Richard Mahoney

2012-01-26T13:16:00.000-08:00

Are the Health accord negotiations over?

At the recent Council of the Federation meeting inVictoria, Canada’s provincial and territorial Premiers put the future of Canada’shealth care system, and the fiscal arrangements of Confederation to pay for it,front and centre once again. It seemslike just a few years ago when then Prime Minister Paul Martin was wrestlingwith similar demands for funding and for a national plan for targetedimprovements to the system, and the 2004health accord with the provinces was born.

Some things do change. Canada has traditionally been governed by what political scientists callco-operative federalism. One of thechief features of this form of government has been the institution of FirstMinister’s meetings, (known as “executive federalism”) with the Premiers as thepenultimate voice of their regions (as opposed to Parliament). First Ministers` meetings have operated as oneof the few checks on the absolute power of Canadian Prime Ministers in majoritygovernment situations. Provincial and territorial Premiers bring theirprovince’s perspective on national issues to the federation on matters of vitalimportance such as health care, child care, and First Nations issues. These conferences became an important focusof the discussion, debate and negotiations around the differing interests inthe federation, particularly on issues of shared jurisdiction, and, sometimes, haveresulted in consensus on the way forward. The 2004 Health authored by Martin was a good example of this Canadiangovernance tradition. The RomanowCommission, the Kirby Commission, public anxiety and Supreme Court cases about long wait timesfor key medical procedures were all part of a national dialogue that led up to a meeting Prime Minister Martinconvened with the Premiers. This processresulted in the ambitious, if imperfect, negotiated consensus of Martin’s 2004Health Accord, with all provincial and territorial governments signing on inagreement.

But that is not Prime Minister Harper’s plan. The traditions of co-operative federalism usuallyplace Prime Ministers on the receiving end of provincial demands for action,and money. Before negotiations even began around therenewal of Martin’s funding accord, set to expire in 2014, Finance Minister JimFlaherty surprised the provinces by laying out a funding formula for the nextten years. That formula continuedMartin’s six per cent annual escalator for the first couple of years afterMartin’s accord expires. From then on,the increase is tied to national economic growth. Therewas no long national discussion, no federal-provincial negotiation, no debate. There was no serious examination of what thesystem needs to be sustainable. Therewas no discussion with stakeholders and with those that actually provide healthcare services. After Minister Flaherty dropped the bomb,both he and Prime Minister Harper immediately stated that everyone should just putthe funding issue “behind us”.

In return, the federal government gave something to the provincesthat they have always sought- the freedom to spend those billions on whateverthey choose. The federal government isnot seeking any agreement on shared national objectives or outcomes forCanadians in return for this funding. They also threw in a change to the funding formula, moving it to a more percapita basis, creating a windfall for some provinces (Alberta) and an increasedburden for others.

Some initial analysis from national media held thisapproach to be a violation of all that is dear, the beginning of the end of theCanada Health Act and a national health care system. Days, maybe hours, later, denizens of the pressgallery reconsidered and pronounced it to be brilliant strategy on the part ofthe Prime Minister, apparently outfoxing his provincial counterparts who hadnot even had time to gear up their efforts. Instead of being on the receiving end of provincial demands, as so many ofhis predecessors had been, Mr Harper went right to endgame and pronounced thedebate and discussion to be complete.

Would that things were that simple. The Premiers deftly managed to keep theirefforts going by finding consensus around keeping the debate alive. They set up a federal provincial committee toreview the idea of an “innovation fund”, co- chaired by Premier Brad Wall ofSaskatchewan (a“have” province) and Premier Robert Ghiz (a “have-not” province). This initiative would fund desired innovativeoutcomes, and would be outside of, and on top of, the Canada Health Transfer thatMr Harper has proposed over the next ten years. Manitoba`s Greg Selinger also heads anothercommittee examining financial arrangements. These committees are already becoming the place where the nationaldiscussion on health care takes place.

Will the Premier’s gambit work? Do we still have a federal-provincialdialogue or national debate on health care? Or will Mr Harper succeed in exiting the field, and letting theprovinces carry the load and call the tune? Most Canadians care first and foremost about the health care that theyhave access to, and the quality of that care. My colleague Bruce Anderson has observed that, while Canadians alwaysindicate in public opinion surveys that health care is a top priority issue,the reality is that it has not been a defining or “ballot” question in recent federalelections. People care more about thestandard of care where they live than they do about national standards of care. Harper,who promised a patient’s guarantee in the 2006 federal election, (which was agood idea, and would have given more teeth to Martin’s accord), moved away fromthat once elected and now stands back from asserting any federal role onstandards, or outcomes. The provincesare back in the driver’s seat on how health care is reformed, and on thepotential looming battle with the feds on funding and on transformation of Medicare. Will they suit up for a sustained fight?

