A fresh source of policy ideas

The most challenging issues we face today are not found in the realm of political philosophy but in the area of public administration. While disputes over issues like official bilingualism, universal health care or poverty reduction continue, the debate is focussed on how these policies are administered, funded and delivered rather than on their necessity. 

With this in mind, it is no surprise that our public debates have shifted from the “big ideas” – like national unity, the state of the federation, or the relationship between the citizen and the state – to the more mundane issues of management, service delivery and good governance. Although these issues may lack zing or intellectual excitement, they are no less important to the people of New Brunswick.

Successful public administration still requires the ability to evaluate, develop and propose policy. Without this capacity, governments lose their means to independently determine the best courses of action, adequately respond to the concerns of citizens, or resist the lobbying of pressure groups or industry. They become policy-takers, not policy-makers.

Of course, in this era where crisis, real or imagined, has become the main driver of government action, you still need resources but there is little need for a plan. But letting the “crisis junkies” run government is the public administration equivalent of letting the lunatics run the asylum. 

If our government has abandoned its requirement for policy analysis and development, where can we look for policy development, analysis and evaluation?

In New Brunswick, the Not-for-Profit sector is trying to fill the policy vacuum. Many of the new ideas for retooling our economy or enhancing social justice are being developed by community organizations across the Province. Although their focus may be on their areas of particular concern, many of these exciting new policy concepts have broader application in the world of public policy.

The Saint John Human Development Council, for example, collects and publicizes needed statistics on the state of our society. But their work does not end there. The HDC leads a number of important research projects that look to the future of social policy.

One key project is looking into SROI – or “Social Return on Investment.” Determining the “Return on Investment” or ROI is an economic principle that is common to the world of business. How much “return” – revenue or profit – can be expected from an investment? Determining the ROI is a critical factor in the decision-making process.

Economic decisions may have positive or negative social implications. Using the concept of ROI, the HDC is examining how the social impacts of investment could be defined and quantified. The resulting SROI – Social Return on Investment – can then be included in the decision-making process.

This tool will be particularly useful for businesses and public bodies that demonstrate a strong sense of corporate social responsibility. A business decision or investment that might have minimal ROI might have a significant “social return.” Likewise, a decision that might have a negative SROI can be identified and re-examined in the light of this finding.

The Not-for-Profit Sector also creates community-building opportunities for discussion and consensus. Vibrant Communities Saint John is a valuable example how the Not-for-Profit Sector, in this case those working on poverty reduction can come together to determine and act on a common agenda towards an important goal.

In November 2012, a diverse group of stakeholders, ranging in age from 16 to 94 years of age, gathered in Fredericton to participate in a provincial Summit on Ageing. In addition to individuals engaged in this field, this Summit brought the nursing homes, home care workers, health care professionals and others together to discuss the pressing concerns of demographic change in New Brunswick and the need for policy renewal in an area of provincial responsibility.

Some of these groups had an uneasy or non-existent relationship with others in the sector. However, as the Summit progressed, the realization of the common cause overcame the difference. In fact, the realization that a new consensus around senior care was in the process of forming created the momentum to continue working in collaboration with each other.

In fact, the genesis of the new Home First strategy, recently announced by Social Development Minister Madeleine Dubé, can be traced back to the work that first began at this Summit. The policy thrust that emerged from this Summit, and can be interpreted as the basic principle, is best described by the Minister herself, to “provide the right care, in the right place at the right price.”

This is a clear example how New Brunswick’s Not-for-Profit Sector is rising to the occasion. While we can be justifiably concerned that governments are courting danger, or general lack of direction, by reducing their own policy capacity, we can take heart that publically-minded citizens and groups are stepping forward to fill this policy vacuum. If the Government of New Brunswick is determined to be a policy-taker rather than a policy-maker, we can hope that they will take further cues from the Not-for-Profit Sector.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the June 18, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.   

Moving Beyond Bake Sales

No one holds a bake sale for the Government of New Brunswick. But bake sales, along with fundraising activities such as dinners, yard sales and raffles, are a major source of funding for New Brunswick’s Not-For-Profit Sector.

Of course, the Government has the ability to levy taxes and raise revenues from many other sources, from licence fees to resource royalties. Although projections haven fallen far short of the mark in recent years (and deficits are always a concern), the Government has a dependable source of revenue to ensure the continuity of services, keep the lights on and meet payroll every two weeks.

Many organizations in the Not-For-Profit Sector do not have this guarantee. To make ends meet, they rely on a variety fundraising activities, including bake sales, to raise the additional funds needed deliver their services. As anyone who volunteers with recreational programs in their communities can attest, there are many out-of-pocket expenses that must be covered if these programs are to continue.

Assuring stable funding was one of the key recommendations of Claudette Bradshaw’s ground-breaking report on the state of Community Non-Profit Organizations in New Brunswick. While no one would turn down increased funding, giving the Not-For-Profit sector predictability in terms of provincial financing was deemed to be critical in supporting the work done by this sector.

The need for stable funding is even more critical for those Community Not-for-Profit Organizations who provide services on behalf of the Provincial Government. While some organizations receive funding because they have worthy objectives, there are many organizations that provide needed public services that the Provincial Government cannot deliver.

In the latter instance, the Province buys these services from these organizations. It does not provide grants for altruistic or charitable reasons; it purchases services because the not-for-profit organization can do a better job, often at a better price, than the public service.

Two examples immediately spring to mind that illustrate the need for this partnership between the Provincial Government and Non-Profits.

