Speech! Speech!

So, the holidays are over and the House has returned. But for how long? Increasingly, it seems like the parties are gearing up for a spring election.

As I considered the prospects of a spring trip to the polls this past weekend, I came across an article in the Globe and Mail by Ian Brown entitled "State of the elocution: Obama and the history of political rhetoric." The article discusses the decline of the political speech. It's a good read and worth checking out.

It got me thinking about what I want to hear in the speeches that will be given in the coming weeks, and sadly, what I expect to hear.

I expect to hear a lot about coalitions and hyper-partisanship. I also expect to hear language intended to frighten or scare the voter. This isn't what we need.

So what do I want to hear? I'll start with some of what I would like to see from Mr. Ignatieff in terms of tone and direction...

"Ladies and gentleman, once again Canadians are going to the polls. We are being asked to choose. Not just choose 'who we want to govern Canada.' No, we are being asked to choose what type of society we want to live in. We are being asked to choose what should define the Canada of the 21st century.

This election is an opportunity. It's your opportunity. An opportunity to consider what's important to you and your family. An opportunity to ask yourself whether you see your priorities reflected in our politics; in your democracy.

Over the next month or so, the Liberal Party of Canada wants to engage you in a dialogue about Canada. We want to share with you our vision for a Canada that is productive and competitive; that is fair and compassionate; that is open and democratic. A Canada where differing points of views are celebrated, not marginalized. A Canada where both families and businesses can thrive.

Why? Because you have a choice.

As you consider the choices before you, ask yourself the following:

- Are the things that are important to my family getting the attention they deserve?

- Is my job or my pension safer today than it was 5 years ago?

- Will my children inherit the opportunities they deserve or the problems we weren't brave enough to tackle?

Our position is that the choices the government has made are not your choices. That the priorities of this government do not reflect the priorities of Canadians. That on so many of the defining issues of our day - health care, the environment, competitiveness and democratic reform - the government has chosen to marginalize debate rather than engage Canadians.

What can you expect from a Liberal government?

1. A commitment to investing in Canadians, and not just corporations. Yes, a productive, competitive economy needs business. But business needs you. We believe that social investments are just as important to our economy and prosperity. These are investments we will make - in families, in education and higher-learning, in health.

2. A commitment to a more open and engaged government. Engagement, debate and transparency are democracy's oxygen. Unfortunately, they are in short supply today. We will invest in our democracy so that you have the information you need to engage and to hold us to account.

3. A commitment to developing real solutions to climate change. This is one of the defining challenges of our generation. We need to move the dialogue away from one of fear and loss, and towards real discussion on what needs to be done. This means considering how we use energy. But is also means investing in innovation and in new technologies that can make Canada a green-industry leader.

Like much of the world, Canada is at a cross-roads. We see a world filled with both challenges and opportunities. And we need to act.

If we fail to act, the problems won't go away - they will get worse.

If we fail to act, the opportunities will be lost.

Too often over the past 5 years, Canadians have suffered from the worst of politics at the very time they needed the best of government. Today we have a chance to change that. We have a chance to re-set the discourse in Canada.

A Liberal government will be balanced and innovative. We will not have all the answers, but we are committed to asking the right questions. We are committed to engaging you on the future of your country.

I stand before you today asking you to make a choice. To choose a real, national alternative to the politics of the past 5 years. To choose the Liberal Party of Canada. Thank-you."

So, there it is. In fairness, I will use the next post to put down some thoughts on what Mr. Harper might say. In the meantime...

Thoughts?

The worst of politics or the best of government?

"A statesman is someone who does something for his country. A politician is someone who does his country for something."

I read that quip a long time ago, but it's something that has always stuck with me. Not because I see it as some irrefutable truth; but because as old as it is, it tends to sum up how so many people feel about politics and politicians today.

Before diving in on this point further, let me clear. I believe that there is a very strong sense of public service among many from our political class. A belief that there is a real contribution that can be made to life in Canada. This commitment to public service is reflected in some measure of sacrifice - time away from family and home, being perhaps the most significant. This is my view, and I believe that many share it.

So if that's the case, why do quips like the one above continue to resonate? Why are people disengaged from their democracy? Why do we see so much mistrust? I have some thoughts.

Let's look at the past year. Prorogation was seen as a tool to avoid accountability. Scandal was seen as more worthy of debate than issues. Pandering trumped dialogue and engagement. And attack ads continued to be the communications vehicle of choice.

It's because of issues like these that we have a government that has done a reasonable job on the economy, but still can't stay in "majority territory" for any sustained period of time. It's also the reason why we have an opposition that cannot mount a sustained challenge, despite the mis-steps of the government.