'Wehaven't dropped engaging with the federal government on the issue of funding,'

SaskatchewanPremier Brad Wall

Premier Dexter in NS is taking a strong stand against thefederal proposal on funding. His concerns relate to the province's demographics(older) and a funding model based on per capita economics. As of June 2012,Premier Dexter will be in the third year of his mandate and he's beginning toconsider election timing and issues which appeal to seniors, given their growingproportion of the NS population. Thechallenges in PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick are notaltogether different. While the economies in places such as St. John's andHalifax are strong, there are serious economic challenges in smaller centresand rural communities. A lot of health resources are being deployed to smallcommunities to provide a similar level of care to that available in the big cities.That is an expensive model to maintain. At the same time, all provinces aretrying to contain health spending to balance their budgets. While transfers continue at 6 per cent for thenext few years, the relative reductions in transfers in subsequent years wouldhave real impact on their budgets - especially if they cannot find more innovativeways to deliver care, utilizing more technology, digital information andprivate-public sector service delivery models. There is a lot of incentive for Atlantic Provinces to join battle withthe government on this. Expect them todo so.

Quebec and Ontario are no strangers to a federal-provincialhealth care skirmish. They both stand to``lose`` from Ottawa`s new proposal. In Quebec, Minister of Finances, RaymondBachand, was furious to learn through media the changes announced by Flahertyin December. Premier Charest stated thatit was not the first time – and probably not the last – that the Feds haveannounced unilateral changes in policies or regulations that affect provinces,but that his experience tells him that there should be, and will be further discussionsin the coming months on this issue. Quebec and Ontario, (like most other provinces) have sizeable deficits,have committed to timelines to reduce and eliminate those deficits, and havehealth care costs growing at at least the rate of 6 per cent- the annual “escalator”established by Martin in the 2004 accord. Meeting those fiscal challenges will be difficult. . Meetingthose fiscal challenges will be difficult. But finding a foe to help youshare the pain can be helpful and Mr Harper and the Conservative present aninviting target.

The Ontario government is set to announce its own processon health care transformation. Premier McGuinty argues that Martin’s 2004 accord helpedthe province bring their wait times down from the worst in the country to thebest, so a right wing Conservativethreat to health care funding cries out for some political attention,especially given that Premier McGuinty faces a somewhat similar Conservativeparty as his primary opposition in Ontario . His minority government situation only makes the imperative to make thatargument more immediate.

In the West, after some early positive reaction to thefederal proposal, things returned to form. BC’s Christy Clark chaired the Council of Federation meeting, and coordinatedthe Premiers’ push back. Saskatchewan’sWall, normally inclined to be supportive of the federal position, is themost popular Premier, as well as the most popular Conservative politician, inthe country. He said “we haven't droppedengaging with the federal government on the issue of funding”. Manitoba had already suited up. Even Alberta has gone along with the Councilof Federation approach. With friendslike that….

It looks like the provinces are prepared to push back, andto lead the national discussion on health care transformation, with increasedfederal funding as part of their agenda. The challenge for health care professionals, patients, and provincialgovernments who want a debate on funding, on reform of the system,accountability, and on the prospect of better care is: how do you animate and lead a debate withsomeone who declares that process “behind us” before it starts. This would not be the first time a reluctantgovernment has been brought to the negotiating table on a debate it does notwant. And it is unlikely to be the last. The provinces are now in the driver’sseat. I think we have some idea wherethey will take us.

2011-10-07T11:24:00.000-07:00

The Blogs

There's Got To Be A Morning After

POSTED Friday October 7, 2011

Richard Mahoney

There’s got to be a morning after

Schmaltzy songs from the Seventies aside, that sentiment isone many in Ontario wake up to this morning. A sort of light election hangover, if you will. Let’s go through the three main parties andwhat this morning means for them, and for us.

For the Conservativesand Tim Hudak, this is a big disappointment from where they expected tobe. They have led the Liberals in publicopinion polls for over a year. They wentinto the campaign thinking the only question was whether they would win amajority or be held to a minority. Their election loss is a tough blow,leavened by the fact that they have elected some new members, done reasonablywell in the popular vote and held the Premier to a minority. That result alone means Tim Hudak can keephis job.

For the NDP and Andrea Horwath, while they improved theirstanding in seat count, the heady thoughts of a Jack Layton- like result didnot materialize. But electoralbreakthroughs in the Hamilton region, dominance in Northern Ontario and somegains in the Toronto area help. Thepotential policy leverage they gain in a minority situation is a boost, but onethat comes with some responsibility. They will not be able to simply opposeeverything the governing Liberals want to do. In a minority, opposition parties have greater responsibilities and sheand her caucus will need to understand and work with that reality.

For Premier McGuinty and the Liberals, they have to bedelighted from where they were just a few short months ago. The last time a Liberal Premier was electedfor three consecutive terms in Ontario was Oliver Mowat, in the late 19^thcentury! So, this historic achievementmakes Premier McGuinty’s morning after not so bad at all. This is a huge victory and positions thePremier as a key voice in Canada’s national political scene. Progressives will immediately look to him asa strong counterweight to Prime Minister Harper and his world view.

Although he does wake up with all that going on, he stillhas a government to run and there a few headaches. He missed a third majority by one seat. He lost some key Ministers in tough races, suchas Environment Minister John Wilkinson in Perth-Wellington. The new government will face the reality ofpotentially losing a vote, including a vote of confidence, at any time. The Premier will likely find a Speaker fromone of the opposition parties to make the legislature math work a littlebetter. The bottom line in a minority situation isthat, on each piece of legislation, the Liberals will need at least one of theother parties voting with them to pass legislation. Their ability to do bold and sometimesunpopular things has been trimmed by electoral and political realities.

