Let's see the scripts

One word should leap out in today's Star story, by Tonda MacCharles, about further damning evidence in what we're calling the robocalls  scandal of the last election. The word is "script." And we're not talking about the Oscars here. 

As Tonda reports, with evidence of three former employees, the Responsive Marketing Group  was  given a script, which had been written by the Conservative Party.  In this case, the script allegedly contained instructions to tell voters the Election-Day ballot-box  location had changed. 

Annette Desgagné, 46, said it became clear to her — after so many people complained that the “new” voting locations made no sense or were “way the hell across town” — that the live operators were, in fact, misdirecting voters.

“We’re sending people to the wrong place,” Desgagné recalled telling her supervisor.

She said she has no way of knowing whether in fact the poll station locations she gave listeners were wrong addresses or phony locations. But she said the “feedback” elicited by the script was so negative, “we started getting antsy.”

To be clear: If there was any deliberately false information in that script,  that is   one large, legal no-no in Canada, where we tend to take elections and access to the ballot box seriously. Right now, all we have is some  massive coincidence of all these people, whether in Kitchener, Guelph, or as many as 30 other ridings, getting calls to say their voting location had changed. The Conservatives are saying that they provided only true, helpful,  factual information to voters, though some mistakes might have been made. 

Let's go back to the December controversy over the calls made to Irwin Cotler's riding, in which constituents reported they were told that Mr. Cotler was resigning. The Conservative Party admitted that it paid the firm to do these calls and that it tightly managed what callers were supposed to say. In the process, we also learned a bit more about how these call centres work. In fact, numerous Conservative spokespersons, media outlets and the Marketing Research Intelligence Association were given copies of the script in question. 

 Watch  this interview with Nick Kouvalis of Campaign Research, in which he lays it out. He was talking about scripts too. An excerpt: "Campaign Research was hired by the party. Right? They produce a script. We know what the rules and regulations are, and the jurisdictions around the country.  We make sure that's within the rules. And then we deliver the script."  

Note:   The whole defence in the Cotler-call controversy was  that these robocall firms were just calling people with the words the Conservative party supplied to them. If someone went off script, well, that wasn't the fault  of Campaign Research or the party. 

So. What we need to see now is the script that the Conservative Party supplied to Responsive  Marketing Group. The party was able to produce one for the Cotler calls controversy; I'm assuming it has the one supplied to this firm too. In fact,  let's see the scripts the Conservatives wrote for all the call centres. If it's all true information, it shouldn't be a problem, right? 

 

We, robots

We're learning something about the Canadian electorate through two, unrelated controversies for the Conservatives this month  -- specifically, what it takes to get folks engaged in political debate, and what it takes to put them to sleep. 

First we had last week's unexpected, massive uproar about Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' proposed legislation on online surveillance. At one point, the social-media protest in Canada had become so huge that  it was a top trending topic, here and internationally. 

Now we have new revelations about the fraudulent "robo-calls" placed to voters in as many as 27 ridings across Canada on Election Day last year, telling people that ballot-box locations had changed. (Bravo, Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher, for staying on this story.) This is definitely an active discussion on Twitter these past couple of days, but it has not yet reached the level of fury or interest registered in the Toews' uproar. ** Update** By the end of the work day Friday, apparently, #robocalls was trending at #3 in Canada. That's still far behind the volume or force of the #tellviceverything trend, though. 

I think there are important differences, which I'll get to in a second, but let's stand back from this robo-call business for a second and look at the motivation behind the fraudulent calls -- why someone thought it would work. 

"Voter suppression" is the alleged purpose of the calls. The idea was that if you phoned people, told them the voting location had changed, they'd just decide it was too much of a hassle to go and cast a ballot. Think about that for a second. To pull this off with any success, you had to count on people being so lazy, busy or disengaged that they'd throw away their democratic franchise because of a minor inconvenience.  Cynical? Or just realistic? Voting, the most basic act of our democracy, rests on the idea that people will make a physical effort to participate. Someone (or many someones) calculated that the prospect of even slightly more effort would kill voter motivation. That's kind of insulting, actually. Not as insulting as calling people child pornographers, I guess, but still a rather minimalist view of the Canadian public -- as robots, easily reprogrammed. 

Now look at the Toews' protest. Distinctions are important. 

