The end of 2006 is just around the corner. I want to thank all the over 13,000 unique visitors who have visited and participated in this Blog since I started it on July 23.
I am enjoying the vitality of the conversations and am just starting to see the power and importance of this new communications medium.
I got involved at the urging of some other younger Bloggers around the PC leadership in Alberta. I intend to keep posting on politics and public policy. I also expect to expand the scope of this Blog into some specific area of key interest, including the tricky part of balancing a vibrant economy with environmental enhancement, not mere sustainability. Participatory, informed citizenship is another area of interest I will start to explore and comment on in the New Year too.
We will be doing much more collaboration with Policy Channel (www.policychannel.com) next year as well. There will be more links to more timely and informative conversations with experts and advocates in a range of public policy issues.
I will try to be provocative and fair and open to all comers and commentators – within the bounds of good taste and the law. I have only had to delete one comment since I started this journey and that was for reasons of legality.
So thanks for visiting, thanks for reading and I hope you keep coming back and telling your friends, family, colleagues and associates about this Blog. The more people who participate in a democracy, the wiser the “crowd” becomes and the better the system works.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
Ken Chapman
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Will We Get Good Government From Either Harper or Dion
Citizens are angry about the shallow commitment they see in our politicians to open, accountable and transparent government. They are equally angry over the partisan gamesmanship that passes for political strategy and tactics, especially on the federal scene these days.
The Chrétien and Martin Liberal governments were masters at this gamesmanship and the Harper Cons are showing signs they are of the same ilk. The recent fight the Cons have had with Elections Canada over certain convention costs being party donations and the stacking of the 10-member panel to oversee and make policy recommendations on reproductive technologies and stem-cell research with social conservatives are cases in point.
The tactical cuteness of releasing the news of these events quietly on the Friday before the Christmas celebrations, obviously to avoid media coverage, has been noticed by the main stream media and only adds to cynicism. To their credit the MSM are commenting on these issues extensively now, when citizens are ready to read the news again.
The earlier Harper Cons “disclosure” of Dion’s dual citizenship is an equivalent piece of gamesmanship. Michael Adams’ excellent Op Ed in the Globe and Mail today deals with this issue intelligently and in a context of Canadian values. I personally believe Dion having dual citizenship is an advantage for Canada in international relations and in developing a better balanced foreign policy, especially with the European Union. The Harper Cons framing it as an issue of Dion’s loyalty to Canada is pure “Bush” league.
The Harper Cons are evolving as a government and have done some really sound forward thinking policy work this past year. When they get purely partisan, publicly “chippy” and use the governance power for tactical political gain they lessen their stock in the minds of Canadians. They show how misaligned they really are with mainstream Canadian social values.
Canadians have been test driving the Harper minority government for the past year to see how it works as an alternative to the institutionalized arrogance of past Liberal regimes. The reviews are mixed so far but the looming election will be the true test of the citizen’s sense of if the Cons are ready for the real power of a majority government. It will also test if Dion’s Liberals are to be trusted and if they are perceived as any different from the Chrétien/Martin Liberals of yore.
I, like most Canadians, like Peace, Order and Good Government. Today we have none of these. Peace will be awhile coming but we must unconditionally support our troops while we reflect on our role and goal in Afghanistan. Order will come with a majority government that, ideally, has representation in every region, if not every province.
Good Government is a bigger issue. It requires a change in the governance culture in Ottawa and almost everywhere else. That requires better leaders with qualities of character and a personal commitment to governing with intelligence and integrity with a long view and not just keeping and exercising power until the next election. It demands more Garth Turner types of backbenchers with independent streaks and clear thinking minds who can balance partisanship political demands with the responsibilities of a representative democracy.
I hope we have a spring federal election so we can restore some stability and order and get back on a path towards good government. For Canada to be at Peace again will take a bit longer. An election should help Canadians clarify why we are in Afghanistan, what we intend to accomplish there for the Afghan people and what it will take for Canada to achieve those ends.