Finally, economic storm clouds loom over the world’s, andthus the province’s, horizon. DonDrummond, the former Chief Economist of TD Bank will soon come out with hisreport on the nature of the financial situation facing the province. It is widely assumed that the forecasts usedby each of the parties when making their platforms, relied on growth predictionsthat are now out of date, and therefore too optimistic. Creating and sustaining economic growth, andimproving the province’s fiscal situation will be the dominant issues in thenext legislature. This will be a key opportunity for industriesand other stakeholders to make their case on economic terms: on the key role an idea or project might playin the province’s economic growth prospects, on improving vital infrastructure assets and on innovations to keep government costsdown. These will be the drivers ofgovernment action and provide the Premier and hisgovernment with lots of strong ammunition to govern stably for the next few years.

That is one take at least, on the morning after the 2011general election.

2011-10-03T20:00:00.001-07:00

The Blogs

Debate: Who won? Who lost?

POSTED WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011

Richard Mahoney

The Twitterverse is alive with the question on just who won the debate. I just finished a session on the topic on radio station CFRA’s Madeley in the Morning with communications coach Barry McLoughlin. The morning newscasts are full of clips. While it is tempting to say that your team won and the others lost, and explain why, let’s try and do this a little more fairly. Did the leaders do what they needed to do?

Andrea Horwath, who was the least known of the three leaders going in, was carrying a relatively high level of NDP support, if the results of the last four Ontario elections are the standard. She needed to at least hold her level of support in order to put in an improved showing at election time. While she seemed hesitant at times on some of the big issues, she showed a likeable nature and a winning smile and held her own on most topics. She put forth a critique of the Liberal government’s record, with specific examples. Not a bad night for her.

On his part, Tim Hudak needed to try and seize back some of the momentum he seems to have lost thus far on the campaign. A newbie, like Horwath, he was slick, polished and was on the attack against Dalton McGuinty most of the evening, except on the issue of his continued use of the word “foreign” (a mistake, I thought, to bring it up repeatedly last night as it reminded people of his unfortunate focus on this in the early part of the campaign). He was able to make his critique and opposition to Premier McGuinty’ s Green Energy Act reforms known and clear. He could have done worse.

As for Dalton McGuinty, he needed to show himself as the steady hand guiding the province and make his case on his record. He did what he had to do. He used the debate well as a platform to explain the motivation for his Green Energy plan, and he connected it successfully to a plan to create jobs. From that foundation, he presented himself as what he is: a serious person leading the province in serious economic times. His standing in the polls should rise moderately as people focus on the question of who they want leading the province in tough times.

2011-10-03T19:59:00.001-07:00

The Blogs

Behind the Scenes at Debate Prep

POSTED TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

Richard Mahoney

Election debates have taken on an almost mythically important nature in modern election campaigns. With that, the media commentary on them follows a predictable rhythm. There are the scores of speculative stories as to what the stakes are, accompanied by clips of previous elections debates that demonstrate the few times a so-called “knock-out” blow happened and changed the course of an election campaign. Then you have party leaders and their teams spinning to diminish expectations on their side while not so subtly attempting to raise the stakes confronting those on the other side. The media cover it this way because it’s what they do – they try to create/increase the drama of the event. Understandably so, debates are perhaps the only time when campaign news cuts through the clutter in order to increase public interest in their coverage.

However, most debates have another predictable outcome: there is no “knock-out” blow that changes the course of the debate and thus the campaign. That being said, debates are the single most important opportunity for leaders to connect with the undecided public, who decides the outcome of elections. People do tune in, pay attention for a few moments and compare and contrast the leaders with their previous impressions of them, their records and with each other. As a result, political parties put serious emphasis on getting their candidate “ready”.

So how do they do that and what does it mean in terms of how policies and politics get shaped? First, the disclaimer: I was not involved in any preparation sessions in the current campaign. In past elections, I have helped prepare three different leaders for election debates, and these matters all have certain characteristics and outcomes, mostly by necessity. First of all, they take place in a pressure cooker – everyone, including the leaders themselves, knows that the stakes are enormous. So tensions run high and much needs to be accomplished in the short time available in a leader’s schedule. Secondly, television networks choose the format and the team advising a leader then does an issue scan to determine all possible topics. They then draft answers they think their leader can deliver credibly, and answers they anticipate the opponents will kick out, given the platforms, party records and public mood.

In preparing your own leader with lines and questions, the first test is: is the answer credible? Can our leader deliver it? The next test is: how does he or she deliver it? What values can be expressed in the delivery of the answer? And how do these values relate to our campaign message objectives? This is where an important development can take place. It is often the case that the answer a leader wants to give, or has given in the past, is no longer tenable in the hothouse of a televised debate, in the middle of that particular campaign and its issues. Vulnerabilities may have developed in an opponent, or in your own campaign. So a political communications test is applied, and answers therefore changed to meet those challenges to allow leaders to make the best connection or defend their ground successfully. In this way, the nuances of policies change or a new idea emerges. The very process of election debates and their preparation can change the course of a campaign message, and, ultimately a party’s position on something.