• First, Bill C-30 is a real, tabled piece of legislation; it's not an alleged intrusion on your rights or privacy -- it's there, in black and white, for all to see. It's coming from the government, not just a political operative (rogue or otherwise.) 
• Second, it's about the Internet, not a telephone line, and the proposed intrusion would be long-term, not just a one-off call on election day. (I wonder, though, as an aside, whether people are just accustomed now to shrugging at telephone calls, and place far more value on the net for true communication.) 
• Third, even Conservatives, mainly of the libertarian stripe, were joining in the protest against C-30. With the robo-calls, mainly there's been a circling of Conservative wagons. (Some hapless Conservative may be cast out of the family for a while, but generally, exiles for egregiousness have been temporary or short-lived.) 
• Fourth, and most importantly, getting riled about the Toews' protest was easy  -- and fun. You didn't need to get off your couch or your chair to register your anger on Twitter; all it took was a press of the "send" button to #tellviceverything. Bonus, you could be hilarious doing so. It was an entertaining protest. 

And that's where we get back to the similarities between online surveillance and robocalls. It's about what's easy and what's difficult in Canadian democratic participation.  Voting, casting a ballot, requires effort -- effort vulnerable to being thwarted. Joining an internet protest is  easy, and fun.

There are lessons here -- but whether they're about making it easier to vote or raising the bar for protests is a whole other discussion. 

Update: In a stroke of excellent timing, StatsCan has released a report today on why people didn't vote in the last election. Click on the link to see the full study, or read the summary, below: 

Voting rates in the May 2011 federal election increased with both age and education, although the impact of education was much stronger among younger voters.

For example, among people aged 25 to 34, the difference in voting between those with at least a bachelor's degree and those with less than a high school education was 42 percentage points. This gap narrowed to 10 percentage points among people aged 55 and over.

After controlling for education and other factors, 25- to 34-year-olds were 15 percentage points less likely to vote than 45- to 54-year-olds, while 65- to 74-year-olds were 19 percentage points more likely to vote than 45- to 54-year-olds.

The presence of children was associated with lower voting rates in all family types. The effect was particularly strong for single parents, as 36% of those with children under age 5 voted, compared with 60% of couples with children the same age.

Overall, immigrant citizens were less likely to vote than people born in Canada, but voting rates generally increased with time in Canada.

Employed people were more likely to vote than the unemployed or those not in the labour force after controls were in place for factors like age and education. Among the employed, those working in the public sector or in high-skill occupations were most likely to vote. Voting rates were lower for those working 40 hours or more per week, and for those in less-skilled occupations.

Home owners had significantly higher voting rates than renters.

 

 

Shocked, shocked

Many people seem to believe that the Vic Toews' controversy of last week was a lesson to the government about using inflamed rhetoric -- that we won't see Conservatives demonizing their opponents again as allies of pornographers, pedophiles and the Taliban. I'm afraid I'm not so sure. 

First, a confession. I barely blinked last week when Toews made his now-infamous remark about child pornographers. Why? Because this is kind of business as usual around Ottawa in recent years. All week, I was constantly reminded of that part in Casablanca when the police chief pronounces himself "shocked, shocked" to find there was gambling going on in Rick's Cafe. Yet to listen to the tut-tutting on Cross-Country Checkup on the weekend -- in which there was virtual unanimity on the beyond-the-pale nature of Toews'  remarks  -- you'd think it was the first time a cabinet  minister made an outrageous slur like this against disssenters on the opposition benches. Unfortunately it's not. And my bet is that it won't be the last one. How sure am I of this? Well, let's look at what the Prime Minister himself said the day after Mr. Toews made the odious comparison. 

With respect to child pornography, our party is very much against it, and I encourage the NDP to join us in taking that stand.

 

Actually, I'd invite folks to go to the openparliament.ca website and do their own searches of words such as "pornographer" or "pedophiles." (I know, I know. That's almost begging for some online surveillance, isn't it?) Note how those words have been casually tossed back and forth across the aisles.