The Chrétien and Martin Liberal governments were masters at this gamesmanship and the Harper Cons are showing signs they are of the same ilk. The recent fight the Cons have had with Elections Canada over certain convention costs being party donations and the stacking of the 10-member panel to oversee and make policy recommendations on reproductive technologies and stem-cell research with social conservatives are cases in point.
The tactical cuteness of releasing the news of these events quietly on the Friday before the Christmas celebrations, obviously to avoid media coverage, has been noticed by the main stream media and only adds to cynicism. To their credit the MSM are commenting on these issues extensively now, when citizens are ready to read the news again.
The earlier Harper Cons “disclosure” of Dion’s dual citizenship is an equivalent piece of gamesmanship. Michael Adams’ excellent Op Ed in the Globe and Mail today deals with this issue intelligently and in a context of Canadian values. I personally believe Dion having dual citizenship is an advantage for Canada in international relations and in developing a better balanced foreign policy, especially with the European Union. The Harper Cons framing it as an issue of Dion’s loyalty to Canada is pure “Bush” league.
The Harper Cons are evolving as a government and have done some really sound forward thinking policy work this past year. When they get purely partisan, publicly “chippy” and use the governance power for tactical political gain they lessen their stock in the minds of Canadians. They show how misaligned they really are with mainstream Canadian social values.
Canadians have been test driving the Harper minority government for the past year to see how it works as an alternative to the institutionalized arrogance of past Liberal regimes. The reviews are mixed so far but the looming election will be the true test of the citizen’s sense of if the Cons are ready for the real power of a majority government. It will also test if Dion’s Liberals are to be trusted and if they are perceived as any different from the Chrétien/Martin Liberals of yore.
I, like most Canadians, like Peace, Order and Good Government. Today we have none of these. Peace will be awhile coming but we must unconditionally support our troops while we reflect on our role and goal in Afghanistan. Order will come with a majority government that, ideally, has representation in every region, if not every province.
Good Government is a bigger issue. It requires a change in the governance culture in Ottawa and almost everywhere else. That requires better leaders with qualities of character and a personal commitment to governing with intelligence and integrity with a long view and not just keeping and exercising power until the next election. It demands more Garth Turner types of backbenchers with independent streaks and clear thinking minds who can balance partisanship political demands with the responsibilities of a representative democracy.
I hope we have a spring federal election so we can restore some stability and order and get back on a path towards good government. For Canada to be at Peace again will take a bit longer. An election should help Canadians clarify why we are in Afghanistan, what we intend to accomplish there for the Afghan people and what it will take for Canada to achieve those ends.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
LaPresse Column "l'Alberta Verte"
The following is the English version of the monthly column my business partner and I do for LaPresse. This piece was published on Christmas Eve and has already generated some positive email reaction from Quebec.
The environment is now the #1 policy issue in Canada and even in Alberta according to recent polls and our own research. We have seen this shift as a blip in the opinion polls before but we expect the environment to stay #1 for quite a while. Polar Bears approaching designation on the endangered species list and Ellesmere Island calving a huge piece of polar cap are canaries in the climate change coal mine. (Aren’t mixed metaphors fun!)
Green Alberta - published in LaPresse December 24, 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Les auteurs dirigent Cambridge Strategies Inc., groupe-conseil albertain en politique publique.
Simon Durivage was incredulous when Stephane Dion was described as a friend of Alberta who understands us well.
How can that be, asked the RDI host, when Dion is the poster-boy for the Kyoto Accord and Alberta is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the country?
It may take some stretching of the imagination, but in fact there is no contradiction between those two realities. Once one moves beyond the natural impulse to look for conflict, one sees an enormous coincidence of interest and approach between the emerging leadership in Alberta, and the prescriptions of M. Dion.