Working with youth-at-risk, those who have unstable living arrangements, who may have mental health or substance abuse issues, or who are fleeing abusive or violent situations, can not be done from government offices during regular business hours. With high levels of distrust and alienation, these youth are suspicious of authority and bureaucracy.

To help these youth, for which it has clear jurisdictional responsibility, the Province needs to rely on those that have legitimacy and understanding with the youth they are trying to reach. Those who undertake this challenge are not found in institutional settings or work regular hours. Often, these groups are led by former youth who have survived the experience and feel a personal mission to provide street-level help to their peers.

The other example is nursing homes. These community-based facilities serve the most vulnerable and highest-need residents in the Province. These homes are governed by volunteer boards and benefit from hundreds of volunteer hours and significant community support. Not only do nursing home residents receive better and more appropriate care than seniors who occupy hospital beds, this care is provided at significantly lesser cost.

In both cases, working with youth-at-risk or the care provided by nursing homes, the Provincial Government benefits from having partners who can deliver better services to target groups at a lower cost. On a value-for-money basis alone, maintaining a stable and respectful partnership with these not-for-profit organizations is a wise use of tax dollars.

There will continue to be bake sales and community fundraisers to support the activities of groups like these. It would be a significant step forward, for both the Government and Community Non-Profit Organizations, if both government policy and funding would function in a more sustained and predictable way.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the June 9, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal. 

Non-profits deserve better respect

With governments at all levels looking for ways to deliver services in the most cost-effective way possible, it is surprising that the not-for-profit sector has been largely ignored in this soul-searching. Although much could be achieved by streamlining arcane government processes or a stronger focus on client service, the reality is that some of the best program delivery is not done by governments at all. Instead, this necessary work is done by organizations in the not-for-profit sector who deliver services on behalf of government.

The success of our not-for profit sector, from serving our most frail citizens in nursing homes to working with youth-at-risk, is often achieved despite the way these organizations are viewed by their public sector partners. Rather than being treated with respect, organizations in the not-for-profit sector are often seen as competitors rather than partners or, in the worst case scenario, as unreliable dependents that are more a nuisance than a help.

This perspective is not helpful. It ignores the very real strengths of the not-for-profit sector in New Brunswick. It also denies that there are some needed tasks that can only be done by community-based, volunteer-driven organizations.

There was hope that not-for-profit organizations would get the respect and recognition from the public sector that they deserve.

In 2007, former federal minister and Moncton MP Claudette Bradshaw undertook one of the most extensive public consultation processes ever conducted in New Brunswick. Community non-profit groups and interested individuals were invited to discuss the state of the sector, provide their advice and identify opportunities for further progress.

Unlike most consultation processes, where a few sessions are held in a central location, there was a meeting in each of the 55 provincial ridings. The resulting report, Blueprint for Action, was possibly the most anticipated government publication in the history of the Province.

There were many recommendations in this groundbreaking publication. Some were very practical and targeted; others were more sweeping in their scope. However, there were four key recommendations that were intended to drive policy on a go-forward basis – stable funding, respect and recognition, promoting a culture of volunteering, and revitalizing the relationship between the Government and its non-profit partners.

While stable funding is always welcomed, it is in the areas of respect and recognition, as well as revitalizing the partnership, where a positive response from Government is most needed.

These recommendations were not calling on Government to make token efforts to show respect or recognize the work of community non-profit groups. The Bradshaw Task Force was asking the Government of New Brunswick to make a deep cultural change – to treat their not-for-profit partners with real respect and to recognize the value and unique nature of the work that they do.

Respect can be a difficult concept to get your head around. It is not deference or a desire to accommodate. It is not excessive praise, hero worship or servitude.

Respect is more than good etiquette or courtesy, although these may be its outward signs. When we truly respect others, we are careful to always speak the truth, even (or especially) when it is difficult to do so. We try to understand their situation, their challenges and their aspirations. We prefer frankness over empty gestures. While respect can be given, it is most often earned.

Respect is also recognition. How can we respect an organization if we do not acknowledge the work that it does?

Perhaps that is part of the problem. Many public-sector decision-makers do not have a solid understanding of the work that is accomplished on a daily basis – often by staff who are underpaid (or volunteers who are not paid at all) in facilities that are underfunded serving those who are the most vulnerable or most in need.

Like day follows night, a new partnership between the Government and the not-for-profit sector can only come when there is respect and recognition. Even the effective promotion of a culture of volunteering can only be achieved when there is respect and recognition for this activity.

Respect is the key. Without respect for the not-for-profit sector, and the mutually beneficial relationship that follows from this respect, Governments cannot achieve the goal of social and economic inclusion that we need. With respect, better outcomes can be achieved even though challenges will remain.

And, as New Brunswick struggles with a difficult fiscal situation, it is good to remind ourselves that respect is not allocated by the Department of Finance or a line item in a Provincial Budget.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the May 16, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

Blueprint for Action can be found at http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/promos/nptf/index-e.asp .

 

Welcome to "nothing but zeros"

I would like to welcome a new blog to the TQP blog roll. "Nothing but zeros - absurdities and hypocrisies in the age of assurance" joins the rather select group of social media sites featured on this blog. The mandate of this new site is, in the words of Rick Baker, scholar and cousin, is:

"We live in an age of assurance. Everywhere we turn, we are confronted with assertions of certainty. Government leaders, economic elites, religious figures, academics, news outlets, even celebrities – they all clamour to affirm their authority and proclaim their infallibility. And in providing us with their assurances, these figures of authority acquire more and more power over us.