That bring us to today. Depending on who you listen to we have an opposition / "coalition" that is going to recklessly force an election, or a government that is ratcheting up the rhetoric and making the types of announcements that typically precede a call to the polls.

So if this is the case, what do we want? I have written on this blog on more than one occasion about the need to position Canada for success in the 21st century. Building a 21st century economy is about more than business. It's about health, the environment, security, social development, productivity - all supported by strong and functional democratic institutions, and an engaged citizenry.

In many respects, the world is at a cross roads. The economic landscape is changing, with power shifting to emerging markets. Environmental issues cast a long shadow, as do imminent demographic challenges. Global security remains an ongoing concern.

Canada is facing very real challenges and opportunities. We are faced with choices and we need to discuss them.

At this time, I expect the best of government. Unfortunately, too often I am faced with the worst of politics. For me governing is not about having all of the answers; but it does mean asking the right questions and then listening, engaging, communicating and making choices.

So as we consider the prospects of an election, that is my challenge to our politicians. Put aside the worst of politics and show me the best of the government.

Thoughts?

Shuffle Kerfuffle, and reading between the lines

So, there it is. A very minor shuffle; tweaking borne of necessity. With Mr. Prentice having left government, the Environment portfolio needed full-time minding. This was the principal driver for the shuffle and the main move of note.

What does all of this tell us? On the surface, not much.

- We have Mr. Kent as the newly appointed Minister of the Environment...a clear promotion.

- Ms. Ablonczy replaces Mr. Kent as Minister of State (Foreign Affairs)...essentially a lateral move, though to a role with more profile and travel.

- Mr. Menzies becomes Minister of State (Finance)...an elevation from being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, with greater (or perhaps just additional) responsibilities.

- Mr. Fantino walks into the House and virtually straight into the Minister of State (Seniors) role vacated by Ms. Ablonczy...not the "crime and security" type role that had been envisioned, though security is probably a bigger concern to seniors so it sends a decent message.

That's what we saw. What we didn't see were any existing Ministers being moved out of their portfolios, either because of performance or due to the fact that they will not seek re-election. We also did not see any shuffling among Ministers, and the major economic portfolios were untouched.

Yes, this was essentially a "steady as she goes, let's just focus on what needs to be done" shuffle. Fair enough.

What I found more interesting was the commentary by the government and by the opposition. It's here where you don't have to read too much between the lines to see how the parties are trying to frame the ballot box question.

In terms of the government, the focus will be on the economy and their management of it through the economic downturn. Hence the messaging about "staying the course" and "time for stability."

The government's hope is that the voter sees that it has a plan and a team in place, on the job and delivering results. And just in case anyone was in doubt, it would be a coalition that would prevent the government from getting on with managing the number one priority for Canadians.

In terms of the opposition, things are inevitably more difficult. I think all parties would agree that the economy is the priority, so the key will be in making distinctions between their respective positions and that of the government.

For now I will focus on the Liberals. I think their positioning will highlight two things. First, they will focus on the choices that the government has made in its management of the economy; choices which they will argue do not reflect the priorities of Canadians.

We will see corporate tax cuts, fighter jets and prisons contrasted with investments in people, skills and social programs. Their hope will be that voters see the government's choices as out-of-step and short-sighted and not contributing to building an economy and a society for the 21st century.

Second, they will need to distinguish themselves from the NDP. This will mean continued focus on being the only real alternative to the government. This was the messaging that came out of the by-elections and it is the messaging we will see during a campaign.

Thoughts?

Let's give them something to talk about...

In line with some of my recent posts about setting the agenda, I found Jeffrey Simpson's piece in today's Globe and Mail to be an excellent read. Entitled "Let's have a mature discussion about public finances", the piece discusses the all-too-often tendency of politicians to avoid discussing the hard challenges we are facing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/lets-have-a-mature-discussion-about-public-finances/article1851297/

Mr. Simpson correctly points out that restoring some measure of balance to our national finances will require Canadians to consider real, difficult choices. Window dressing cuts, such as those recently announced in Ontario regarding "perks" or those announced in Ottawa this last year regarding public service wages, are not going to accomplish anything meaningful.

However, putting these on the table and suggesting that they are meaningful unfortunately takes our focus away from questions about tax policy, health care spending (a BIG ticket item looming for the federal and provincial governments), and how best to enhance productivity.

In a recent post I noted the following: "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." This is the problem that the election around the corner creates.