The most detailed and impressive environmental policy in the contest to succeed Ralph Klein came from leadership candidate David Hancock, who was widely identified with the “progressive” wing of the Progressive Conservative party in the Klein era. Like Dion, Hancock, and other Alberta opinion leaders are keenly aware of the opportunity – and the necessity – of enhanced environmental stewardship as the essential component of a growing economy
There is opposition to the Kyoto Accord in Alberta but it has been overstated. At the height of the controversy, the CEO of the oil sands giant, Suncor Energy, noted that by their calculations the cost of implementing Kyoto was estimated at 15 cents a barrel . Shortly thereafter, the Alberta large greenhouse gas emitters and the Government of Canada came to an agreement on emission levels. This co-operative accord between a Liberal government and Alberta’s energy sector runs against the grain of the Alberta-Ottawa stereotype, yet it stands as compelling evidence of what can be achieved through negotiation.
This is the context in which the Dion plan of developing the best technologies to protect the environment, and selling them for profit worldwide, finds such resonance in Alberta.
Consider this statement: “We do not want to look into our grandchildren’s eyes when they ask what happened to their land, water and air only to say we used it all up. Saying we are sorry will not be good enough.”
These words are from Hancock, the former Klein cabinet minister and Progressive Conservative leadership candidate. These words represent a strong consensus among thoughtful Albertans. In his view, “We have to tighten regulations, monitoring and enforcement and we must set and meet absolute targets. We need new science, better technologies and stringent emissions standards. We must drive demand for new approaches to emission reductions. . . . We must be world leaders on the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas reductions by both continuing to reduce emission intensity at home and continuing to create the knowledge and technology to reduce global emissions.”
Given the similarity of these approaches to effective and enforced environmental stewardship, there may be more common ground between the new Alberta government and the environmental policy of Dion than with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approach to climate change and the economy.
This should not be a surprise, given the strong Green streak emerging in Alberta. In the last several years, Preston Manning has been a leading advocate of putting the “conserve” back into conservatism, advocating future economic growth should be built on sustainable stewardship of the environment. In the last federal election, Calgary recorded the highest proportion of votes for the Green Party.
Despite what non-Albertans may conclude, the present federal government should not be taken as a monolithic expression of Albertans’ will. The new Stelmach government in Alberta will set its own course, not just on the environment but on other issues like trade and immigration.
The creative tension inherent in federalism is very much alive in Alberta. The coming months may provide a series of beneficial and positive answers to M. Durivage’s question.
Qu’en pensez-vous? satya@cambridgestrategies.com
The environment is now the #1 policy issue in Canada and even in Alberta according to recent polls and our own research. We have seen this shift as a blip in the opinion polls before but we expect the environment to stay #1 for quite a while. Polar Bears approaching designation on the endangered species list and Ellesmere Island calving a huge piece of polar cap are canaries in the climate change coal mine. (Aren’t mixed metaphors fun!)
Green Alberta - published in LaPresse December 24, 2006
Satya Das et Ken Chapman
Les auteurs dirigent Cambridge Strategies Inc., groupe-conseil albertain en politique publique.
Simon Durivage was incredulous when Stephane Dion was described as a friend of Alberta who understands us well.
How can that be, asked the RDI host, when Dion is the poster-boy for the Kyoto Accord and Alberta is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the country?
It may take some stretching of the imagination, but in fact there is no contradiction between those two realities. Once one moves beyond the natural impulse to look for conflict, one sees an enormous coincidence of interest and approach between the emerging leadership in Alberta, and the prescriptions of M. Dion.
