Mr. Harper - Call An Inquiry Into the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair.

The response of the Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan underscores what is essentially wrong with the Harper Conservative’s fitness for governing. Harper gets good marks for message management but not for managing the right message.

Claiming that a pursuit of facts not previously disclosed surrounding a lawsuit settlement as a vendetta against Mulroney is bad governance. For the Harper Cons this stance and characterization of the initiative as a vendetta is proof of bad judgement in government – and it is very bad politics too.

Mulroney got a $2.1 million dollars of taxpayer’s money but it now appears not all the known facts were disclosed when the settlement was negotiated. The bungling of the RCMP and the political overtones instigated by Prime Minister Chrétien on the events were clouding and confusing the issues. Now we are seeing some further allegations that never came to light in 1997 that should have before the matter was "settled."

Transparent accountable and open government demands full and frank disclosure – especially under the circumstances and emerging story as to the nature of the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings, the timing of them and some previously undisclosed information and allegations.

Mr. Harper touts his Accountability Act and a new standard of ethics and governance, even though a big swack of the provisions are not in force. Is that because he fails, refuses or neglects to proclaim them because he is not really serious about accountability issues or the provisions of the law he passed?

This issue is going to be a major character test for Mr. Harper and his minority government. Is he going to follow the old-school approach of obfuscation, bluff and blustering your way through the issue like Jean Chrétien would have? Or will he take the high road like Paul Martin did in Adscam and call an inquiry because it is the right thing to do regardless of the political consequences.

Canadians want good government that is trustworthy and competent and focused on serving the best interests of citizens. Leadership on this issue is much more important than the usual Harper tactics of media manipulation and message management. Leadership is especially critical given the serious circumstances and allegations that are just now coming to light.

Mr. Harper, this issue is a real confidence vote in you and your government because you will have to face judgment of the citizens of Canada and the consequences of that judgment. We will be asking ourselves if we ought to continue to have any confidence in you and your party to be open, honest, transparent and sustaining any semblance of integrity. Passing a law about accountability is one thing, acting accountably is another.

In reality, it is all mostly about you Prime Minister Harper. You going to be judged by voters by the way you handle this. Will it be ethical an governance issue for you - or purely a political one? We will be watching how you handle this and then asking ourselves if you are still fit for service in the highest office in the land and if you continue to be worthy of our consent to be governed.

Don’t let us down sir. Call the inquiry.

Stelmach Accepts New Governance Recommendations for Agencies, Boards and Commissions

There is another significant step towards better governance in Alberta with the release today of the Premier’s Task Force on Agencies Boards and Commissions. These groups, largely appointed, spend about half of the annual operational budget of the province so they are not insignificant.

There is a full report on line- suffice to say the Premier has accepted 14 of the 15 recommendations and the other one was modified. That recommendation modification was that no elected or senior government officials should be appointed to governing bodies of agencies. The modification was to acknowledge that sometimes. Given the mandate of an agency it is helpful to have elected or senior government officials input.

I see the quibble but such political or administrative input can be obtained very easily without elected or senior government officials being officially appointed to the agency, board or commission. These various groups are formed mostly to get independent and sometimes expert advice (like the Hunter Expert Panel on the Royalty Review) and to take politics and bureaucratic culture out of the deliberations and decision or recommendation making. Having bureaucrats and MLAs appointed and directly in the decision making process tends to undermine that larger and important goal.

The other recommendation that will be the media focus on is going to be on “a competency-based appointment process.” That will be interpreted as code to not just appointing the party faithful. Competency is paramount but it does not eliminate partisanship in appointments. Nor should it. Everything being equal, any government is going to appoint like-minded people to agencies board and commissions because they want alignment with government policy directions and goals. Competency is the first test; pedigree will still be the second test – regardless of which party is forming government.

“Diversity of Appointments” recommendation to reflect the diverse nature of the Alberta population is a great step forward.

Good governance and transparency are in desperate need of policy and political attention in ALberta. This positive response by Stelmach to the recommendations of the Agencies, Boards and Commissions Governance Task Force is one more way Stelmach is getting it done.

New Poll Asks If Stelmach Has Met Public Expectations on Royalties.

I love polls. The latest offering from Leger for CanWest was done from Oct 26-29, immediately after Stelmach’s Royalty Review Response was made public is interesting. The earlier Leger poll found 88 percent of Albertans did not think we were getting our fair share of royalty revenues and two-thirds of us wanted the Hunter Review Panels recommendations fully adopted. That didn't happen and apparently slightly less than half of us are on side with the government's response to the Our Fair Share recommendations.