Next, the leader is put into a practice debate session, where the format of the actual debate is replicated and “stand-ins” jump in. Their job is to replicate the lines of argument and attack of the leader’s opponents. At this point, several things happen. Advisors work on the tone, content and delivery of the leader’s answers and suggest changes. This is best done after a session, and with a smaller group, as exchanges with stand-ins and critiques by advisors can become overwhelming and affect a leader’s confidence – a key factor in his/her performance.

Finally, on each issue, another gut check is performed. Can we say this? Is this answer good enough? Will it help convince an undecided voter to support us? Here again, policies and values, and the emphasis put on each of them, can change depending on the environment. Sometimes it takes a process like debate prep to bring certain conflicts into relief and force a leader and his team to make a call on an important issue or set of issues. In these ways, and many more, the very process of debate preparation can not only change a leader’s performance and thus the result of a campaign, but it can also help change and shape that leader’s approach to governing after the election is over.

2011-10-03T19:57:00.001-07:00

Battleground Economy

POSTED WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2011

Richard Mahoney

A new Ipsos Reid poll published this week tells us what many already knew: the economy is the most important issue in the Ontario provincial election, trumping even the perennial favourite, our cherished health care system. You would think that this might create a disadvantage for Premier McGuinty and the Liberals. After all, Ontario has gone through tough economic times and faced huge challenges during the global economic slowdown. Jobs have been lost as the U.S. and world economies stumbled. Our auto sector had to be rescued, with the provincial government playing a leading role. Families have been hit and people are worried about a slower growth future, rather than the land of plenty we have come to expect for most of the last twenty to thirty years.

All of this was supposed to be bad news for the Liberals. For most of the last year, public opinion polls showed the Premier trailing the Conservatives, who ran attack ads calling him the “Tax Man”. Conservatives boasted that they had latent credibility on the economy and pointed to the election of Stephen Harper and Rob Ford in Toronto as proof that the electoral math would work for them.

So why aren’t the Conservatives winning on this issue? That same Ipsos poll shows the Liberals in a modest lead and most other polls have shown the same thing, or have shown a very close race between the parties. First, as observed by my colleague Bruce Anderson, the Conservative campaign has tended to focus on boutique, symbolic “wedge” issues such as the tax credit for hiring new Canadians, and railing on about the government allegedly forcing us all to do the laundry at 2 am (I am not making this up; Tim Hudak has brought this up in almost every speech he has given in the last several months). Closer to the mark, Hudak has relentlessly attacked the Liberal’s Green Energy Act and tried to link it to higher electricity costs, therefore hitting people closer to where they live.

But the Premier has adeptly used the Conservatives’ sword as his shield and as the instrument of his counter-attack. He started the campaign hitting factories that are creating jobs under the Green Energy incentives – jobs that would be lost by Hudak’s commitment to cancel the plan. What the Premier is doing is making the economic battleground a debate over who is best to create jobs and has a plan to build the economy. Hudak played into this by his cavalier approach to cancelling this economic plan and his focus on boutique issues. On the issue of job creation, it appears the Premier has a serious plan. People may or may not agree with all of it, or know much about its details, but they see that he has one.

Why would the Hudak Conservatives cede this ground willingly? Well, that was not the plan. They hoped to hammer the Premier on pocketbook issues and remind people of the little things that might annoy them. They also hoped that the economic issue of choice for most Ontarians would be taxes, rather than job creation. But the Liberals appear to be winning the battle on who is best to manage the economic challenge facing the province, because they at least have a plan to create jobs and growth.

As we round the corner of week two, watch for a change in strategy now on the part of Hudak and the Conservatives. They know that Ontarians are looking for something more than an attack dog who cavalierly cancels programs that create jobs but appears to have no serious plan to create jobs himself. The Conservatives will likely try to link dramatic tax cuts to a strategy for job creation. They don’t have many other options.

The Premier is having some success linking his efforts over the last eight years to job creation. Tim Hudak apparently hoped that if offered a strong critique of the Premier with little substance in terms of a different plan, and that it would be enough to defeat a two-term government. It appears that Ontarians are looking for something more serious. Now Tim Hudak has a big decision to make: will he change his campaign strategy and articulate ideas that amount to a serious plan to create jobs? If he doesn’t, it appears that he can’t win battleground economy. And I think we all know what that means…

Ontario Election 2011- Who says this campaign isn't interesting?

2011-09-18T17:41:00.001-07:00

Election campaigns are in large measure about reaching those who typically don’t pay too much attention to politics. Those who do follow politics closely are more likely to have an opinion, and are therefore less persuadable by campaign ads, leaders’ tours and policy platforms. They can be motivated to turn out to vote by a leader or a party’s conduct or performance, but because they follow politics, they already have a view and are less inclined to change their vote during the course of a campaign.