But claims of certainty can only go so far before they start to reveal awkward inconsistencies. After a point, the more absolute the claim, the more numerous the resulting contradictions. This is the way forward. We critique the accumulation and exercise of undue power by exposing the inevitable absurdities and hypocrisies that emerge in its wake."

Enjoy.

A Middle Class State of Mind

It seems that everyone is interested in the Middle Class these days. In Canada, the group of people called “the Middle Class” is seen to be under duress – higher taxes, higher prices, stagnant wages, and decreasing opportunities. Politicians of all stripes are saying that the Middle Class is neglected – and that this class will be the new focus of their policies and their programs.

This begs the question – who are the Middle Class?

The answer can be elusive. If we try to define this group in strictly quantitative terms – levels of income, wealth, education and so on – we quickly find ourselves tied up in knots. Is a person who has less than $20,000 a year income but who owns a house without a mortgage in an area with a low cost of living Middle Class or not? How about a couple who has an annual income of $120,000 but is falling behind on monthly payments and an increasingly unsustainable debt load?

Much like attempts to define poverty levels or what constitutes the Working Poor, a strictly quantitative definition of who is, or who is not, Middle Class continues to elude us.

We know that the Middle Class exists. Further, we are told that this class constitutes a significant portion of the population and will determine the success or failure of the parties contesting the next election. Again the question needs to be asked, who are they and, of importance to political strategists, where can they be found?

More than any quantitative measure, being Middle Class is a state of mind. It does have some attributes, like home ownership for example, that can be quantified but it is an attitudinal posture more than a demographic bracket.

If you were to conduct a survey, you would find that most Canadians self-identify as members of the Middle Class. Despite dramatic differences in income, place of residence, education levels, this belief encompasses a broad swath of the population. A retiree with a secure pension is as likely to see themselves as Middle Class as a young entrepreneur trying to keep body and soul together. Likewise, an affluent suburban household anxious about impending tuition costs is as likely as an apprentice tradesperson to see themselves as part of this group.

While the amorphous nature of the Middle Class can be a source of frustration to those who believe in micro-targeting campaign strategies, “class consciousness” or neat social paradigms, our society benefits from an ecumenical and inclusive definition of this key population group.

As students of political behaviour can tell you, the Middle Class is also the democratic class. Adherence to democratic virtues, such as the belief in individual equality, the rule of law, the fair administration of justice and participation in the electoral process, is strongest among those who see themselves as Middle Class. They see themselves as neither dependant (as the poor may see themselves) nor independent (as might the wealthy) from society as a whole. Instead, they have a vested interest in maintaining a society that provides ongoing prosperity, security and opportunity.

The Middle Class is also an aspirational class. Home ownership, or the desire to be a home owner, is a defining characteristic of this group. An upward career path, or at least the belief that economic security is personally achievable, is also a key attribute of this class.

Given the close correlation between higher levels of education and economic security, it is no surprise that the Middle Class is obsessed with the quality and accessibility of the education system. Affordable post-secondary education, along with quality primary and secondary schools, is the bedrock of their public policy belief system.

Aspiration also has its anxieties. Illness and age lurk in the shadows for those in the Middle Class. This is why those in the Middle Class are strong supporters of a universal health care system and why they are equally suspicious of “means testing” or user fees, which might restrict their access to care, and two-tier health care, which would advantage wealthier Canadians. They are also strong believers in secure and adequate pensions and, when they grow more frail, quality affordable elder care. 

The Middle Class in Canada can only be defined by their qualities, not their quantities. Those seeking to appeal to the majority of voters, who are in this class, would do well to remember this.

- 30 -

 

This article was originally published in the April 21, 2014 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press

The Worst Way to Select Candidates?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, contested nominations are the worst way to select local candidates – with the exception of all the other ways that have been tried. As recent events show us, fiercely contested local races can become national news. And, despite the fact that these are local stories, they can have consequences that reach to the highest levels in our political parties.

With all this controversy, you would think that there would be a better way to select local candidates. But, like democracy in general, there is no ideal process that is immune from controversy or dispute.

Since the 1960s, Canadians have wanted our political parties to conduct their internal affairs in a more open and democratic manner. Leaders, for example, are chosen by a broad base of party members rather than selected by the parliamentary caucus or brokered by regional or sectoral bosses. Riding executives are elected locally rather than selected by elected officials or party managers. In keeping with this overall trend, the responsibility to select local candidates has, for the most part, been assigned to local party members.

Of all the attributes that local party members look for in a good candidate, the ability to win is one that most people agree on. In fact, the perceived ability to win a riding is likely the most important factor when riding members consider their choice.

We have a political culture that is adversarial in nature and where competition is thought to yield the best choice. In order to win a contested nomination, a candidate and their team has to do many of the same tasks that must be done in order to win an election. They need to recruit supporters, mobilize volunteers, raise funds and get out the vote on the day it really matters.

While competition may have its virtues, there is a school of political thinking that believes in winning at all costs. Rather than encouraging the clash of ideas or a vigorous promotion of a candidate or their views, there is an emphasis on deal-making, dirty tricks and subversion of the democratic process. This activity is not confined to nomination contests; it is a cancer that plagues every part of our political culture.

To protect the electoral process from this negativity, considerable resources, as well as legislative and legal force, is brought to bear. Even with this effort, our electoral process is not immune from manipulation or underhanded tactics.

The resources and capacity of our political parties to bring the same kind of rigour to the nomination process, especially at the local level, pale in comparison to that of Elections Canada. If we struggle to ensure that our elections are free and fair, this disparity in resources demonstrates how difficult the task is for local riding associations.

