When NDP Leader Tom Mulcair dismissed Alberta Premier Alison Redford as one of Stephen Harper’s “messengers,” he may have got it backwards. Increasingly, it is Harper who is likely to be a messenger for Redford.
Her game is good. Remember Wayne Gretzky’s famous line about skating to where the puck is going to be, rather than where it was? Well, Redford is showing an impressive ability to speak to where the public is going to be, rather than where it was.
At the western premiers conference last week, she looked poised to redefine Canadians’ political discourse on three critical subjects: economic development, federalism and the policy process. Let’s take these in order.
Mulcair’s recent trip to the oil sands provides a good way into the economic development issue.
Politically speaking, he did rather well. True, reporters kept dragging out his comments about Dutch disease, and so on, but Mulcair stuck to two basic points.
First, the oil sands debate is about sustainability, which, at the very least, means the polluter should pay. Second, his fight is not with provincial leaders, but with Stephen Harper, who Mulcair says is unwilling to provide federal leadership on the environment.
Both are fair points. The Globe, for example, felt compelled to agree, if only grudgingly, that “Mulcair is right that Alberta must respect the environment.” As for federal leadership, it’s hardly contentious to say the Harper government is backing off on regulation. It is.
But if the NDP leader thinks that taking the lead on sustainability will win him the keys to 24 Sussex, he should think again. He’s not the only one talking about sustainability.
In Redford’s Alberta, sustainability is the new normal. She not only embraces the concept, she won the provincial election by campaigning on it. Now she’s ready to go toe-to-toe with Mulcair on the issue, and that may be bad news for him. Here’s why.
Sustainability is a “balancing” concept. It calls on policy makers to strike a balance between economic development, environmental impact, and the pursuit of social policy goals, such as healthy communities or low crime rates.
Mulcair’s gamble is that a majority of Canadians now agree that sustainability is a basic principle of good economic development. If the Alberta election is any indication, that’s a fair bet.
However, we know from polling that Canadians tend to rank the economy and jobs ahead of the environment, which means their sense of where the right balance between the two lies will likely lean toward development, rather than environmental protection.
This gives Redford the political advantage. If she can persuade Canadians that her government’s approach to development is environmentally sound, they will likely favour her view of sustainability over Mulcair’s. Alberta will set the standard.
If so, Harper will have to choose whether to follow Redford’s lead or risk having Mulcair sound like he’s the only federal leader that’s in touch with Canadians on economic development. On the other hand, if Harper does follow Redford, chances are Canadians will side with the Redford/Harper view of sustainability, rather than Mulcair’s. Harper wins.
This brings us to federalism. Mulcair is right to accuse Harper of weakening the federal role on regulation. However, arguing that the federal government should impose national standards on resource development could backfire. It sounds anachronistic and out of step with the country — especially when contrasted with Redford’s pan-Canadian federalism.
She argues that, because resource development is a provincial responsibility, the provinces and territories should work together to identify common principles and standards by which to regulate it. Her effort to mobilize them around a new Canadian Energy Strategy is supposed to achieve this.
If she succeeds and the strategy shows convincingly that these governments are ready, willing and able to work together to regulate in a responsible way, Mulcair’s approach will look like an old-style, Ottawa-centric solution to a complex and regionally diverse set of issues.
In short, while Canadians may like Mulcair’s emphasis on sustainability and agree with him that Harper is weakening the federal role in environmental protection, this doesn’t mean they will welcome his call for strong federal intervention.
Finally, Redford’s embrace of sustainability has major implications for how she views the policy process around economic development. Many people think that striking a balance between social concerns, environmental impacts and economic development is not the kind of decision-making that should be carried out in secret by a handful of people around the cabinet table.
In this view, because sustainability requires difficult and controversial choices between competing values and priorities — and because these choices will have important consequences for everyone — the public should have a say.
Redford agrees. She speaks frequently and eloquently about the need to engage communities and organizations on the issue.
This commitment to community engagement may be the real dividing line between Redford and Harper. He might be willing to follow her lead on sustainability; and, clearly, he is on board for a more provincially-driven federalism. But so far he has shown no willingness to take a more bottom-up approach to policy-making.
