Responsible Debate-Less Rhetoric needed on C-30

The following article was published on the ipolitics.ca web site today

The opening salvos have been fired in the battle for the thoughts and minds of Canadians over Bill C-30. Debate on this bill labeled by the government as the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” and nicknamed the online spying bill by opponents’ promises to be as vicious as any we have seen to date.

Unfortunately all of the opening shots have missed their mark. I doubt there are many Canadians who agree with Public Security Minister Vic Toews’ position that you “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Nor do we think Charlie Angus had it right with his rant that the government is putting an electronic prison bracelet on everyone with a cell phone. These assertions from both sides are just too far over the top for Canadians to support either of their respective positions.

We do know if the government wants this bill to pass, it will. They have a majority and they can impose time allocation or closure whenever they choose to do so. Then why not allow for a civil debate? The government is no longer in a life or death minority situation where it was necessary to force voters to constantly choose sides in case the government lost a confidence vote. They have a majority; they don’t have to demonize opponents simply because they object to provisions of a bill.

Canadians are more concerned about their privacy now than ever before. Virtually everyone with an email address has seen phishing emails that hope to capture your basic information. We have all read stories of company systems being hacked and our private information passing into unwanted hands.

Canadians worry about their privacy and there have been legitimate concerns expressed by various Privacy Commissioners over whether or not police should be able to seek your name, phone number, internet protocol address, email address etc., without a warrant? Canadians deserve an opportunity to listen to both sides.

Put away the rhetoric and rationally explain your positions.

For instance while the government side is focusing on abhorrent child pornographers, this bill has much broader aspects to it that go far beyond hunting child pornographers. Explain to Canadians why you are promoting this bill as being about protecting children when it also grants these powers to not only the RCMP and municipal forces but also to CSIS and the Commissioner of Competition?

Why not simply explain under what other circumstances (besides hunting child pornographers) police can seek information without a warrant. If they need probable cause to stop a vehicle to check registration and drivers licence, what would trigger their seeking your internet IP address and email identification?
Will there be national standards set up that outline under what circumstances police can ask for this data or is it going to be left up to individual police forces to set their own standards and protocols? This alone would be worth a rational civil debate.

If, as the government insists, other democracies have put in place much more intrusive legislation, then show us that legislation, let the opposition debate the facts and let both sides try to convince Canadians that their position is valid.

Canadians are paying attention to this bill. There is no need for either side to pump up the rhetoric and demonize their opponents. It is simply not needed. It may very well be that the government position is correct, but Canadians won’t know that unless there is a full explanation from the government side. It is also possible that the opposition could offer improvements to the bill that both sides could accept. In such a scenario Canadians are the winners. Right now, looking at the opening rounds of this debate it is safe to say that both sides are doing a disservice to Canadians.

What Would Dief Think?

Like many Conservatives, I am an admirer of John Diefenbaker, our thirteenth Prime Minister. Dief was a great politician and an impressive orator. Watching the present Conservative government’s use of time allocation to stifle debate in the House of Commons I was reminded of one of Diefenbaker’s quotes.

"Parliament is more than procedure - it is the custodian of the nation's freedom."
- September 22, 1949, House of Commons.

I have to wonder how Diefenbaker would have reacted if the Liberal government of his day used time allocation as often as the present government which is well on its way to setting a new record. For that matter, would Reform MPs from the class of 1993 or 1997 have sat back and watched the Liberals act this way?

Parliamentary debate is essential in a democracy and yes at times it is inconvenient for the party in power as it delays the passage of legislation. But that is what opposition parties do. Canadians send MPs (including opposition ones) to Ottawa to represent them and their views. With a strong majority government, what is wrong with allowing opposition MPs the opportunity to debate a bill? The bill will eventually pass and perhaps the opposition might have something constructive to add.

While the present day Conservative government views any stalling by opposition MPs as intolerable, the Conservatives themselves have a great tradition of stalling legislation in the House of Commons. Both of the parties that make up the present Conservative Party of Canada have used stalling tactics in the House to delay passage of legislation that they did not agree with. For example, the Progressive Conservative Party led the delaying tactics in the great pipeline debate from May 8 to June 6, 1956. Debate was eventually ended when the Liberals introduced closure, but by doing so the Liberals also contributed to their own defeat in the next election.