Since the Hunter Panel report was made public, time passed, positions were taken, threats were made, we had explanations and clarifications. And there was a barage of accusations and predictions about dire consequences if the "Our Fair Share" recommendations were accepted. Through it all the Stelmach government did it own number crunching and made up its own mind.

The Leger results show more about how Albertans were “feeling” last weekend about the Stelmach royalty response. After all it is a complex set of issues and an opinion poll taken immediately after the Stelmach response and done over a weekend is most likely to engender an emotional and reactive response instead of a reflective and considered opinion.

So here is what Leger found about how Alberta "feels." First off we don’t yet have a breakdown between Edmonton, Calgary and rural replies and that is needed to get some better context on the answers. That breakdown will provide more “heft” to the results in terms of the political usefulness of the poll results too.

Secondly I am struck that about 1 in 5 Albertans didn’t yet know how they felt about the questions being asked. That could be because they need time to consider and understand the Stelmach response. It would be interesting to do the same poll this week and that would get a better sense of were Albertans are really at now that they have had time to digest the response and talk to people and read some of the commentary about it.

Thirdly, it is pretty obvious based on my Blog hits, that only 150 people showed up at the CBC Forum on the issue last night and recent conversations with my group of contacts tells me that Albertans have moved on. It seems that royalties are being regarded as a done deal - or - maybe they are merely catching their breath before further engagement. Time will tell.

The Lougheed Test of good policy decision of if all vested interests in the decision are still upset, you probably “got it right.” Seems to be the case here based on these poll results. The key question of did Stelmach get it right we have 47% agreeing, 33% disagreeing and 20% who don’t know. that seems to prove the Lougheed Test of "getting it right."

The most conclusive opinion in the poll was that 61% said the “…industry over-inflated the negative consequences of higher royalties….” 21% sided with industry’s positioning and 18% didn’t know. This is a serious issue for the energy sector now. Albertans don’t believe the industry and the industry can’t rely on the old contacts within government to protect or insulate them from the public (any more). This is especially true after the Auditor General’s Report and his scathing assessment of some aspects of the Department of Energy.

Our own polling has preliminary results showing a full 44% o fus do not trust any of the political party leaders to manage growth in Alberta. So as we go deeper into the election "red zone," our politicians are going to be much more mindful of meeting the public’s expectations as to their trustee role around resource development. Deals on royalties done behind closed doors will see politicians punished in the polls and at the ballot box – no matter who is in office.

Of course if Albertans go back to being passive and impotent- nothing will change. It is up to the citizens of Alberta to continue to become better informed and more engaged.

We need to start acting like an owner and behaving like a voter. An election is coming.

Lougheed Endorses Stelmach's Royalty Review Response.

The personal endorsement by Peter Lougheed of the Stelmach Royalty Review Response is a big step forward for our new Premier. Lougheed stepping up in support of the recent royalty announcement is significant. Lougheed is an influential voice all over the province and he comes from the small group of Alberta political leaders who have made such difficult decisions in the past. He knows how tough it is and his approval of Stelmach’s decision speaks volumes.

Lougheed has been openly advocating for a slow down of energy project approvals because of the damage they are inflicting due to the overheated pace of growth in Alberta. His big concerns have been damage socially and environmentally but also on fiscal pressures on the province and municipalities to meet the public infrastructure demands in this current pace of growth.

Lougheed’s advice and response is in sharp contrast to the warnings of former Premier Klein last month. Klein was commenting that the energy sector was not happy and therefore royalties were best left well enough alone. Stelmach wisely left that bit of advice alone.

So Lougheed has clarified one thing. Stelmach’s government is definitely not an extension of the Klein regime. There are some who think Stelmach's kindness, politeness and graciousness are shortcomings for the bloodsport of political leadership. They see him as still having the potential to be a Harry Strom, especially if he were to trip up in the pending election.

So what does this tell us about the governing philosophy of a Stelmach governed Alberta? To me it is more evidence of a Stelmach government embracing a progressive social political philosophy. He is about to engage in a more conservationist approach too as we shall see the roll out of some new environmental initiatives and the start up of an integrated land use management strategy.

The fact that a commitment to deal with homelessness as the follow up policy initiative right after the royalty decision is further proof of this shift away from the former neo-con fiscal and social policy agenda. Today in Alberta we have a spending problem due to a premium cost for public infrastructure in this over heated economy. We also now have a revenue problem too – as pointed out by the Auditor General.