As much as we praise the ideal of local democracy, and resent the intrusion of party officials in what should be a local democratic process, there are times when the intervention of senior party officials is not only desirable, but mandatory.

When he was Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1974, Robert Stanfield was faced with a major challenge when Len Jones, a former Mayor, was elected as the local PC candidate in Moncton, New Brunswick. Despite his merits as a candidate, Jones was a high-profile opponent of bilingualism, a key plank in the PC Platform, and Stanfield refused to sign his nomination papers.

If Stanfield were to have yielded to the local democratic choice, he would have had a candidate that was virulently opposed to a major policy of his Party. With Jones as an official PC candidate, this would have significantly reduced the electoral chances of PC candidates in the many ridings where support for bilingualism was strong.

Stanfield based his response on his responsibility for the national party and the policy process that supported official bilingualism. For Stanfield, these factors trumped the democratic choice of local PC Party members. (This was not to be the last word on this story. Angered with Stanfield’s decision, Jones ran as an independent candidate and won with 46 percent of the vote.)

When it first appeared on the political scene, the Reform Party of Canada was noted for its emphasis on local party democracy, the independence of MPs, and the rejection of central party authority. As Leader, Preston Manning was faced with a similar dilemma as Stanfield. Some riding associations were likely to select candidates that would have severely hurt the credibility of his Party and he let it be known that he would refuse to sign their nomination papers. Again, the overall interest of the Party was seen to supersede the democratic choice of the riding.

A review of Canadian electoral history at the federal and provincial level finds that it is rare for a party leader not to be challenged by this dilemma.

The key is to find the right balance between the interests of the overall party and the ability of local party members to select their own candidates.

Most political parties have instituted some form of vetting process that is meant to screen candidates on the basis of a variety of criteria. This process can be very detailed and intrusive but it is meant to prepare the candidate for the high level of public scrutiny they will receive as well as to gird the party for any controversy that might be associated with a particular candidate for nomination.

To be fair, the vetting process must treat all candidates equally. You cannot exclude one nomination candidate because of a poor credit history, for example, while allowing another an exemption for the same presumed failing. Likewise, the vetting process cannot become the means for central party officials to manipulate the selection process. Inclusion, rather than exclusion, should be the rule.

The nomination races themselves must be run in a fair and neutral manner. Party officials have an obligation to ensure that nomination votes are held according to verifiable democratic standards. They need to safeguard themselves from accusations of preference and unfair practice.

This can be a challenge when one candidate is well-known in a riding and has a long record of involvement with the riding association and another is a relative newcomer. If all politics is local, all local politics is social.

Even if Canadians view bitter and hotly contested local races with some distaste, the alternatives would be considered even less palatable. No one would accept the democratic bona fides of a political party that appoints all their candidates, or sets the bar for running in a preferential or arbitrary manner. Indeed, local nomination races are the worst way to select candidates – with the exception of all the others.

- 30 -

 

This article was originally published in the April 7, 2014 edition of The Hill Times.

Preparing for the Phoney War

Most jurisdictions in Canada, including New Brunswick, have moved to fixed-date elections. While pre-determined election dates have been the norm for municipalities for many decades, this is a relatively new approach at the provincial and federal level. In fact, the September 22nd provincial election will only be the second time that a fixed date has been used for New Brunswick elections.

While there is general agreement about the benefits of fixed-date elections, the impact on voter behaviour and the political process remains largely unknown. In particular, political parties and decision-makers are largely ignorant of the profound change that set election dates are having on the way they operate.

One of the main reasons advanced for fixed-election dates is that, previously, governments could call an election at their discretion.

Although the benefits of this power is largely overstated, this meant that a party in power could call a vote at a time that was advantageous or postpone a vote if the political omens were unfavourable.

A set election date, we are told, would prevent this abuse of power and provide a clear timeframe for the electorate, which might address concerns over voter turnout.

One clear benefit of set election dates is that it allows the supervising organization, Elections New Brunswick, with plenty of lead time to organize for a province-wide vote. While set election dates are a benefit to Elections NB, it is a mixed blessing for everyone else.

The biggest loser is the governing party, which loses the ability to set the election date at its discretion. The bad news for the party in power does not stop there.

Prior to the call of any election, there is always the period of time when the various parties aggressively jostle for position and where the political rhetoric starts to mount. Although the writ has not dropped, initial messages and tactics are tested and candidates are recruited and profiled.

Under a floating date system, this “phoney war” period was generally limited to the several weeks prior to the election call.

The political parties, including the one in power, needed this time to mobilize their volunteer organizations, finalize election strategies, and prepare for the all-out effort that would cover the six or seven weeks of the election campaign.

However, a set date election dramatically increases the length of the “phoney war” period.

Instead of having an organization that can be called into being on a few weeks notice, the various parties now need to spend months building and maintaining their respective organizations.

Rather than an intense, but brief, period where political volunteers and candidates are pressed into action, this extended period of political activity is far more demanding and requires much more from the volunteers that constitute the backbone of riding-level campaigns.

Sustaining the morale and level of effort over this extended period is 
far more demanding on the governing party, which has more ground to defend, than on the opposition parties.

This extended “phoney war” also undermines many of the other 
advantages that governing parties used to enjoy before fixed date elections.

There is greater public scrutiny of their activities and, months before the election is even called, their activities and initiatives are viewed through the lens of electoral impact.