A big part of campaigns is focused on reaching those who don’t have a set and clear opinion on who they will support, namely the folks who pay the least attention to politics. It is one of the ironies of politics that this group of people – to whom politics is less relevant on a day to day basis and usually know less about parties, leaders and their ideas – end up deciding the outcome of a campaign. The challenge for parties and their leaders is to find ways to reach the voters who will be the difference between electoral success and defeat. Therefore, a lot of effort goes into persuading a relatively small section of the electorate.

The first week of a campaign is when the lights go on. It gives them an opportunity to connect with this group of “persuadables”. It’s a moment when the wider public tunes in, realizes there is a choice to be made and begins to define that choice. The 2011 election campaign’s first week is now complete, with some important and surprising results.

For the better part of a year, Tim Hudak’s Conservatives have pounded away at the Liberal government. They have nursed a healthy lead in public opinion polls. Pundits began to write the Premier’s political obituary, and there were plenty of predictions of a Hudak victory. Most observers thought that Tim Hudak had all of the advantage. So how did he spend the important and possibly defining first week of Campaign 2011?

Instead of seizing the moment to define himself and the province, Hudak and the Conservatives have stumbled. Premier McGuinty played to one of his strengths – education – with a popular plan to help five out of six Ontario families afford post-secondary education. The plan also neatly deals with one of the government’s vulnerabilities – the notion that governments are not on “your side” and make life more difficult and less affordable. The tuition plan is a “pocketbook” issue, too.

Meanwhile, Hudak took most of the first week to hammer the so-called “foreign workers” theme. He used incendiary language and changed his message and advertising to overtly suggest that the Liberals were about helping foreigners – “them” – at the cost of “us”. Columnists and opinion leaders were aghast. The Conservatives backed off on the issue and tried to talk about other things. Public opinion polls now show a modest Liberal advantage. Tim Hudak’s crucial first week opportunity was lost. How and why did this happen?

Parties often make the mistake of fighting the last campaign. After a defeat, failures are brought into clear relief and everyone vows not to make the same mistakes again. Seared into the consciousness of every Ontario Conservative is John Tory’s ill-fated plan to publicly fund private religious education in Ontario in the 2007 election campaign. At the time, the Liberals had seized this in the campaign’s early days to portray it as the wrong priority for the province, and the rest is electoral history. Tim Hudak and his strategists saw the Liberals’ proposed tax credit to hire new Canadians as their opportunity to create a similar backlash – to convince those persuadable voters that the Liberals had the wrong priorities, and that the Conservatives were on their side. They thought they could do to the Liberals what the Liberals had done to them in 2007. It appears to have backfired.

The campaign now enters the next phase, which will take us up to the debates on September 27. It is often difficult to “cut through” to those not paying close attention to politics in this part of the campaign – first impressions are already made and people often return to their daily routines. As Tim Hudak heads into this next part of the campaign, he has failed to land a punch and has not really defined himself and his plan for the province. He lost the opportunity of the campaign’s first week to show that he is a serious candidate in these serious economic times. While there is still a lot of time left, this campaign has gone from advantage Hudak to advantage McGuinty.

Who says this is not an interesting campaign?

Ken Dryden: "How could we be so stupid?"

2011-03-12T11:21:00.000-08:00

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ken-dryden-on-hockey-violence-how-could-we-be-so-stupid/article1939428/page2/

Ken Dryden is one of the wisest and most interesting figures in Canadian public life. He entered politics in 2004. Serving as Minister of Social Development under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, he brought in a national child care program for the first time in Canadian history. All ten provincial governments signed agreements to deliver the program. Also a rarity in Canada, to say the least. Sadly, the program was abruptly cancelled by the Harper government, in a fit of pique, brought on by partisan and ideological zeal.

He won six Stanley Cups with the legendary Montreal Canadiens in the nineteen seventies. He ran the Toronto Maple Leafs to winning seasons (!)- apparently not easy work in recent times. He authored a great book, on hockey, "The Game", and later spent a year in an Ontario classroom, authoring an excellent book on learning, "In School". That he would have something interesting and important to say about the problems the NHL has dealing with violence should not be much of a surprise. But, like all his interventions, it is welcome and, again, wise.

2011-01-20T10:39:00.000-08:00

No new blogs for now.... come on over to Twitter...

Mr Harper and The RCMP

2008-09-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper's political career has had several strange intersections with our national police force. In the middle of the last election campaign, he and his Party were drifting towards a second defeat at the hands of Paul Martin's Liberals until, magically and as if from heaven, the RCMP announced an investigation into the income trust review, naming Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. It was an unprecedented act, and as many columnists have pointed out, we still don't know why it happened. That investigation turned out much later to be bogus, at least as it pertained to Ralph Goodale and the Liberal government of the day. That did not stop Mr Harper and his parties from making allegations of criminal conduct. The Liberals dropped precipitously in the polls and Mr Harper went on to win. It was the campaign's turning point.

Then we had the RCMP raid of the Conservative Party offices earlier this year. The Conservatives are accused of overspending their legal limit by as much as $1.2 million. The details on that one require a separate blog, and hopefully time, and this campaign, will allow for the same.