The thing is, in today's world problems - including many of the ones we are facing in Canada - do not wait around patiently for us to get our act together. The government that is formed after the next election will, whether they like it or not, be tasked with moving Canada forward. If that's the case, don't you think it would be better if we started talking about it now?

Thoughts?

Agenda Setting...

It's crystal ball season again. No, not those ones hanging from our Christmas trees. I am talking about those magical orbs which promise a glimpse into the future; some insight into what we can expect in the year ahead.

In terms of politics in Canada, this gazing invariably is focused on the prospects of an election. Five years of minority government will do that to you. However, it actually wasn't too long ago that our look-ahead focused on the issues at hand, on the agenda.

Yes, once upon a time issues and initiatives were discussed and measured on the relative strength of their merits and importance to Canada as a whole. Of course the electoral implications were considered. But this was by no means done to the degree to which it is today. The election prism did not define our politics the way it does heading into 2011.

So, rather than speculate on whether and when we will have an election in 2011, here are some more of my candidates for "the agenda."

First, what is the role of government? Deficits, both federal and provincial, should be forcing a conversation about the role of government. Government spending in Canada rose considerably before the global economy went into downward spiral. During the crisis it increased further, to levels that are not sustainable.

Our political discourse in 2011 should therefore include focus on restoring a measure of balance to our nation's finances. Such a discussion has implications for tax policy, for example. We have already seen the impact of the GST cut on the government's coffers. The outcome of the debate on corporate tax cuts (favoured by the government, opposed by the opposition) will have a significant impact on what government can and cannot afford to do in areas like health care, the economy, education, the environment.

Second, what does the future look like for our democratic institutions? In 2005-2006, the Conservatives ran a campaign based largely on the notion that our politics was broken, that there was a need for someone to "Stand Up For Canada." For about 2 years after their victory, the government was still referring to itself as Canada's "new government" - an attempt to make a sharp break from the past.

Heading into 2011, we should be having a conversation about what the past 5 years has meant in terms of things like accountability, transparency and debate. And more importantly, what we want the next five years to look like.

What do we expect of our MPs? What is the role of Parliament? To my eyes, our institutions are damaged. We too often see either a focus on more trivial issues, or debate on decisions that have been already been made.

So, on my agenda we have "What is the role of government?" and "What is the role of our democratic institutions?" What's on yours? 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?

A big thanks...and a request

First of all, thanks to those of you who took the time this week to take a peek at A Guy Watching Politics. To wake up and see your blog referenced in the media and an entire post included in someone else's blog is quite a feeling for someone who, let's be honest, is not well-known or seen as a must-read.

I have never met Susan Delacourt before, so for her to take that level of interest meant a great deal. Thanks! For those of you who are not following her blog, do so - it is a must read (http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/).

Now for a request to those of you still reading. On what topics would you like to see postings? What issues matter to you? Let's see if we can get more of a dialogue going. Tell me your thoughts, share with me your ideas and let's go from there.

Again, thanks for the interest, the comments and the engagement.

A Guy Watching Politics

Wanted: An Engaged Voter

Parliament is about to begin its winter break, and with that politics watchers out there will be treated to the usual year-end articles, podcasts and news features on "the year that was." As to be expected, these features will focus on the politicians.

Who had a good year, and who has disappointed. Who's up-and-coming Cabinet material, and who is destined for the backbench. We'll reflect on the main issues and the players in Ottawa, in the provinces and in major municipalities.

I would like to propose we add a group to this annual list - the public.

Someone commented to me recently that "democracy isn't a spectator sport. If it's not working then everyone's not working." I could not agree more. I have written on this blog on more than one occasion about the importance of an engaged citizenry; about the need for a public that needs to play a more active and informed role in its democracy.

If the informed chatter is to be believed, we should expect an election in 2011, be it in the spring or the fall. With that in mind, it's an opportune time to consider the voter and ask ourselves what kind of year they - no, we - had. Were we engaged, informed and active participants in our democracy? If we really are heading into an election year, let's consider the voter's state of "preparedness."

My take is that the reviews would be mixed.

Let's first consider how the year started - prorogation. I think on this front, we were all surprised about the degree to which people were engaged. It was quite interesting to see the reaction of many Canadians to the decision to prorogue for no apparent reason other than to avoid some tricky issues in the House. On our engagement meter, prorogation scores high.

I would also score potash as having generated a high degree of engagement, and not just in Saskatchewan. While I would have liked to have seen the public more aware of the pros AND the cons about allowing the sale (the debate became more of a nationalist one, versus the economic merits, implications for trade and market access, etc.), I still think the fact that this issue became a national one reflects well on the public and the media.