The difference this time, it seemed to me, was that Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson, my co-panelist on CTV's Power Play, wrote up a stern little missive after Toews' remarks last Monday. Yes, that's right: the modern-day Internet pile-on was prompted, at least in large part,  by traditional media. Now, I'm not saying that people didn't get the information elsewhere -- the Canadian Press was also quick off the mark in reporting Toews' slur after he said it. But was Toews straying off tried-and-true methods of political rhetoric these days? No, he was not. He must be baffled why he's getting all the flak for a communications strategy that has obviously enjoyed the seal of approval from PMO for quite some time now. Shocked? Welcome to the club. (And please don't mistake that as any sympathy or support for Mr. Toews' brand of smear. I just think he shouldn't be the only one held responsible.) 

I've been doing a lot of reading/research into political marketing these past few weeks while I'm doing this book. And while I hate to be the one to dim any optimism about teachable moments in politics, I'd like to draw your attention to some remarks made  in November, 2010, in the Commons, a good six months before the election last year that gave the Conservatives their majority and saw this particular Bloc MP lose his seat.  Newly scandalized observers of Canadian politics might want to take note of Mr. St. Cyr's particular objections to how dissent was being handled. (Emphasis is mine.) 

.....we think the government is taking us in exactly the wrong direction for political marketing reasons.

Earlier today, the question of bill titles arose. The Conservative minister made fun of the fact that the opposition members were complaining about the ridiculous titles of the bills that the government introduces and he said it was frankly not a very important issue. If it is not important, then, why does the government insist on giving its bills stupid titles?

This happens not just in the justice area but everywhere. They talk about cracking down on crooked consultants or protecting Canadians against something or other when the bill does not even do that. They talk about ending early release for dangerous criminals when this does not exist. These titles are complete lies. So why does the government do it if it thinks it is unimportant?

The fact is the government does it for political marketing reasons. It does not really believe in the content of its bills itself. It simply inflicts these ridiculous titles on us. Today we have the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. That is a completely gratuitous statement devoid of any basis in reality. First, talk about protecting Canadians has no place in the bill. It is just an opinion. Some people, including the Conservatives, say they believe it will protect Canadians. The experts, though, tend to think it will not have any preventive or dissuasive effect. So the title is untrue. There are no sentence discounts for multiple murders. As the law now stands, the minimum sentence for first degree murder, for example, is life in prison. There is no discount. What the bill addresses is the cumulative nature of the parole system. The title has nothing to do with the actual bill.

Once again, some members will say that the title itself is not really important. The title does not make the bill, but what that means—and this is what I want to say to the people who are watching today—is that the government is lying right to their faces. Obviously, the people at home are not going to get a copy of the bill and look at the changes it makes to the Criminal Code. They have obligations and work to do. They are very busy with families, children, jobs and homes. I understand that we cannot all study this country's laws. So what will the average person rely on to try to form an opinion? The average person will rely on what he is told the bill does. If he is told the bill protects people against murderers, he will say it is a good bill. Who is opposed to protecting people against murderers? The answer is obvious. But the public is being deceived and fooled by the government. I think that is insulting to the public.

I have the opportunity to talk with people in my riding, as we all do, and sometimes some of them tell me they do not agree with our positions. They have seen the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on the news, saying that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of pedophiles. He is very good at that. Someone who hears that calls my office and asks whether the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of pedophiles. Come on. As though any member of this House gets up in the morning and thinks about what he or she could do to help pedophiles. It is completely crazy to even suggest that to the public.

The bill the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was referring to at the time had to do with the trafficking of minors. The word “trafficking” appeared nowhere in the bill, apart from the title. So the bill's title referred to the trafficking of minors, but the substance of the bill had nothing to do with that. We can see that the government wants to deceive and fool the public.

I tell people to beware of politicians who take them for idiots and think they are incapable of reasoning for themselves.

 

Again, Mr. St. Cyr lost his seat in the last election. I'm sure, watching this from afar, that he's not all that shocked by what he heard last week in the Commons. 

 

 

This year's grassroots protest

Remember the big protests against prorogation?  I do, and I'm wondering if all this anger about the online surveillance legistlation (mostly directed at Public Safety Minister Vic Toews) is just another form of it. And if that's the case, this is unlikely to have any impact on Conservative fortunes, since Prime Minister did win a majority last year. 

 So, serious question: is #TellVicEverything the 2012 version of  the anti-prorogation movement? I decided to ask  on Twitter today: which grassroots revolt would have more impact?

 Here's a sampling of the initial results (and feel free to join the conversation, either on Twitter, or in the comments section here.) 

@0lddutch: I was at the forefront of the anti prorogation cabal. After 2 years the Cons gained a majority. Impact? only in our minds.