Alberta's Auditor General Fred Dunn said some past Ministers of Energy were not collecting all of the energy royalties that were due - even in the old model. In fact those same Ministers of Energy seemed to be even uninterested in doing their duty of ensuring the appropriate royalty revenues due to Albertans were actually being realized.

I think that is about to change - big time - and we will see Premier Ed Stelmach as his own man and with his own style of leadership. Yes, he is not be the slick and polished veneer pre-packaged politician. He is not the product of the professional media trainers the mainstream media is so used to. Yes - he is no orator either...and while he can't "lift the words off the page," he has shown that he can bring clarity to complex issues like royalty regimes.

But no one can doubt Ed Stelmach’s capacity for caring, nor his compassion nor his sincere commitment to Alberta and her people. He is also different because his focus is not just the Alberta of today…or basking in the glory of an Alberta of yesterday. He has a much broader and longer vision of the province and how it should be governed.

Now the lingering question is – is Stelmach capable of doing the job of Premier to the satisfaction of Albertans? He has been on the job for 11 months already and that question is still being asked. Well my guess is we are about 100 days or so away from an election. Those 100 days is more than enough time for Albertans to come to know Ed Stelmach for who he is – as his own man and with his own style of leadership.

Once the election is called it will be up to Albertans to decide if Ed Stelmach can do the job of Premier – and if they want him to do that job. Remember campaigns matter and it is not how they start, but how they finish that really counts.

Besides, Peter Lougheed obviously likes him and that goes a long way in my books.

What Political Leadership Qualities and Skills Do We Really Want and Need These Days?

I am intrigued by the Ipsos Reid poll of October 16th where 1001 Canadians gave Stephen Harper a 63% positive rating for “leadership qualities and skills” and they gave Dion a 36% positive rating on the same question. I wonder how many phone calls they made before 1001 people would answer. I wonder how many cell phone numbers were used to capture the opinions of younger citizens.

I wonder what criteria the poll participants had in mind and used for determining “leadership qualities and skill” when they were answering those questions. I wonder if they applied the same criteria to considering Dion as they did to Harper when they answered. How much of the value drivers behind the answers for each candidate were the same or different and why? Were Albertans using different criteria than Maritimers when they answered the questions?

The levels of "Don’t Know" response around Dion shows he is relatively unknown. One wonders how much of this is poll result driven by name recognition. Does it really give us any meaningful assessment of leadership qualities and skills of the various party leaders?

What are the criteria we should or could be applying to judge the leadership qualities and skill of political leaders like Harper, Dion and Layton? Should we vote mostly by "what is in it for me" in what the leaders are promising? Are we driven more by group interests of our community, town or special interests? Are we deciding based on altruism and how a leader reflects our own ideals and principles and how much we trust him? What are the value drivers in our choices around "identity politics?"

Do we like a dominant, assertive ambitious personality types and someone who likes conflict and aggression as our leader? Is a more inspiring and persuasive personality that will be more attractive to us as a leader? Do we find a leader who is of great character, with carefully considered and well thought out and clearly stated opinions to be more appealing? Are we keen on someone who is reflective and caring about citizen’s personal aspirations individually and for our country as well as giving good value for our tax dollars?

Are we at all attracted to leaders who are insightful, adaptive and wise with relevant knowledge, experience and one who is skilled at adaptive governing for our rapidly changing times? Or are we all about choosing a leaders who is pure hardball politics where winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. Are we attracted to party leaders where clever and sharp political players where power politics always trumps good governing?

Do we like leaders who see it all as a game where personal pride and power dominates the motivations. Do we seek out and choose a "win at any cost" kind of politician and do we see any other more collaborative and inclusive approaches to leadership as a weakness?

My guess is there a lot more going on in the minds of Canadians when they really sit down and evaluate the leadership qualities and skills of our political leaders. I think an ordinary opinion poll asking us to choose between a political “Coke or Pepsi” is not going to give us much useful information or insight. We need to look deeper into those larger and more meaningful questions about qualities and character and style issues around political leadership as we seriously consider granting our consent to be governed at the ballot box.

Citizens need to be considering bigger questions and seek a deeper understanding of what we want in our leaders as people and personalities and political decision makers. We need more definition and deliberation about leadership before we will get anything meaningful in the answers we would give to pollsters. This especially true around complex issues like what leadership qualities and skills do we really want and need and if either leader "X" or "Y" actually meets those needs.