They're back!! Reacting to the Globe's report on the RCMP investigation into the Bernier-Couillard affair, this week, Mr Harper said:

“I want to make it absolutely clear, because I do not want this story distorted: There is no suggestion that the RCMP is investigating Minister Bernier. Period. Quite frankly, any question that tries to suggest otherwise is misleading and inaccurate,” Mr. Harper said.
...
“Let's be very clear: Mr. Bernier and nobody in this government is under investigation by the RCMP. The RCMP, we understand from stories, may be investigating some private individuals, but frankly I do not know if that's true and I do not know the details...”

Wow! Mr. Harper doesn't know about the investigation, but somehow knows for certain that no one in his government is involved. That may or may not be true, but it is certainly not an argument he allowed when Ralph Goodale's reputation was impugned. He and his party alleged criminal conduct because of the simple presence of an RCMP investigation. You can see why he wouldn't want "this story distorted".

Further, while he knows nothing about the investigation, he does seem to know that "some private individuals" may be involved, or so he says. Today's Globe says :

Sources said the RCMP investigation is focused on two lines of questioning: allegations that businesswoman Julie Couillard lobbied Conservative officials on a federal real estate deal, and how secret documents that belonged to Conservative MP Maxime Bernier when he was foreign affairs minister came to be left at Ms. Couillard's home.

So they are investigating whether Couillard lobbied Conservative officials on a federal government real estate deal, and how secret documents belonging to Bernier came to be left at Couillard's home, but Mr. Harper knows for sure that no one in the Conservative government is being investigated. How does he know that? Was he briefed by the RCMP on the investigation? Did he or his ministers discuss the investigation with the RCMP? If so, Canadians deserve to know, because that could be political interference in a police investigation, and that is serious stuff. If not, is he making this all up?

If he is, we should probably know that, too.

Why aren't the numbers moving? Because polls are for dogs?

2008-09-21T16:21:00.000-07:00

It's nearing midpoint in the federal election and our media is awash in polls. It is hard to keep up. Ever since modern polling was invented and popularized by Lou Harris in the United States and Martin Goldfarb here in Canada, polling information has been the mother's milk of the political class. Political parties polled during elections and other key times. That data was always held very tightly by those commissioning the poll: in almost every case a handful of people. The rest of us had to wait and rely on the occasional poll paid for and published by the media.

As modern campaigning techniques developed, parties began the practise of tracking the evolution of public opinion nightly, by the method of a rolling poll. The statistical accuracy of polls depends upon a random sample. Let's take the example of a national poll of about 12oo people. The poll is usually done over three or four nights- with segments of three or four hundred respondents contacted per night. A rolling poll simply keeps those segments going nightly, usually for the entire campaign. In this way, the parties could closely track the evolution of public opinion nightly. They could see, almost in real time, how the public reacts to campaign developments.

Now, this information is available to almost everyone. Harris Decima, Nanos and Ekos, for example, all publish rolling polls daily. So now we are all campaign managers and strategists. Eat it up. Enjoy!

The downside is that the coverage of the campaigns is now driven on a daily basis by this phenomenon. They suck all the oxygen out of campaign coverage, leaving important things, such as what the politicians are actually proposing to do, gasping for air. It used to be that polls would be published, at most, every week or two. Now there are many released every day, and they dominate the daily news cycle. So issues, and even values , play second fiddle. This campaign, at least so far, is the worst example of this to date.

Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker once proclaimed "Polls.... are for dogs!" And while public opinion research is valuable, interesting and can even promote democratic values in our system, this complete fixation on the numbers or the horse race is a perversion of our political culture. There is little room for anything else.

In time, there will probably be a reaction to all this and issues and values will re-emerge as the most important factors in an election campaign. The Internet has opened up participation in the "conversation" that election campaigns are supposed to be, and that is some reason for hope.

Finally, should we be surprised that Harper and the Conservatives essentially hold the same lead in public opinion that they have held since the first week of the campaign? Not really. this campaign really isn't about anything, yet. Stephen Harper has helped make sure of that. There have been some gaffes. For the most part these have been various "neo-con eruptions'' from Mr Harper's Conservative campaign. Most Canadians have not engaged, and this is not unusual. At this point in the 2004 election, Paul Martin and the Liberals were behind and they came back and won. At this point in the 2006 election campaign, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were behind and they came back and won. The public tuned in and made their decision late in the game in those instances.

Stephen Harper called this election , in violation of the law his government passed, because he gambled that no one would care too much. He saw dark economic clouds coming and did not want to wear responsibility for them. He had spent the surplus away that he inherited from Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, bringing us back into deficit country. He did not want a light shone on that while people struggled over the next year. He also hoped that a low key campaign, sweaters and all, running coincident with the US elections, combined with the declining public interest, would all result in Canadians sleepwalking to the polls. His campaign slogan, splashed at the end of every one of those smarmy ads, is "We're better off with Harper". He's trying to tell you there is no big deal here. You are supposed to yawn, maybe even fall back to sleep. He's hoping you'll conclude there is nothing so wrong with him or his government that will make you want to get up and change it.

The risk is that he may turn out to be right.

Cherniak Again on Layton and Harper.

2008-09-12T20:44:00.000-07:00

And in the end, Layton and Stephen Taylor on Harper and Layton. I guess Liberals don't need to make the case anymore that Layton and Harper collude. Jack does that all by himself.