 

@michaelcwheeler: prorogue protests showed huge appetite for cooperation against Harper by non-politicos. May be important soon...

@krisjoseph: Anti-prorogue protests had ZERO impact, so topping that isn't hard. #TellVicEverything will be forgotten in a few months.

@alyjohnsonb: As childish as the method may be, I think "fun" is the key and why its so catchy. It just might have more impact as result.

@MuskokaMoneybag: Do we need an election to find out?

@davidshipley: I think so. It spans political stripes - civil liberties types plus conservative-I-don't-want-big-govt-watching-me types.

@TelegramJames: How does one measure "impact" in this sort of thing?

@GlynnP75: I think so, 'net as commons works better in a vast cold country than small grps in many spots. Clearly I'm not in TO though

@ChristophBryon: at the very least, #tellviceverything I am sure woke the smug »HarperGov up to the fact that they have to listen to us

@Beari8it: IMO if Bill C30 passes there will be a technology war #cdnpoli #seriously @criacow: Harper got a majority after anti-prorogation protests. I can't see how #tellviceverything could have *less* of an effect...

Sol Chrom: Not sure about the twitter mockery, but the Anonymous video's got him whining to the Mounties. That's an impact. Jamie Callingham: looks that way, people more bothered by being spied on then by disrespect of democracy.

@TroutMcGee: Good question. Seemingly getting as much if not more traction. Toews comment was very spitful and insulting to Cdn's @Craig_F: Naw nothing we say will matter the dont have time to listen they gotta get all their buddies payed off before we boot them

 

Update: Right after I posted this, renowned pollster Darrell Bricker of Ipsos weighed in with a comment that stirred up some new reactions. Here's how that went: 

 

 

Now we are six

Is there something unlucky about six in Canadian politics? The federal Conservative government marked its sixth-year anniversary in the past few weeks... the sixth anniversary of its election victory in January and six years since its swearing-in on Feb. 6, 2006. 

 A couple of years ago, I had dinner with a seasoned political type, no friend of the Harper government, who said he thought it would take six years in power for the Conservatives to start wearing out their welcome. I said something like "you know this means they'll get another mandate." This wasn't his preference. He shrugged and agreed. 

But that number six has been much in my mind as we move past the anniversaries of late. Also, I've been deep in the history pages as I'm doing this book thing (hence the infrequent blogging... sorry.) 

The six-year mark wasn't kind to Brian Mulroney. Six years after he gained power in 1984, his Meech Lake constitutional accord came crashing down, he introduced the GST, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party became full-fledged challenges, and the seeds of Mulroney''s defeat were sown by 1990. Mulroney's Conservatives were devastated in the 1993 election and never really recovered -- needing to merge with the Canadian Alliance to come back to power. 

Six years after Chretien won his majority in late 1993, things were souring in 1999-2000 too. His real opposition, within his own caucus, had grown restive waiting for Paul Martin's succession and Chretien was starting to be known as the "friendly dictator." The Liberals went on a slow vote decline starting in 2000, from which it's still not clear they'll recover. 

It strikes me that when governments go bad, whether at six years or another point, it's when they start to confuse "us" and "them." Mulroney paid too much attention to his "us" -- his caucus and his damn-the-public-opinion plans, and didn't realize the size of the "them" against him. Chretien thought all Liberals were "us" and realized that many had started to identify themselves as "them," against him.

The current Conservative government, under Harper, has always played that us-versus-them calculation to its advantage. It divided the world into friends and enemies and though it seemed a bit small of them (they won, after all) it worked. But I'm not sure it's got the calculation right these days. Maybe it's unlucky 6.

 Harper went to Davos, to talk about what he was going to do about the pensions of "them," and has been in a scramble since to define who those people are. I'm pretty sure those imminent pensioners thought they were on the Harper "us" team. His government keeps defining its enemies -- the "them" -- as child pornographers, Hitler sympathizers, foreign radicals,  etc., in a manner that seems designed to make sure that the Harper government's "us" looks rather miniature. In fact, it's starting to look like a very tiny,  puzzlingly aggrieved  group. (What are they mad at, anyway?) Are there any Canadians out there with whom this government would like to make a new acquaintance, perhaps be new friends? If not, are the Conservatives absolutely sure that their old friends -- the "us" -- are still with them? Certainly there are signs that may not be the case. 

