Defining Progressive for a 21st Century Canada

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what to do...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brace yourself, 2012 is coming...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where we stand today.

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

Cue Budget 2012.

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

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

Shouldn't we be talking about it?

***

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

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

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

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

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back

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

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

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

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Doing the limbo under an already low bar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this environment, Canada loses.

***

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

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

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

(Somewhat, kind of) Ethical Oil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.