The Progressive Conservatives also led the opposition stalling tactics in the Maple Leaf Flag debate which lasted from June 15^th to December 15, 1964.

In 1999, the Reform Party stalled the Nisga’a treaty for 42 hours and in 2002, then Canadian Alliance member Bob Mills stalled the Kyoto Protocol for 12 hours. The present day tactics of the Liberals and NDP aren’t even in the same league as those past Conservative efforts.

And let us not forget that during their recent minority government years, the Conservatives also used procedural tactics and filibusters in committees.

Stalling debate and using procedural moves to delay the passage of government legislation is a time honoured tradition in Canada; it is part of our democratic process. This is a government that is focused on reinforcing our traditions and values including a revival of our connection to the monarchy and support for military traditions such as adding “Royal” to our air force and navy. We also have democratic traditions that need reinforcing and allowing opposition members an opportunity to represent the views of their constituents is one of them. We have to keep in mind that those precedents and procedures that are set in the House today will be used by future non-Conservative governments to justify their actions in the House. We need to be careful what we wish for.

It’s all about trust

I see that the NDP’s Irene Mathyssen, Wayne Marston and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe have launched a cross country tour to save the Old Age Security (OAS) program. What they are saving it from we don’t know as of now. It might be a bit early in the game for the NDP to adopt that strategy as 1) we don’t have the details of what the government plans to do and 2) there is a lot more the opposition could be doing in Question Period to both get those answers and hold the Conservatives to account.

As Canadians watched the events unfold in Europe over the last couple of years we saw plenty of news stories indicating that governments there were going after pensions as a way to help deal with their economic issues. There were also stories about Canadians being worried about whether or not their pensions would be adequate for when they retired. We also followed the struggles of the Nortel pensioners with both the federal and provincial governments.  So the fact that the pension issue is on the minds of both the government and the population isn’t a surprise. The way this government chose to deliver this issue was what surprised Canadian seniors.

My take is that the government was caught flat-footed on this issue. Their reaction to the blow-up in the media was slow and it took them a couple of days to get their lines really sorted out. Now they are on track with the same monotonous lines delivered by all of their ministers. It is notable though that individual Conservative MPs have been silent even though they must be deluged by emails, letters.

The real hit to the government though comes on the issue of trust. They blind-sided Canadians with this issue. There was no build up to it, no preparing the way for difficult pension decisions.  Nor was it raised during the recent election. Canadians, especially those nearing retirement age rightly want to know what is going on and when these decisions were made. On that issue the government is vulnerable.

Major political decisions like this usually follow a process (even in this PMO centralized government). When were the memos or briefing notes prepared on this issue? Were they prepared by the Privy Council Office (PCO) or by PMO? What recent reports or studies did the government receive that indicated it was essential to move on the OAS issue now? Which cabinet committees reviewed the decision to move on OAS? Usually hot political issues go through the Operations Committee first, did it this time? When was the decision reviewed by the full cabinet? Was caucus consulted? There are lots of questions, few answers. But so far the government prefers to stonewall as opposed to addressing what is really a very emotional issue for seniors.

Those questions don’t even touch on the details of what the government needs to do on the pension front nor does it touch on what changes they are contemplating for the OAS. Saying that all options are on the table implies there are different options, what are they? It may very well be that the discussion around changing the recipient’s age from 65 to 67 is the best option, but Canadians don’t have a clue listening to the government’s response to date. The government has handed the opposition parties an opportunity to chip away at the trust factor. It is still about when did they know and why did they do it?

Governments are rarely defeated on one big issue, instead over time they defeat themselves with trust and arrogance being two main factors. On the trust issue they are now vulnerable (although they still have time to turn this around). How the Conservatives move this issue forward will help to define themselves and the next election even if it is years away.

They Are Back!

With the House of Commons returning today we can expect a raucous session. Already the battle lines are forming as the opposition party’s line up to take shots at the Prime Minister over pension reform. Not since 1985 when Brian Mulroney stated that he would de-index Old Age Security (OAS) have we seen such a feeding frenzy around pension issues.

The Prime Minister’s office is in full damage control mode with talk points that insist there are no immediate plans to make changes and they are pushing back on media reports that the government plans to extend the age from 65-67 (before you can receive the benefit), insisting that no final decision has been made. They even had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister on TV discussing the issue and the Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies was also giving interviews. All of this point to the fact that they see the potential damage this can do to Conservative prospects down the road.