Oh... That poem I'm referring to in the headline and illustration here? It's from A.A. Milne, in a collection of children's poems, circa 1927, and I'll leave it to you to find the political parallels. All I'll say is that kids and governments don't stay six forever. 

When I was one I had just begun
When I was two I was nearly new

When I was three I was hardly me
When I was four I was not much more

When I was five I was just alive
But now I am six, I'm as clever as clever;

So I think I'll be six now for ever and ever.

Read-the-fine-print government

As CBC is reporting, some homeowners are "stunned" by the abrupt cancellation to the energy retrofit program. The larger surprise, however, may be learning that Canada now has first-come, first-served governance. It's like a concert -- without the music or the crowds or the glowsticks.  

Here was Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver in the Commons yesterday, explaining why the program was shut down early. 

Mr. Speaker, the eco-energy retrofit program reached its goal of 250,000 registered homeowners. Participating homeowners will see significant savings on their energy bills. The program also provides jobs right across this country. With this program fully subscribed, we expect to approach our budget limit of $400 million. 

I'm not sure I can think of another government program that works this way. Are there parents in Canada who can't get the $100 cheques because the program is "fully subscribed?" Nor do I think the government advertised this program as first-come, first-served when it extended the deadline.

 This all  feels vaguely offside. Revenue Canada, after all, allows taxpayers 10 years to amend their returns, in case there are credits or writeoffs  that tax-filers  may have missed. 

In the private sector, which this government often points out as an example, I think this retroactive date-changing would  provoke some blowback from customers.

 Even  first-come, first-served has its limits too.   We've all seen the fine print on those advertising flyers --  merchants have to give notice to customers if "supplies are limited" on sales items, don't they?   And we've all stood in lines in  drugstores or department stores, seeing people holding  those flyers, arguing for the lower price -- and usually getting it, either through rain checks or equivalent merchandise.

  That's because these stores worry about customer loyalty and goodwill -- apparently not an issue for government. 

 Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly normal for governments to limit the scope of benefits, either through qualifying criteria or deadlines.  I think this is an unusual, and strange way of limiting spending, though, and I'd be curious to know if there are other examples. If it works (and why wouldn't it? This government has a majority), I wonder if we'll see future examples -- i.e, sorry, we have enough people signed up for the subsidy on sports equipment and music lessons.

When the budget comes, just like with those advertising flyers, we'd be advised  to read the fine print. 

 

Cuts: This time it's personal

Starting today, when Parliament resumes, and right up to the budget, we're going to be hearing a lot about cuts. The government's sales job on the cuts is worth watching -- to see what it thinks about the way we think. 

The last time we had a restraint budget, in 1995, the Liberal government used fear to get us sold on the need for cuts. There was talk of hell and  high water, of Canada being an economic basket case,  of potential IMF intervention, and of course, the children. The poor children, the next generation, were going to be saddled with our debt. (I kept having visions of Dickens' workhouses.) 

Now, 17 years later, I'm intrigued by how fear has been largely replaced by anger. When we cast around looking for where the cuts are coming, we look at where the government and its allies have been  trying to whip  up scorn and  rage: the CBC, the public service, generous pensions, unions, provinces, (certain) foreigners, and pretty much anyone who is seen to be standing in the way of Conservative dreams of prosperity. 

It's interesting -- this is something that probably couldn't work in the private sector. (And probably shouldn't.) When downsizing cuts are made  in this realm, our bosses have to go to some lengths to prove that the job losses weren't the result of a grudge or personal antipathy. Funny how when it comes to government, or at least this government, we simply assume that those being cut are going to get cut down first in the eyes of the public. 

I'm wondering if it is possible for this government to make any cuts without first demonizing the target of them. Do we have to be angry in 2012 (as opposed to scared in 1995) to contemplate budget cuts?   Without anger,  though, I guess we'd back to fear -- and all those poor, debt-ridden children. 

Old Age Security: Necessary, but not necessarily

Watching CTV's Question Period today, I confess I couldn't figure out whether the government's spokesperson, Shelly Glover, was saying that Canada's old-age security system  wasn't going to be touched, or that it had to be cut. I realize that some politicians aspire to confusion like this, believing that one message cancels out the other, and therefore the overall impression is white noise.