Next.

Conservatives Admit Harper and Layton Colluded to Omit Greens from Debate

2008-09-10T20:10:00.000-07:00

As Cherniak on Politics blogs tonight, and as Keith Boag's story on the CBC National news reveals, representatives of the NDP and the Conservatives had a deal. They agreed some time ago that they would both block the inclusion of the Green Party in the debates. And they stuck with the deal until Jack Layton "turned turtle".

Which is interesting. First, when the news first broke that May would not be allowed in to the debates, I happened to be on the air on the Ottawa radio station, CFRA, doing a weekly panel on Afternoon Edition with host Rob Snow. When I suggested that the Conservatives and NDP had colluded to keep the Green Party out, my co-panelist and the NDP's official campaign spokesperson, Brad Lavigne, denied it vehemently. As it turns out, that was exactly what happened.

This brings us to the second point. In past elections, I had the privilege of talking to many thousands of people in Ottawa Centre, many of them (too many!) who voted for the NDP. In the six month campaign that Ed Broadbent and I ran together in, I knocked on well over 60,000 doors before our campaign stopped counting. I write this to say that, during that wonderful experience, I gained some appreciation for what these good people looked to the NDP to do for them. Working with Stephen Harper was not high on their priority list. They did not expect or want Jack Layton to work with Stephen Harper to defeat a national child care program. They did not expect their representatives to vote to end the Kelowna Accord, and to spend all their energy defeating a Liberal government that had just secured an international agreement to further the Kyoto objectives and deal with climate change. They did not want the party they voted for to work with Stephen Harper to force an election which achieved Layton's objective: a Stephen Harper minority government.

No, that is not what NDP supporters elect their Members of Parliament to do. They don't see politics the way Jack Layton does: the Liberals are the ultimate enemy and it doesn't matter what tactic you use, what progressive policy you bring down as long as you defeat the enemy.

So the challenge for Layton is that this new deal with Harper just underlines to his potential supporters the sometimes symbiotic relationship between these two unlikely partners. They say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Jack's problem is his potential voters don't share his definition of who the ultimate enemy is. For them, on most days, it is not the Liberals. It is not the Green Party. It's the guy who stands most against what they believe: Stephen Harper.

Layton, Harper Cave

2008-09-10T14:42:00.000-07:00

So Elizabeth May and puffin style attacks are the big story of week one. Who knew? Once Jack Layton's entire base threatened to leave him over the issue, it was only a matter of time before he caved. Then Stephen Harper turtled too.

Layton was taking it on the chin because, by denying May a place in the debates, he was practising what some in his party call the "old politics". He was even more vulnerable because his campaign practically ignores the issue of climate change, preferring to cynically promise cheap gas. He doesn't have the courage to propose a big idea. The left, particularly those involved in environmental issues are disappointed. Layton is losing their support. He just didn't want to lose anymore of that support so he wanted to keep May out. Competition is bad for business, especially when the business is your business. In the end, his plan failed.

This obsession with keeping the Greens out is not new. I was a candidate in the last two federal elections in Ottawa Centre. Nothing would drive my opponents (Ed Broadbent and Paul Dewar respectively) more insane than any prominence given to the Green Party`s very solid candidate, David Chernushenko. The NDP hierarchy loathe the Greens much more than they oppose the Conservatives. It's just the way it is.

But Jack's not the only one who is at risk with May in the debates. Stephane Dion's stance on this issue is all the more principled when you take into account the risk he now faces. Elizabeth May may well be successful in showing just how bad Stephen Harper is on the environment, climate change and other progressive issues. But, if she is, who will she pull support away from? It stands to reason that she will take votes away from someone who is closer to her agenda, someone whose platform actually commits to doing something about climate change, namely the Liberal Party and Stephane Dion.

That being said, we all look forward to watching the risk averse Harper take it on a chin or two.

Andrew Coyne has it right!

2008-09-08T18:27:00.000-07:00

Yep, that's right, I said it. And it feels just fine. Andrew has had some very good blogs and columns already during this campaign. One of them mapped the hypocrisy of Stephen Harper's current claim to be a "centrist". This is a guy who left the Progressive Conservative Party precisely because he thought it was too "centrist". Now, at election time he claims to be one.

But I digress. Coyne's "Democracy Takes A Beating" nails it. Elizabeth May should be in the debates. It is indefensible that she is not. By definition, her participation in the debates is not in the interest of any of the other leaders. She is their competitor. But in what upside down world is that the test? Apparently, Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton threatened the networks that they would not participate in the debates if Ms. May participated. Are we back in high school here? Is that the way we should decide who is in the debate and who is not?

This whole issue underlines one of the dirty little secrets of Canadian politics. Most Canadians would be stunned to learn is that it isn't some impartial body, such as the Commissioner of Elections, that supervises the leader's election debates. No, it is a consortium of broadcasters. A cozy little club, Coyne called it. The decision on who is in the debate, who is out, when they take place, the format of the debates- the whole shooting match- is a programming decision by the networks, as if this was Canadian Idol. If the broadcasters decided not to have debates, there wouldn't be any. If they decided that debating would not be allowed during the Leader's debates, then there would be none of that. It is high time to change that.