When a new program or funding announcement is made through the course of a mandate, it is typically treated as government policy. The government politician receives the bulk of media coverage and that is usually the end of it.

However, during the “phoney war”, this announcement is treated in the same way as an election promise, with all that it implies, and all the opposition parties are solicited by the media for their views. The clean “media hit” of before has now become a partisan free-for-all.

Further, given that the electorate knows that an election is impending, any announcement make 
during the “phoney war” period is seen as a partisan exercise rather than the result of good policy or daily governing.

With the electorate already applying an “election discount” to government party initiatives, the increased coverage of opposition views further diminishes the impact of pre-election announcements.

Voters find this extended political season both fatiguing and frustrating. Rather than increasing public interest in the election, voters become alienated when partisan jockeying is seen to overtake the conduct of public business.

Taking the 2010 Provincial Election as a guide, New Brunswick enters the “phoney war” period in the first weeks of May.

At the present time, the Alward Government enjoys all the benefits of incumbency. In a few short weeks, however, they will find that the overall political environment has changed significantly.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the March 17, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

Excessive fees a rebuke to legislative power

When times are tight in government, all sources of revenue come under greater scrutiny. Just as governments have an incentive to cut spending, they have a greater incentive to increase revenue. Increasing taxes is always an option but can be politically unwise. Joseph Necker, who served France’s monarchy prior to the French Revolution, observed that being finance minister was like plucking a goose for its down in that “you want the most amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing.”

In Canada, taxes can only be collected if there is an annual vote of “supply” in their respective legislatures. This is a public vote and, as history reflects, governments can fall if they fail to carry the day on this measure.

But there is another source of revenue that is becoming more important for the government of New Brunswick – a source that is less open to scrutiny and can be changed by cabinet without the approval, or even the awareness, of the legislature. I refer, of course, to the fees that need to be paid for a variety of licences, permits and other administrative items that are part of our daily lives.

While these fees are originally based in a law passed by the legislative body, they can be raised (or lowered) by an order-in-council, a resolution of cabinet. We are informed of these changes, either in a budget speech or press release, but there is no legislative vote to approve these changes.

Since the origins of the British parliamentary system, it has remained a constitutional norm for the executive to seek and obtain annual approval for the budgetary policy of the government. This now leads us to present-day New Brunswick. Much has been made of the recent fee hikes that are occurring across the board. Hunting licences, fishing licences, building permits, licence plates – almost every fee currently charged by the provincial government has been increased by multiples of the rate of inflation.

With a $500 million deficit, the New Brunswick government needs all the money it can get. By increasing fees and other administrative charges, which does not need debate or a vote in the legislature, they are able to get that money. Perhaps this is a way of “getting more feathers with less hissing.”

However, there are limits to the way that government can use fees as a source of revenue. First, a fee that is collected in relation to a service must, in principle, be used to defray the cost of providing the service and not used for any other purpose. The money collected from a hunting license must be used to recover the cost of enforcing wildlife regulations. The money from a building permit must be used to finance building inspections or other directly related activity, and so on.

It is when the money obtained from administrative fees exceeds the cost of providing the related service that government gets itself into trouble. The Supreme Court of Canada in their 1998 decision regarding the Eurig Estate found that any fee that exceeded the cost of providing the service was not a fee at all, but a direct tax. As such, this tax would only be valid if passed by the legislature and could not be assessed by cabinet acting on its own.

One consequence of this judicial decision was that the government of New Brunswick was successfully sued for “unconstitutionally collected taxes” in 2007. Since then, officials within the New Brunswick government apply the “Eurig Test” to fees to ensure that the amount collected does not exceed the cost of related service. However, this is just an administrative step whose authority derives from the desire to comply with a judicial decision.

With the recent debate in the New Brunswick legislature about how money raised by service-specific fees has been used for different purposes and the increased use of fees as part of government revenues, if only as a means of cost recovery, we need to go a step further to ensure that fees are not abused as a revenue source.

A bill should be passed by the New Brunswick Legislature to enshrine the principles highlighted by the Eurig case into law. The principle is simple – no fee should exceed the cost of providing the related service. Further, if the total amount raised by these fees exceeds the amount spent providing the service, then the fee should be automatically reduced and the excess rebated to the fee payer.

Not only would this respect the principle of parliamentary approval regarding revenue and expenditure, it would prevent the abuses that naturally derive from too much executive control of government.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the March 11, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

New Brunswick needs more political will

The response to the recent provincial budget, like the federal budget, has been underwhelming. Both documents are long on hope but short on details, and the general consensus is that damnation by faint praise --“It could have been worse.”

The main difference between these budgets is that there is a light at the end of the federal fiscal tunnel, while the hope for a balanced provincial budget remains dim.

No one needs to tell New Brunswickers that we are facing difficult times. Unemployment levels remain persistently high and we are not seeing the economic or job growth that is occurring in other provinces. Our public infrastructure continues to deteriorate, which further hampers economic vitality. Our social infrastructure, whether it is the need for skills upgrading, combating stubborn illiteracy levels or the plan to aggressively combat poverty, continues to suffer from neglect.

Instead of purposeful action with clear goals and resources, the provincial budget again offered the uninspired incrementalism that has become the default position of our political class. It is no wonder that many New Brunswickers have a certain nostalgia for the days of Louis J. Robichaud and Frank McKenna. While many of the measures they implemented were controversial, and remain so today, they were animated by a belief that New Brunswickers deserved leadership in pursuit of a stronger economy and a more inclusive society.