I suggested on Twitter that people may study this segment for how to do just that, so here, as a service to those people, is CTV's transcript of the discussion. The segment begins with a clip of the Prime Minister's Davos speech, which started this whole speculation, and the parts in bold are mine.  

STEPHEN HARPER (Canadian Prime Minister): We've already taken steps to limit the growth of our health care spending over that period. We must do the same for our retirement income system. |CRAIG OLIVER: So the prime minister was in a neutral country, Switzerland, when he drew the battle lines in Canada. And we're here to talk about that with Peter Julian, the NDP's finance critic who's in Vancouver; Ralph Goodale, former Liberal finance minister who's in Regina, of course; and Shelly Glover, parliamentary secretary to the finance minister who's in Winnipeg, my old hometown, one of my many old home towns. Miss Glover, let me go to you first, do you think it was wise to appear to be targetting the elderly by raising concerns about old age security and changes as your first target? |SHELLY GLOVER (Conservative – MB): Well first and foremost, Craig, that is not what happened. In fact while in Davos, our prime minister and our minister of finance were very much seen as leaders to most of the other world leaders, and the prime minister set out very clearly some general parameters to ensure that we are going to sustain this country for many, many years to come. He wants to look at long-term prosperity because he wants to make sure that income security for seniors is preserved for many, many generations. So unfortunately there's been a number of reports that were very inaccurate and highly inflammatory, but we are going to maintain senior's income security and we are going to take care of this country's long-term prosperity and sustainability. |OLIVER: You're going to maintain income security. Does that mean there's no intention whatsoever to extend the old age security system from 65 to 67 for eligibility? None whatsoever? |GLOVER: There are no changes that are going to be occurring with our seniors with regards to OAS at this point. We are reviewing anything that might affect long-term prosperity of these very important benefits to our seniors. And to not do that is irresponsible frankly. And for the NDP and the Liberals to simply continue to say we should spend more, have higher taxes, that's what's going to hurt our seniors, and to not take care of business for the long-term, again, is another chance that we are not willing to take, and we're going to focus on jobs and the economy. The other two parties are focused on leadership and securing their jobs. We're going to continue to focus on jobs and security for Canadians. |OLIVER: Mr. Julian, I don't think it was the media that raised the question of pensions in Davos. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you hear a shift there? |PETER JULIAN (NDP – BC): Well, no, what's very clearly happened is there's a slap in the face to Canadian seniors that Mr. Harper had a in his speech in Davos. He said he's going to do the same thing to pensions that he did to health care, and we know what we're seeing there is over a longer period of time expensive cuts. I was in my riding over the last couple of days. I've been hearing back from seniors. They see it as a slap in the face. They see it as a real concern. And so tomorrow we'll be meeting, national leader Nycole Turmel and myself will be meeting with the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. We'll be talking about what all this means. It's very clear that this is bad news for Canadian seniors. And I think what people find most irresponsible about all this is that Mr. Harper has had absolutely no moderation around wanting to spend these billions of dollars on his prison programs, and buying the F-35 fighter jets despite the fact the cost has tripled. He seems to be saying to Canadian seniors you're going to have to pay the price for our financial irresponsibility. |OLIVER: Mr. Goodale, you were the minister as finance minister in charge of old age security. Do you believe that the system is in danger of bankruptcy, that it's unsustainable is the word the government used as Canadians get older? |RALPH GOODALE (Liberal – SK): Well you always have to manage the system very carefully. But what the government is saying, that if they don't somehow cut back on OAS, and bear in mind this is a program that doesn't benefit the wealthier Canadians, this is for middle and low income Canadians, so the, the attack here is directly on the most vulnerable in our society. If they were to move