And, while I am not a supporter of the Green Party, I am going here, to add my voice to those who think democracy in this country deserves a boost, not a hit.

Stephen Harper: Leadership Mitt Romney style

2008-09-08T09:19:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper hasn't given Canadians much of a campaign yet. After two and a half years of a government that accomplished precious little other than shaving a point or two off the GST, Stephen Harper breaks his law and his promise and calls an election. So you would think he'd have something big to say, some big idea. So far, his campaign is about juvenile ads and tricks, and the notion that Stephane Dion's big idea of change presents too much of a risk.

It started with my old friend Lawrence Cannon joining Jason Kenney on the first 6 am Conservative attack press conference. Cannon and Kenney repeated the ridiculous notion that the Liberals would increase the GST and repeal the child care tax deduction, brought in by the Conservative when they ended Paul Martin and Ken Dryden's national child care program running in ten provinces. Then the silly ads and "puffin gate", no doubt both drawn up by some high testosterone teenager in the Conservative war room.

These guys are doing what their Republican cousins have perfected and what their antecedents, the Mike Harris Conservatives, previously imported to Canada. Just keep on repeating the idea, no matter how untrue or ridiculous. Say it loudly, and without nuance. And eventually it will take root somewhere. Whatever you do, don't allow discussion, debate, or any nuance. Especially from your own team.

The Republican Convention displayed this dark art at is finest/worst. Mitt Romney declared

"We need change all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative
Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in
Washington - throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain!"

And we thought the conservatives had been in charge in Washington these last eight years.....

So far, at least from the Conservative side, this campaign is more about these silly fabrications and juvenile stunts than anything else. That, and keeping the Green Party out of the Leader's debates. Where is Harper's rationale for calling an early election? What does he plan to do to build Canada's economy as the US heads into recession? How do we transition to a more modern, greener economy ? How will he help families make that change? By dumping on Stephane Dion and colluding with Jack Layton to ensure that Elizabeth May and her environmental agenda have no voice, that's how.

Some campaign! Some leader!

Why not have a campaign now?

2008-09-07T16:43:00.000-07:00

Every party, mine included, will have its answers to this question. And the political and media class generally are of the view that the government has run out of steam and that Stephane Dion has had enough time to get ready. So why don't we have an election now? Let the people decide, and on we go.

But there is one argument against an election now that isn't getting much attention, except from some, such as The Star's Jim Travers. As his column says, Canadians deserve to know whether the election that brought Stephen Harper to power was free and fair. What could be more fundamental to the health of our democracy than that?

Was the election law broken? Why did the RCMP announce a bogus investigation into the the then Liberal Finance Minister in the middle of an election, in flagrant violation of their own practices and policies? Who made that happen? Knowing the answers to these and other questions won't change the result of the last election. But it would tell us whether our democracy is whole.

Having an election now effectively sweeps those two questions under the carpet. That is a shame.

Day One- The Launches

2008-09-07T16:21:00.000-07:00

Every campaign wants a "clean launch". So how did they do?

First off, Stephen Harper. He never ceases to amaze. Fresh from ignoring his own law, and that silliness about Parliament being dysfunctional, he gets his call off. But he did make a couple of mistakes. First, he stumbled on his answer to why he called the election now. This is a potential game changer. Minority governments are usually defeated. Often, the party in power engineers their own defeat. But Harper did not do that. He also goes a big step further and ignores the election date set by his own law. But his answer on why he called it, and why now, was almost jibberish. Didn't they see that question coming?

Secondly, he pulled a Hillary. While discussing his "family man" campaign ad and what it means, he was asked by an intrepid reporter whether or not Stephane Dion was a family man. His answer: "I presume he is a family man". Really? You do? Is he also not a Muslim, as far as you know?

Stephen Harper starts off this campaign with a lot of advantages. He is in power. He is ahead in the polls. It is Stephane Dion's first campaign. He has lots of money. But his weakness has always been that he gets rattled when the heat is on. Then he shows his nasty side. Remember his first campaign and the meltdown over the child pornography assault on Paul Martin. Remember his disappearing act at the end of the campaign. It was bizarre. The Conservatives will have to hope that we don't see too much of that Stephen Harper.

Second up: Stephane Dion. He got a pretty clean launch. Both at his opening announcement and press conference and at the rally I just returned from in Ottawa South. He appeared loose and was humourous. And he got his lines in on Stephen Harper. This is going to be an interesting campaign. The Liberal leader starts off as the underdog. But he has an inviting target in the Prime Minister, and it looks like Harper will make it easy for Dion to make the campaign a referendum on Stephen Harper. That is a good thing for the Liberals.

On blogging

2008-09-06T13:32:00.000-07:00

Over the last couple of years, I have become a reader of blogs. Blogs on music, ideas, sports, politics and many things. Now, there are a couple of elections on. The blogging world serves up some pretty interesting commentary on those elections. And levels the field so that the many can participate in a way that just wasn't possible until recently.

That's a good thing. A really good thing. While I intend to remain primarily a reader of other people's blogs, the next few weeks offer a chance to be part of a conversation. I am going to try and be part of that, at least from this little corner.