If he refuses to budge on this, perhaps there is an opportunity for Mulcair to carve out some space here for the NDP. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But, whatever the case, this much seems clear: Redford’s Progressive Conservatives are now poised to change the tone of political debate across the country. Mulcair’s most important opponent is indeed from Calgary, but she is not from the riding of Calgary Southwest.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Don Lenihan
Her game is good. Remember Wayne Gretzky’s famous line about skating to where the puck is going to be, rather than where it was? Well, Redford is showing an impressive ability to speak to where the public is going to be, rather than where it was.
At the western premiers conference last week, she looked poised to redefine Canadians’ political discourse on three critical subjects: economic development, federalism and the policy process. Let’s take these in order.
Mulcair’s recent trip to the oil sands provides a good way into the economic development issue.
Politically speaking, he did rather well. True, reporters kept dragging out his comments about Dutch disease, and so on, but Mulcair stuck to two basic points.
First, the oil sands debate is about sustainability, which, at the very least, means the polluter should pay. Second, his fight is not with provincial leaders, but with Stephen Harper, who Mulcair says is unwilling to provide federal leadership on the environment.
Both are fair points. The Globe, for example, felt compelled to agree, if only grudgingly, that “Mulcair is right that Alberta must respect the environment.” As for federal leadership, it’s hardly contentious to say the Harper government is backing off on regulation. It is.
But if the NDP leader thinks that taking the lead on sustainability will win him the keys to 24 Sussex, he should think again. He’s not the only one talking about sustainability.
In Redford’s Alberta, sustainability is the new normal. She not only embraces the concept, she won the provincial election by campaigning on it. Now she’s ready to go toe-to-toe with Mulcair on the issue, and that may be bad news for him. Here’s why.
Sustainability is a “balancing” concept. It calls on policy makers to strike a balance between economic development, environmental impact, and the pursuit of social policy goals, such as healthy communities or low crime rates.
Mulcair’s gamble is that a majority of Canadians now agree that sustainability is a basic principle of good economic development. If the Alberta election is any indication, that’s a fair bet.
However, we know from polling that Canadians tend to rank the economy and jobs ahead of the environment, which means their sense of where the right balance between the two lies will likely lean toward development, rather than environmental protection.
This gives Redford the political advantage. If she can persuade Canadians that her government’s approach to development is environmentally sound, they will likely favour her view of sustainability over Mulcair’s. Alberta will set the standard.
If so, Harper will have to choose whether to follow Redford’s lead or risk having Mulcair sound like he’s the only federal leader that’s in touch with Canadians on economic development. On the other hand, if Harper does follow Redford, chances are Canadians will side with the Redford/Harper view of sustainability, rather than Mulcair’s. Harper wins.
This brings us to federalism. Mulcair is right to accuse Harper of weakening the federal role on regulation. However, arguing that the federal government should impose national standards on resource development could backfire. It sounds anachronistic and out of step with the country — especially when contrasted with Redford’s pan-Canadian federalism.
She argues that, because resource development is a provincial responsibility, the provinces and territories should work together to identify common principles and standards by which to regulate it. Her effort to mobilize them around a new Canadian Energy Strategy is supposed to achieve this.
If she succeeds and the strategy shows convincingly that these governments are ready, willing and able to work together to regulate in a responsible way, Mulcair’s approach will look like an old-style, Ottawa-centric solution to a complex and regionally diverse set of issues.
In short, while Canadians may like Mulcair’s emphasis on sustainability and agree with him that Harper is weakening the federal role in environmental protection, this doesn’t mean they will welcome his call for strong federal intervention.
Finally, Redford’s embrace of sustainability has major implications for how she views the policy process around economic development. Many people think that striking a balance between social concerns, environmental impacts and economic development is not the kind of decision-making that should be carried out in secret by a handful of people around the cabinet table.
In this view, because sustainability requires difficult and controversial choices between competing values and priorities — and because these choices will have important consequences for everyone — the public should have a say.
Redford agrees. She speaks frequently and eloquently about the need to engage communities and organizations on the issue.
This commitment to community engagement may be the real dividing line between Redford and Harper. He might be willing to follow her lead on sustainability; and, clearly, he is on board for a more provincially-driven federalism. But so far he has shown no willingness to take a more bottom-up approach to policy-making.
If he refuses to budge on this, perhaps there is an opportunity for Mulcair to carve out some space here for the NDP. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But, whatever the case, this much seems clear: Redford’s Progressive Conservatives are now poised to change the tone of political debate across the country. Mulcair’s most important opponent is indeed from Calgary, but she is not from the riding of Calgary Southwest.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Don Lenihan
No comments:
Post a Comment