With so many baby boomers near retirement age (myself included), this issue strikes close to home for many of us facing imminent retirement. Many of these baby boomers live in those hard fought for suburban ridings that the Conservatives needed to win to obtain their majority. There are political consequences for this government if they cannot turn this story around to their advantage.

This issue is a gift for the opposition and tailor-made for Question Period. The issue of extending the age from 65 to 67 is the figure that is out there. With the House recessed there was only limited opportunity for the government to shut down this line of attack. This story and those figures percolated along over the weekend, you still see it mentioned in numerous stories, it already has legs and the opposition attack will most likely focus on that point.

Whether or not that number is accurate and whether or not the Conservatives intended to act quickly on OAS will be buried in the opposition attack. The task facing both the Liberals and the NDP will be to convince the public that the Conservatives really do intend to change the OAS to the detriment of all of those retiring baby boomers. With all of us watching what has been happening to pensions in Europe as governments there fight their fiscal problems, it is not a stretch to think that quite a few Canadians will believe the opposition attacks.

The Conservative platform in the last election did address pension issues, but said nothing about making changes to the OAS. How long do you think it will take for the Liberals to resurrect their old attack points from the 2004, 2005-2006 elections and bring up the well-worn phrase “hidden agenda”?

Adding additional fuel to the fire in Question Period will be Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s comments on revamping the immigration process. His comments will be unsettling news to many of the multicultural communities who supported the Conservatives in the last election. Combine that with the pension issue and the opposition parties will see a golden opportunity to snatch back voters that moved to the Conservatives. For the NDP it will be an opportunity to entrench their hold on Official Opposition status; for the Liberals it will provide a chance to resurrect their brand, especially in vote rich Ontario.

With so much at stake, these two issues combined with pre-budget maneuvering will guarantee that this session will be loud, noisy and full of over the top rhetoric as the three parties use Question Period to fight for the minds and future votes of Canadians.

Inching Forward

Most reports indicate some progress was made at the Crown-First Nations Gathering yesterday. This is positive news and a sign that both sides are inching forward and making progress. While there was speculation that Harper would only attend for a few minutes, he surprised observers by committing much of his day to the proceedings.

While we can concentrate on the differences between the sides right down to what symbolism was used IE Harper referred to a tree and Atleo referred to a rock, there are other positive signs. Clearly Atleo and Harper get along and can communicate with each other. I get the sense that there is a mutual respect for each other and this comes across in public. This bodes well for any private discussions they might have.

Another significant feature of yesterday’s meeting was the amount of time the Prime Minister committed to the event. Anyone who has worked with a Prime Minister knows the intense pressure their schedule is under. This holds true at the ministerial level as well. Meetings and time commitments are measured in minutes, not hours. The fact that Harper set aside his agenda to spend a significant amount of his day at the conference sends a signal to both ministers and departmental officials that the Prime Minister has now taken a keen interest in these files. That translates into there had better be results.

Clearly the Indian Act will be overhauled. While Atleo suggested doing away with it, in effect that is what will happen by the time it is updated, amended and changed. This will be a significant step forward providing of course both sides cooperate, show good faith and agree on the necessary changes.

Some of the items announced in the joint statement are important to First Nations as they try to manage their affairs. Moving to a multi-year funding arrangement is crucial. No longer will Chiefs have to go cap in hand to the minister and department each year.

The same holds true for educational reforms and developing an action plan for economic development for First Nations. Both sides are inching forward. If the constructive tone on display at the Gathering continues there is a possibility of real progress. Long overdue progress, maybe measured in inches, but at least things are moving in the right direction.

I was disappointed to see former Prime Minister Paul Martin come out and attack Harper on the conference. I think this was a missed opportunity. Martin has built up considerable experience working with First Nations. His foundation and its success in working to advance education and training opportunities offer one model, although not the only one, on ways to move educational issues forward. He has also had success in attracting corporate donations and investment to encourage aboriginal business development. I would have preferred to see him offer to work with the present Prime Minister, rather than refight old battles. In the same way I hope the present government will not ignore Martin’s work or expertise simply because he is a former political opponent and Liberal Prime Minister. First Nations issues should cross party lines, solutions not scoring political points should be the end game.