The most detailed and impressive environmental policy in the contest to succeed Ralph Klein came from leadership candidate David Hancock, who was widely identified with the “progressive” wing of the Progressive Conservative party in the Klein era. Like Dion, Hancock, and other Alberta opinion leaders are keenly aware of the opportunity – and the necessity – of enhanced environmental stewardship as the essential component of a growing economy
There is opposition to the Kyoto Accord in Alberta but it has been overstated. At the height of the controversy, the CEO of the oil sands giant, Suncor Energy, noted that by their calculations the cost of implementing Kyoto was estimated at 15 cents a barrel . Shortly thereafter, the Alberta large greenhouse gas emitters and the Government of Canada came to an agreement on emission levels. This co-operative accord between a Liberal government and Alberta’s energy sector runs against the grain of the Alberta-Ottawa stereotype, yet it stands as compelling evidence of what can be achieved through negotiation.
This is the context in which the Dion plan of developing the best technologies to protect the environment, and selling them for profit worldwide, finds such resonance in Alberta.
Consider this statement: “We do not want to look into our grandchildren’s eyes when they ask what happened to their land, water and air only to say we used it all up. Saying we are sorry will not be good enough.”
These words are from Hancock, the former Klein cabinet minister and Progressive Conservative leadership candidate. These words represent a strong consensus among thoughtful Albertans. In his view, “We have to tighten regulations, monitoring and enforcement and we must set and meet absolute targets. We need new science, better technologies and stringent emissions standards. We must drive demand for new approaches to emission reductions. . . . We must be world leaders on the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas reductions by both continuing to reduce emission intensity at home and continuing to create the knowledge and technology to reduce global emissions.”
Given the similarity of these approaches to effective and enforced environmental stewardship, there may be more common ground between the new Alberta government and the environmental policy of Dion than with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approach to climate change and the economy.
This should not be a surprise, given the strong Green streak emerging in Alberta. In the last several years, Preston Manning has been a leading advocate of putting the “conserve” back into conservatism, advocating future economic growth should be built on sustainable stewardship of the environment. In the last federal election, Calgary recorded the highest proportion of votes for the Green Party.
Despite what non-Albertans may conclude, the present federal government should not be taken as a monolithic expression of Albertans’ will. The new Stelmach government in Alberta will set its own course, not just on the environment but on other issues like trade and immigration.
The creative tension inherent in federalism is very much alive in Alberta. The coming months may provide a series of beneficial and positive answers to M. Durivage’s question.
Qu’en pensez-vous? satya@cambridgestrategies.com
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Harper is Right to Reject Gomery #2
I find myself agreeing with Prime Minister Harper’s position on Mr. Justice Gomery’s Phase 2 Report that would have the effect of changing the responsibility and accountability lines between ministers and Parliament. The four key recommendations were too inimical to our traditions and practices to be practical.
That does not mean the issues Gomery identified as to transparency; accountability and the governance culture in the federal polity are not real and serious. It means his recommended changes are not realistic in the larger context of our governance tradition.
Gomery notes that the “so-called ‘sponsorship scandal’ was as aberration” and he seeks to rebalance the roles of Parliament and the executive branch of government as a solution. The Harper Con government is keen to be sure the bureaucracy (and the judiciary too) know their places and how to keep them. That is a good thing but if the response is to increase the powers of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office ostensibly to balance these other institutional influences, where does that put the roles and responsibilities of our Parliamentarians…the lowly backbenchers? How do they get to perform their duties and exercise their responsibilities in such a top down model?
Adscam originated in the Chrétien PMO and Parliamentarians were conspicuously absent from any engagement on the issues, especially those MPs who’s constituencies were receiving direct and inapproprite sponsorship benefits. Why did the local MPs not speak up? Were they wilfully blind or kept in total ignorance or were they merely incompetent in failing to question the PMO on accountability and responsibility issues of the sponsorship funding program? Gomery also noted an “excessive deference to the political arm of government within the public service.” How can this ever be a good thing for "peace order and good government?"
These questions and concerns still abide today especially in the highly centralized and controlling Harper PMO. The recent Deputy Minister shuffle culled many senior public servants who may have been seen as "beholden" to the past regime or not as likely to be complacent and compliant to the wishes of “Canada’s new government” (a.k.a. Stephen Harper.)
The elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the dissolution of the Law Reform Commission dispenses with some of the institutional mechanisms that could enhance transparency and accountability. They did this by providing expert advice and opinion with an arms length judiciousness and a professional “indifference” about the politics involved. They could focus more on the legality and appropriateness of certain public policy issues, especially those that impact the rights and privileges of individual citizenship and relations to the state.
Less study, less inquiry, less dissention and discussion and less scrutiny provides for more government efficiency but does nothing for enhanced governance through more transparency and accountability. The Maher Arar case says enough, if no all one needs to know about the symptoms of institutional efficiency trumping good governance and the need for government's accountability and transparency.
Gomery asked the right questions but came up short on workable and appropriate answers. Harper is right to reject those recommendations but the questions still persist especially with the way he is centralizing control in the PMO. This means those questions are becoming more pressing and more important than ever if transparency and accountability are the goals.
Gomery got it half right about the need for transparency nad accountability. Prime Minister Harper in rejecting some of the key second report recommencdations is also half right. It is unfortunate that such half measures seem sufficient enough to satisfy an inadequate governance standard.
Canadians need and deserve better.
That does not mean the issues Gomery identified as to transparency; accountability and the governance culture in the federal polity are not real and serious. It means his recommended changes are not realistic in the larger context of our governance tradition.
Gomery notes that the “so-called ‘sponsorship scandal’ was as aberration” and he seeks to rebalance the roles of Parliament and the executive branch of government as a solution. The Harper Con government is keen to be sure the bureaucracy (and the judiciary too) know their places and how to keep them. That is a good thing but if the response is to increase the powers of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office ostensibly to balance these other institutional influences, where does that put the roles and responsibilities of our Parliamentarians…the lowly backbenchers? How do they get to perform their duties and exercise their responsibilities in such a top down model?
Adscam originated in the Chrétien PMO and Parliamentarians were conspicuously absent from any engagement on the issues, especially those MPs who’s constituencies were receiving direct and inapproprite sponsorship benefits. Why did the local MPs not speak up? Were they wilfully blind or kept in total ignorance or were they merely incompetent in failing to question the PMO on accountability and responsibility issues of the sponsorship funding program? Gomery also noted an “excessive deference to the political arm of government within the public service.” How can this ever be a good thing for "peace order and good government?"
These questions and concerns still abide today especially in the highly centralized and controlling Harper PMO. The recent Deputy Minister shuffle culled many senior public servants who may have been seen as "beholden" to the past regime or not as likely to be complacent and compliant to the wishes of “Canada’s new government” (a.k.a. Stephen Harper.)
The elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the dissolution of the Law Reform Commission dispenses with some of the institutional mechanisms that could enhance transparency and accountability. They did this by providing expert advice and opinion with an arms length judiciousness and a professional “indifference” about the politics involved. They could focus more on the legality and appropriateness of certain public policy issues, especially those that impact the rights and privileges of individual citizenship and relations to the state.
Less study, less inquiry, less dissention and discussion and less scrutiny provides for more government efficiency but does nothing for enhanced governance through more transparency and accountability. The Maher Arar case says enough, if no all one needs to know about the symptoms of institutional efficiency trumping good governance and the need for government's accountability and transparency.
Gomery asked the right questions but came up short on workable and appropriate answers. Harper is right to reject those recommendations but the questions still persist especially with the way he is centralizing control in the PMO. This means those questions are becoming more pressing and more important than ever if transparency and accountability are the goals.
Gomery got it half right about the need for transparency nad accountability. Prime Minister Harper in rejecting some of the key second report recommencdations is also half right. It is unfortunate that such half measures seem sufficient enough to satisfy an inadequate governance standard.
Canadians need and deserve better.
Christmas in Kandahar
Better not pout
Better not cry
Better not shout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town.
(Are we clear on that???)
This picture sure sends out a mixed signal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)