The municipal elections offer a mixed bag in terms of engagement. We had some very interesting results (Calgary), potentially significant results (Toronto), curious results (London) and not surprising results (Ottawa, at least in terms of the race for Mayor). Levels of engagement on the issues varied greatly, but what struck me was the strong interest in change. In many cases it truly was an "out with the old" mentality - something which could have implications for establishment politicians at the provincial and the federal level.

Beyond these areas, I see a public that can be prone to slumber only to be momentarily woken by an issue. The census is an example where we became engaged - but less on the substance, and more on the impression the decision left in terms of the government and what we thought of their, for want of a better word, behaviour. The G20 spending is another example - we were upset, nothing more. To me that's not really engagement.

I then add the relative lack of engagement on issues like Afghanistan, the environment and the economy. Here I see us failing to hold all elected officials to account for what are truly defining issues for the Canada of today and tomorrow. These are the types of issues around which the next election should be fought. I would also add to this list accountability. It was an issue in 2006, and should be again in 2011.

Whether this proves to be the case will depend on us. Hopefully we're up for it.

Thoughts?

All I want for Christmas...

Here we are approaching the end of another year. For those of us (sadly) obsessed with Ottawa and its constant performance, I think 2010 will be remembered as a year of several mini-dramas...but not much in terms of substance.

In no particular order, this year has seen the political classes focus their energy on: prorogation; Rahim and Helena; the G20 and its fake lake; the long-form census; Ignatieff’s bus tour; Harper’s concert tour (ok, two performances); potash; by-elections; and construction contracts. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but nor is it a particularly warming one for those of us looking for real debate and dialogue.

That’s not to say that some of these issues (and others not mentioned) are not important or substantive. Potash, prorogation or the census issue clearly are. So is the future of the Afghan mission. However, the discussion and debate is often transitory. Issues emerge and debate occurs, but at some point it becomes clear that the issue does not satisfy a broader political goal (i.e. electoral prospects), and it falls from our collective radar as we move on to “The. Next. Big. Thing.”

Why is this happening? I think there are a few reasons. First, we have a government that knows it can provoke and challenge without any telling reprisal. The opposition does not want an election, so its condemnation of the latest government initiative does not amount to much.

When the government does “back down”, it does in response to polling data. The advocate of this approach to governing would call it strategic and measured. The critic would see it as akin to a child testing to see what they can get away with. The answer is likely somewhere in between.

The opposition’s failure to offer clear alternatives is also a major factor at play. For example, to this day I still do not know what a Liberal government would look like.

In a minority Parliament, this absence of a defined alternative makes no sense to me. As someone told me once, you should always have your cv up-to-date. After more than one year since trying to provoke an election, the Liberals have failed to craft an alternative vision for governing the country. I want the reason I "hire" someone to be based on more than than the fact that they aren't the other guy.

Failing to define a clear alternative results in the focus all opposition parties seem to have with the sensational...on the political theater. The attention paid to the thinner issues on offer does generate short-term gains - hence the small movements in weekly polling numbers.

Up to a point, I can see the logic to this tactic. It’s the “death by a thousand cuts” idea, whereby the opposition tries to use individual issues to develop a broader narrative about the government. The working material is certainly there. But up to this point in time, they have failed to develop this narrative. So the bouncing from issue to issues continues.

Another driver of this state of affairs is the “election around the corner” mentality I have mentioned previously on this blog. The government is probably comfortable with all of the theater and short-term discussion, as long as it does not factor significantly into how voters in those select swing ridings think. The opposition, which seems to be more "spray and pray" is too focused on trying to please everyone, which history will tell you pleases no one.

So, where does that leave us? Well, as the title of this posting suggests, it takes me to my Christmas wish list. What is it I want?

- A government that puts forward its plan for dealing with the challenges of today, and for positioning the Canada of tomorrow.

- An opposition that gives me an alternative; a clear sense as to what a different government would look like.

- A Parliament better focused on dialogue and debate on the government’s plan and the opposition’s position.

- An end to gossip-column politics; the challenges Canada is facing are worth more of Ottawa’s time than much of which has garnered the spotlight.

I also had on my list “a public prepared to hold everyone to account.” In previous posts I have lamented the absence of a more engaged citizenry. However, the stagnant polling numbers for all parties do tell us something about the public and the fact that they have not been seized in any meaningful way by any of this spectacle.

In our own, typically Canadian way, perhaps we are engaged. We have elected a minority government in each of the last three elections. The polling numbers from 2006-2010 have not moved in any significant way. Perhaps this is our way of saying that we are not captivated; that no party (outside of the Bloc in Quebec) has resonated with us. That we expect better.

Thoughts?