Not only did these leaders have confidence in themselves and their vision for New Brunswick, they had confidence in the people they worked with and in the people they served. They possessed that quality that seems to elude our leaders today – political will.

Several months ago, a number of leading policy thinkers were brought together to discuss the future of the province. Many topics were discussed and many ideas were offered. Over the course of this discussion, these individuals came to the conclusion that the lack of political will, and not the level of federal transfers, lagging business investment or other economic factors, was the main barrier that is holding New Brunswick back. Without effective and purposeful leadership, they concluded, no good solution or idea will ever come to fruition.

Instead of political will, we have a surplus of political ”won’t.”

We have political leadership that won’t confront the difficult reality of our situation, and certainly won’t engage New Brunswickers in the necessary conversation about the opportunities that are there to be seized. Rather than looking to the advantages, fiscal, social and economic, that could be obtained by modernizing our government and public services, our leadership won’t even acknowledge that our problems have solutions.

Our leadership won’t take a hard look in the mirror to see that they have an obligation to offer something beyond divisive populism or scapegoating. And they won’t acknowledge that they need to offer more than crafted phrases and feel-good sentiments to voters who hunger for something more substantive in the upcoming election.

If we needed more proof about the prevalence of political won’t, we need not look very far. It seems that we are all more preoccupied by the things we won’t do then by the things we say we will do. This approach is inherently negative and, by refusing to set out a positive agenda, we are all cheated in this process.

Just as we need to revive our sense of purpose as a province, we need to recover our sense of confidence. We need to talk about the things that we will do as a province, not dwell on the things we won’t, or shouldn’t, do.

As citizens, we need to tell our leaders that we need them to change their approach to public business. We want to know what they will do, not what they won’t. Will you balance the budget? Will you preserve, if not improve, the quality of service to citizens? Will you give us the leadership to deal with illiteracy? Will you get the economy growing again?

If we don’t, we will continue to hear from our leadership that they won’t rise to this occasion. That they won’t deal with the misallocation of government resources; that they won’t change from the half-hearted incrementalism that is the sum of our current budgetary policy.

As previous leaders have shown, there is a certain magic in boldness. If we convinced ourselves that we could achieve better and acted on this belief, wouldn’t our mutual goals be easier to achieve? Instead of political won’t, we need political will. As the saying goes,” When there is a will, there is a way.”

- 30 -

 

This article was originally published in the February 26, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

The Myth of the Imperial Leader

When a Premier resigns, it is always news. This is especially true when the person in question leads a strong majority in the Legislature and has a record of winning elections. When Frank McKenna announced his departure as First Minister (another name for Premier or Prime Minister) in 1997, it was recognized that he left at the top of his game, having won three elections as Liberal Leader.

The political fates were not as kind to Gordon Campbell, the former Premier of British Columbia or former PM Jean Chrétien, who recently celebrated his 80^th birthday. Despite each winning three elections, they left their offices under much different circumstances than McKenna.

The surprise resignation of Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale follows a similar path as Chrétien and Campbell. Despite winning the 2011 election, which yielded 36 seats for the Progressive Conservatives versus six Liberals and five New Democrats, and holding a massive working majority in the House of Assembly, Dunderdale decided to exit the political stage.

For Dunderdale, as with Chrétien and Campbell, the precursor to this decision was a restless caucus. The decision of two MHAs, as they are called in Newfoundland and Labrador, to leave the Progressive Conservative Caucus acted as the trigger for her resignation. Certainly other factors were at play, but the moment of truth was created by the individual decisions of the caucus members.

Even without these two caucus members, Dunderdale would have still have a clear majority in the House of Assembly. Further, since First Ministers are believed to hold all the power and control every facet of government, why did Dunderdale feel the need to resign?

Perhaps her resignation reveals some truths about our parliamentary system that we have been told to ignore. Over the past 30 years, Canadians have been consistently told that our First Ministers, Premiers and Prime Ministers alike, reign in splendid isolation. We are told, by pundits, academics and even parliamentarians, that First Ministers decide everything and exert an Orwellian level of control of everything they survey.

However, those who have studied the relationship between the Executive and the Legislatures in Canada have observed that the theme of “centralization of power” around the personality of the First Minister is an old one, and was directed as much at John A. MacDonald or Tommy Douglas in their day as it is focussed on Stephen Harper or David Alward today. As one academic noted, you need only to change the names or the titles to see the same arguments and concerns repeating themselves throughout our history. Nothing substantive has been added to this critique of “executive tyranny” since the pre-Confederation battles for Responsible Government.

The other myth exploded by Dunderdale’s resignation concerns the powerlessness of individual members of our Legislatures. Just as we are told that First Ministers exercise complete and unaccountable power, we are told that individual parliamentarians are completely powerless and play no meaningful role in providing a check on executive power. If this myth of “powerlessness” were true, why would the defection of two MHAs trigger the resignation of the all-powerful First Minister?

The reality is that neither of these myths – the Imperial First Minister or the insignificant legislator – is true. They are dangerous falsehoods that deliberately misinform citizens on the true nature of our political institutions.

First Ministers do not reign alone. Politics is a team endeavour and a successful First Minister must continually balance the personal dynamics of Caucus and Cabinet in order to stay in office. As former British PM Benjamin Disraeli observed, the trick is not to climb to the top of the “greasy poll” of politics, the trick is to stay there while others are trying to pull you down.