the age from 65 to 67, that could take up to $30,000 away from the lowest income senior citizens in our country. It's just a bizarre attack on middle and lower income Canadians. And, Craig, if you look at the cost of OAS today, it takes about 2.4 percent of GDP to pay for it. If you add in all of the baby-boomers that are going to retire between now and the year 2031, that cost only goes up marginally from 2.4 percent to 3.1 percent. So you have to manage it carefully. |GLOVER: What?! |GOODALE: But this is not a threat to the fiscal framework. |OLIVER: Okay, Miss Glover, I think I heard you there yelping. |GLOVER: I'm a bit in shock, to be frank with you, Craig. I mean Ralph Goodale was the finance minister. I'm glad he's frankly not the finance minister now because we're talking in dollars, he's minimizing in percentages, which is misleading, because in dollar value right now $36 billion is spent on OAS. And in 2030 it will be up to $108 billion. That's an increase of $72 billion that he says is marginal. I'm sorry, but right now we spent 13 cents on every dollar to go towards support for the elderly. Peter Julian is saying that we're spending too much on prisons. We spend 3 cents per dollar on our public safety system, including police, corrections, our prison systems, and our border security. So I'm sorry, but these two fellows need to do their homework and read some of the reports that are out there because they're way off base. We're going to do what's necessary to protect the economy and Canadians. |OLIVER: Mr. Julian... |GOODALE: Craig, there you have it. |OLIVER: Go ahead, Ralph. |GOODALE: Craig, Shelly has just confirmed the suspicion. This is an attack on seniors. |GLOVER: Oh hogwash. |GOODALE: They've been trying to soften it in the last couple of days, but the fact of the matter is, and you've just heard it from Shelly Glover that they are going to take a swath out of the OAS. |GLOVER: No, we're going to preserve it and sustain it. |GOODALE: And that is attacking the most vulnerable people in our society, and that is improper and it's not necessary for fiscal reasons. |OLIVER: Mr. Julian, just to make this clear, does the NDP think there's any need to be cutting pensions of any kind because of the demographics of Canadians threatening the pension system? |JULIAN: Well what we've been saying all along, Craig, is that what we need to do is make sure we have a very sound foundation, particularly for CPP. We've been talked about increased contributions. We think that is the way to go. Most provinces agree with it, most organizations across the country as well. What you need to do is have a sound basis for CPP. And what that does as well of course is relieve some of the pressure on OAS. So what we need to do, we've been putting this forward for years. I think that's part of the reason why the numbers of NDP MPs continue to increase in the House of Commons is that the Canadian seniors are well aware we need a sound foundation for our pension security, and for our pension system. What we're seeing from the Conservatives is an absolutely irresponsible attack on Canadian seniors, particularly middle income and low income Canadian seniors. And what they're doing is in the same time as we've seen the context of tens of billions of dollars thrown away on the prisons, on the F-35s, and as well on corporate tax cuts, it just does not make sense to seniors, and a lot of Canadian seniors who voted Conservatives are opposed to this. |OLIVER: Miss Glover, I think you're shaking your head there. |GLOVER: Well the reason I shake my head, Craig, is because we have a number of low income seniors and middle income seniors who are being frightened by what the NDP and the Liberals are doing by speculating and enflaming this very, very, very sensitive issue when the prime minister's been very clear no changes will occur. There are going to be no changes presently to the benefits. We are looking long term at the sustainability, which means we haven't decided to do anything. But we need to look at it very clearly so that we can protect it and have it for many generations to come. And it's unfortunate that they're scaring seniors, and it's despicable as far as I'm concerned and really unnecessary. |OLIVER: Folks, got to go. I appreciate you all joining us in talking about this because I think it's scared a lot of people. But Miss Glover had a chance to... |GOODALE: Yeah, especially women, Craig, especially women. |OLIVER: Okay. Miss Glover... |(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS) |OLIVER: ...sounded like she was shifting ground just a little, but thank you very much all. Bye for now.

