposal-by-proposal assessment, I think there are some themes and initiatives worth highlighting.

1. The notion of choice

Go back 12-18 months ago, and you would have seen a Liberal Opposition that had not done much to frame an alternative vision of Canada. It was not clear what they stood for or what a Liberal government would look like.

Now fast forward to today and you have your answer. Through this platform, which the announcements of week 1 were designed to build up to, the Liberals have given themselves definition. They have moved from presenting a "we're not the other guy" argument towards "this is who we are and what you can expect."

Canadians are now better placed than they have been in some time to ask themselves which party is more aligned with their priorities. This doesn't mean they will suddenly vote Liberal. But it does mean they can make a more informed choice.

2. Clarity of message

Taking a page from the 2006 Conservative campaign, the Liberals have opted for a focused message which highlights their core priorities. The goal here is simplicity and clarity. You can't be everything to all people; you can't do it all. You want what you stand for to be memorable, to be suitable for an elevator conversation or a chat when you are waiting in line. The "Family Pack" theme ticks this box. In fact throughout week 1 the Liberals have largely been on-message.

3. Know your audience

Women voters are key to Liberal hopes. While the Conservatives have a strong grip on the middle-aged male demographic, women are another story. This platform, with its focus on families and education, is geared towards this demographic.

It is also very much focused on the left. The Liberals had a decision to make. Do we try and take from the Conservatives or from the NDP? They have opted for the latter, and are trying to do so in two ways.

First, they are intent on communicating this as a 2-horse race with the Liberals as the only party capable of stopping Harper. This was the message after the by-elections in the fall and it's the message today.

Second, they have adopted policy positions clearly more attractive to an NDP voter. Roll-back of corporate tax cuts, training, the learning passport, child care...the list goes on. If the NDP had released this document, no one would have been to shocked with the main elements. In some parts, I actually felt like I was reading New Labour from the UK.

For better or worse, they have tacked left. Time will tell whether this was the right decision.

4. Where's the fix?

If I were to choose one area where I was disappointed, I would likely go with the limited focus on the erosion of our democratic institutions. This has been the one theme on which all of the opposition has focused consistently for 2 years. We have been told that Parliament is broken and that our institutions are in jeopardy. The election was actually brought about as as result of a contempt finding.

So, where's the fix? Yes, this theme is discussed and some novel ideas are presented. But compared with the substance behind the Liberal's other proposals, I found the discussion in the platform thin. I am hopeful that this issue gets more airing in a debate.

***

Those are some of my initial observations. What are yours? Has the platform influenced how you are looking at this election?

Interestingly, despite the plaudits the Liberals have received for their week 1 performance the Conservatives are continuing to enjoy a very healthy advantage in every poll I have seen. We'll see if week 2 and the release of this platform changes anything.

Thoughts?

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?