Individual parliamentarians, at both the provincial and federal level, exercise considerable power. They are not members of the Executive but they can intervene in public debates in a way that no one else can. They can propose their own legislation, introduce resolutions, and advocate policy. When they decide to leave their Caucus, such as former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber or former NDP MP Bruce Hyer, they are seen as giving a severe rebuke to their leadership. The exit of former MLA Stuart Jamieson from both Cabinet and Caucus was seen as a severe blow to Shawn Graham’s Liberal Government.

Further, as in the situation facing Dunderdale, it requires only a few defections to effect a change in Leadership. As former BC NDP Leader Carole James can attest, this withdrawal of confidence can also apply to opposition leaders as well.

As citizens, we need to be attentive to the lessons that are taught by these situations. Rather than being caught up in the stale and repetitive falsehoods that undermine our understanding of how we are governed, we need to embrace the fact that there is a balance within our system. Our First Ministers are not all-powerful, just as our MLAs and MPs are not “nobodies.” We cheat ourselves if we continue to indulge the myths that act as a barrier to our understanding of our working democracy.  

- 30 –

This article was originally published in the January 25, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

 

So, you want to be an MLA...

Congratulations on your decision to offer yourself for public office. You will find this challenge both exhilarating and frustrating, a real roller-coaster of highs and lows. I just want to offer you a few words of advice that you should find useful in your campaign.

No doubt, you have already discussed this decision with your family and close friends and have already secured their firm support. You will be relying on them quite heavily in the weeks and months to come. No matter how well organized or well-financed your campaign is, you will have some dark days (or nights) ahead of you. Hopefully, they will have the patience and enduring kindness to put up with those inevitable moments in every campaign that test your sanity.

Electoral politics is the only part of public life in Canada that is still dominated by amateurs. This is a good thing.

Candidates for office come from every walk of life and every background in our Province. Although their life paths may be very different from yours, you will find that you share quite a bit with the other candidates competing with you for office. You are likely driven by the same passion to serve, and by the same belief that you have something unique to offer. They may be your opponents, but they are not your enemy.

Campaigns can become bitter, narrowly partisan battles. If you start thinking of your opponents as “the enemy”, this can lead you down a very dark and negative path. This attitude encourages the very worst of behaviour and, since your campaign workers will take the cue from you as to the tone of your campaign, you need to avoid this viewpoint like the plague.

As C.S. Lewis wisely wrote, “The next best thing to an honourable friend is an honourable opponent.” Since elections are adversarial by nature, it is best to be an honourable opponent. Even if others do not respond in kind, you will find that this approach will save you a lot of trouble, especially as the tension heightens and tempers start to fray.

This is not an easy thing to do. The pressure-cooker atmosphere of a fiercely contested election would try the patience of a saint. But being a good elected representative implies a certain quality of character that should be able to rise above the temptation to get down in the gutter. By showing that you can “take the heat”, you demonstrate that you are ready to serve in public office.

I also hope that you have several sturdy pairs of good shoes. Given the amount of time that you will be on your feet, mostly going door-to-door in your riding, good shoes are an important investment in your campaign.

Both academic research and political experience proves that the best place to deliver a political message is at the doorstep. The television ad, the telephone call, the brochure or the radio spot are not as effective or as compelling as a candidate asking a voter for their support.

This may be more difficult in a rural riding than in an urban one, but the principle of direct contact between the candidate and the voter is the same. Not only is door-knocking the best way to solicit votes, it also renews the social contract between voters and those seeking office. Electoral studies show that voter turnout is higher among those who have received a visit from a candidate or a campaign volunteer. Not only these people more likely to vote, these people are more likely to vote for you.

You will not be able to convince everyone of the rightness of your cause and there are some people who will not treat your presence on their doorstep as a positive event. But you will be surprised and encouraged by the genuine interest you will receive.

Pace yourself but make the effort to ensure that you, or your team, knock on every door you can.

As a last note, you need to establish a respectful relationship with the media covering your election contest. Reporters are there to tell a story, not to provide unqualified praise or free advertising. They have deadlines they need to meet, as well as editors or producers to satisfy. If you have something newsworthy to share, you will find a receptive audience. If, however, you feel that you should receive media attention because “it’s your turn”, you are sure to be disappointed.

Reporters are not your friends. They are also not your opponents. They are just trying to do their job and the essence of good media relations is to help them with this task. This does not mean that you need to pander or tell them every thought that occurs to you. It does mean that you should ensure that all relevant media outlets receive your campaign communications and that you are fair to all reporters covering your campaign.

Even if you have no comment on an issue, a timely phone call or email to say so is better appreciated than dragging out a non-response past deadline. It also helps if you know what you want to say to the media and what you consider to be off-limits. On this, it is critical to be consistent. If you decide not to talk about your family, for example, don’t.

There is plenty more to discuss but you already have enough on your plate right now. As you proceed through your campaign, just remember that the penalty of not having good people run for office is being governed by the bad.

- 30 -

This article was originally published in the January 18, 2014 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

Taking on the Straw Men

A number of years ago, while campaigning with a municipal candidate in Winnipeg, we knocked on the door of an elderly lady who showed little interest in our desire to solicit her support. When we tried to convince her of the importance of voting, she shook her head sadly and told us, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the government always wins."

Struck by the inescapable logic of this statement, we thanked her for her patience and went on to the next doorstep.

Over the last few weeks, a number of articles have appeared in View from the West decrying the state of Canadian democracy and urging a program of reform. While I would not defend the notion that our current democratic system is perfect, I certainly reject the views put forward by Gordon Gibson, Preston Manning and Ted Morton that our political system is a shameful failure.