It should be pointed out as well, I guess, that a spokesperson for the Prime Minister, Andrew MacDougall, followed up this appearance with some Twitter messages of his own, which also maintained that OAS was not being cut but that if something didn't happen, it would be too expensive. 

Matters of state vs. matters of politics

The recent controversies over Bloc Quebecois spending -- allegations that the BQ used public funds to pay for partisan causes -- prove that karma may exist in Canadian politics. 

The Bloc, let's remember, was the first to be outraged over the old Liberal program of advertising and sponsorship after the 1995 referendum. The scandal, as the Bloc initially saw it, was that public money was being spent to prop up what they regarded as a partisan cause. What the Chretien government saw as "defending federalism" was translated by the Bloc as "defending Liberalism."  

Outside Quebec, it's sometimes difficult for us to see federalism as a partisan issue. We in the English-language media were allowed to call the old debates "national-unity" struggles, for instance, because for our readers, there is only one nation -- Canada. Our colleagues from the Quebec media, on the other hand, had to be a bit more nuanced, so as not to be seen favouring one side over the other. (At a recent conference I attended, by the way, a BBC executive said that they'd be looking hard at CBC's example for guidance on how to cover the coming Scottish referendum. There will be a bit of a difference between how Scottish and British listeners  are following events.) 

This little distinction came to mind today when I was reading Kady O'Malley's recent blog post, featuring a missive from the PMO with the headline: "Foreign Radicals Threaten Further Delays."

It was another screed against environmental groups who oppose the pipeline. I immediately wondered: Is this my government at work, or the Conservative party? The line can be a fuzzy one in Canada, and we Canadians, trusting souls that we are, usually rely on governments themselves to draw the distinction between enemies of the state and enemies of the party in power.  

Maybe most Canadians don't care about the distinction -- politics, government, all the same thing, to the victor go the spoils, etc. But actually, it's a distinction that we all should keep monitoring. Why? Well, because we don't want anyone using the state's power to go after political enemies. That's what they do in banana republics. How would you like to find your tax returns repeatedly audited, for instance, because you happen to have made donations to the "wrong" political parties? 

Anyway, this brings me back to the original point. I'm wondering if today's environmentalism is yesterday's sovereignty-movement, in the eyes of the government. It   now being  deemed as un-Canadian  to oppose the pipelines, does that justify the state stepping in to fight this point of  view? Or should that PMO release more properly have come from the Conservative party? 

 

The PM and the Liberal pollster

Not long before last year's election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper sat down for a  chat  with Pierre Trudeau's former pollster. Yes, you read that correctly. Martin Goldfarb, who was the official Liberal party pollster from 1973 to 1992, gave Harper the benefit of his advice (free) at a meeting only weeks before the late-March collapse of the last Parliament and the subsequent election. 

The meeting was arranged by Conservative senator Don Oliver, apparently, who had read Goldfarb's  latest  book, Affinity: Beyond Branding, and thought the Prime Minister should get a taste of some of the insights within those pages.

The book, not much noticed when it was released in 2010, landed in my sights because I'm now working on my own book project (hence the only-occasional blogging) and Martin Goldfarb's work over the decades is a part of it.

 On my way from Ottawa to Toronto yesterday, I read Affinity and it is a fascinating look into how consumer/brand culture has worked in Canada  -- and, relatedly, what political people can learn from the intersection of those worlds. Harper's Conservatives have been masters of this understanding in recent years -- branding is big with this government, as we know.  One wouldn't think that they'd be out looking for counsel from Liberal folks on this issue, but hey, the best politicians understand the thinking of their rivals as much as they understand themselves. 

Anyway, while I was interviewing Goldfarb yesterday, getting his views on how the Conservatives have been doing branding, he offhandedly mentioned the meeting with Harper, and said that some of the stuff he was telling me, he'd shared with the Prime Minister himself about a year ago. 

The meeting took place at the Prime Minister's office on the third floor of Centre Block. "Have you ever been in this room before?" Harper asked Goldfarb. "Yes," the pollster replied, "but when the office belonged to a previous occupant." 

Goldfarb was under no illusions that Harper had read the book, but he gave him a little summary of the political-brand counsel contained in the final chapters. Here are some snippets (or you could go buy the book.) Keep in mind that it was written before the election, and that it's coming from a man who, though no longer the party pollster, would prefer to see the Liberals in power, even if he thinks the party has lost its way. 

• "Harper is still searching for the big idea that will establish his brand promise for himself and his Conservative party.... A series of attributes unconnected to a big idea, or a brand promise, will not attract people." 
• "Michael Ignatieff became the   leader of the Liberal Party without thinking how to put his imprint on the Liberal brand. ... I believe Ignatieff's writings are his true thoughts. He is now trying to speak as if those writings never happened. The public smells that he is not transparent with them." 
• "(Paul) Martin, as leader, could not convince the public that he was bigger than his ideas."
• "Dion's environmentalism was  admired, but it was never connected to the Liberal brand or convincingly related to Liberal values." 

Goldfarb doesn't believe that his meeting with Harper had any significance in ensuing political events, or the Conservative party's majority election win. He still thinks Harper is lacking the "big idea" and that Liberals have still lost their way. And what did he think of the man who now has Trudeau's old office? 

"He was very polite," Goldfarb said.