One common feature of these articles is that they rely on the same kind of circular logic employed by the elderly non-voter. While some of the "examples" put forward by these authors to illustrate their cases are merely straw men -- put up so that they can be easily struck down -- some of these arguments represent a point of view that, upon further consideration, are repugnant to the majority of Canadians.

In his article, Fixing Canadian Democracy, Gibson repeats a myth that has some currency in right-wing circles that votes in Atlantic Canada are "bought" by political parties seeking power. We are all familiar with the notion that politicians try to buy our support, but this argument is based on a premise that voters in Atlantic Canada are actually for sale. According to Gibson and his colleagues at the Fraser Institute, the attachment of Atlantic voters to democratic virtues is significantly less than, let's say, voters in Alberta or Manitoba.

Further, Gibson states that our immigration policy is "designed not for the advantage of Canada, but instead chiefly with Vancouver's -- and especially Toronto's -- ethnic voting patterns in mind." I would challenge Gibson to come up with some substantive proof that supports this curious assertion. He presumes that our current immigration policy is not based on a point-system to select those best-suited for our country, but exists for the sole purpose of supporting the Liberal vote. Any student of Western Canadian history knows that this argument is an old one, and was used to criticize the immigration policies of Clifford Sifton at the turn of the last century. If, indeed, the chief purpose of our immigration policy is to support the Liberal vote, why didn't the Progressive Conservatives dismantle it over the nine years they were in power? Or, if immigrant communities are so attached to the Liberal Party, why are there a significant number of these individuals from them, like Grumant Grewal from Surrey, sitting as Members of Parliament in the Canadian Alliance caucus? Again, this premise is based on a view that Canadians with an immigrant background do not have minds of their own when it comes to voting. All of these views have more than a tinge of xenophobia to them and would delight the most fervent conspiracy theorist.

In his article Gay Marriage and the decline of democracy in Canada, Professor Morton argues that both the "truth" and "Canadian democracy" have been ill-treated by our political and legal systems. He takes the recent Ontario court decision on the validity of same-sex marriage as the prime example. As with Gibson, he sets up a series of "straw men" to be knocked down, devoting considerable column-inches to putting words into the mouths of his opponents and then showing the error of their so-called beliefs.

Morton has created a fiction, called "the Court Party", which is the villain in this piece (and in other articles and books that he has written). If we are to believe Morton, the Court Party (with its allies and "apologists") has devoted itself to taking power away from Parliament and the people generally and giving power to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The chief instrument of abuse is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been used, in Morton's view, to force unpopular laws onto Parliament and the country.

Aside from the fact that judicial review is an important and time-honoured principle of Canadian constitutional law, the Charter is possibly the most popular and significant law that exists in Canada today. Rather than seeing the Charter as a document that recognizes the rights of all Canadians, Morton sees it as privileging a few and, for this and possibly other reasons, he wants to reduce interpretation of it to the narrowest possible extent.

If this is what he believes, so be it. But where is the need to create a mysterious, malevolent cabal like the "Court Party" if not to justify a somewhat shaky belief? It's good fiction, but not a credible analysis of the interaction between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government.

The most unfortunate thing about Manning's article, Shattering the faith-politics taboo, is that it provides further evidence that he has turned down the role of elder statesman, preferring to indulge in the partisanship that he stridently objects to elsewhere. Manning states that an "unwritten rule" forbids MPs from raising matters of faith and religion in debate, and argues that this is incongruous because a large majority of Canadians adhere to a religious faith or belief. Well, if such a rule existed (it doesn't), who would obey it? If it were to be broken, who would enforce it? Certainly not those who hold religious beliefs and care about the beliefs they hold. And, if we can assume that MPs are much like their constituents, wouldn't a majority of Parliamentarians hold a religious or spiritual belief too?

In fact, many MPs, regardless of party stripe, hold strong religious beliefs and use them as a source of strength and insight. NDP Parliamentary Leader and United Church minister Bill Blaikie is a familiar example for many Manitobans. It is obvious from his record that his faith is an important part of what motivates him as a politician. He is also a student of parliamentary procedure and knows the rules and conventions of the House of Commons, written and otherwise.

Canadians appreciate that their elected politicians may have strong personal beliefs. They even understand that these beliefs may create difficulties for MPs on matters of conscience and, by and large, would not expect their MP to vote for (or against) a measure that conflicts with this belief. What Canadians do not accept -- and perhaps this is the point that Mr. Manning was trying to make -- is the idea of politicians forcing their religious beliefs on others. Personal testimony is fine, even praised, but proselytizing is not.

At the end of all this is the fact that our democratic system, as flawed as it may be, does provide for free and fair elections, stable governments and the orderly transfer of power. While we may not be enamoured with the choices offered to us, we have a choice -- even the choice to stand for election or create new political choices.

I find it an irony that while all three writers are ardent proponents of the market system, the only place where they appear disenchanted with the "market approach" is when it comes to voting and the outcomes of elections. It's true: no matter who you vote for, the government always wins. Isn't that the objective of elections, selecting governments?

Gibson, Manning and Morton all adopt the position that, since a majority of Canadians disagree with their views, the Canadian system is broken and needs to be fixed. But they talk about fixing our democracy in the same way as fixing a horse race. They want to create a process that will ensure an outcome they agree with, rather than ensuring that the process is seen as objective, fair and delivers a result that we all have a hand in making.

Can we do better? Certainly. In this, I share Churchill's jocular but insightful view that our political system is the worst there is, if not for all the rest.

-30 -

This article was originally published in the July 20, 2003 of the Winnipeg Free Press.