In no particular order, here are my favorite books I’d recommend:

1) What It Takes, Richard Ben Cramer

This book chronicles the experiences of the Republican and Democratic candidates who were vying for the Presidency in 1988. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about the daily grind of a national campaign and the unique candidate personalities of George Bush, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, Richard Gephardt and current American Vice President Joe Biden.

2) Hardball, Chris Matthews

Matthews was a former Senate aide, presidential speech writer and assistant to Tip O’Neill.  His book is often referred to as a contemporary version of Machiavelli’s the Prince. It is considered by many as a must have field guide for survival in the modern day world of politics.

3) Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, Tom Flanagan

Tom Flanagan served as one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s top strategists for many years. He was instrumental in the Conservatives Rise to Power (hence the title of his book). Flanagan’s book paints a portrait of a young Stephen Harper and his evolution to a ‘giant killer’ that put an end to thirteen years of Liberal Party reign.

4) The Revolution will not be Televised, Joe Trippi

Joe Trippi was Howard Dean’s Presidential Campaign Manager and can largely take credit for the integration of social media into mainstream politics. Howard Dean’s campaign is infamously remembered for this incident:

But, Trippi’s book takes you much deeper and gives you a perspective on a people’s movement in politics that was bigger than the candidate and campaign ever imagined was possible.

5) The Big Red Machine: How the Liberal Party Dominates Canadian Politics, Stephen Clarkson

The title is a little behind the times eh? Well give some credit to its author Stephen Clarkson. When he published the book in October 2005 the Liberals were still in power, the Conservatives were still divided and nobody knew who Justice John Gomery was. Clarkson’s book is a detailed account of the nine electoral contests from 1974 – 2004 and is certainly a must read for anyone who is interested in the last three decades of Canadian politics.

6) The Dark Side, Steve Paikin

Paikin who is currently the host of The Agenda on TVO has authored three books about Canadian politics; my personal favorite is the Dark Side. Paikin’s book takes a no-holds-barred approach to looking at the potential pitfalls of a public life. A great read for anyone who is considering running for public office or for anyone who thinks politicians lead a life without worry.

7) W.A.C. Bennett, The Rise of British Columbia (BC), David J. Mitchell

Mitchell’s book is a biography of BC’s most famous Premier. This is required reading for anyone who is trying to understand the complex world of BC politics. The book covers many of the major developments that helped shaped the province throughout Bennett’s lengthy political career. It also covers the years after his death, the destruction of the Social Credit Party and the emergence of the BC Liberals.

• Politicians work long hours when the House is sitting. The summer breaks gives them more time for them to meet with constituents back home in their ridings. Take this time to inform them about your organization and its significance to their riding. Politicians may not be aware as to how policy decisions affect your organization and it is your job to tell them. By meeting with them at home you might even be able to encourage them to endorse, support or reject policy proposals that impact your organization back in Ottawa.
• Members of Parliament are on the BBQ circuit this time of year. Some associations may want to create opportunities for them by offering speaking engagement opportunities at events.
• The media has a lot of influence over politicians and will be looking for stories to cover. In some cases this can be a good time to bring your issues forward with the national or local media.
• Monitor the news for announcements by any of the political parties. We are edging closer to another election and announcements made over the summer may shed some light into party platforms. This might also a good time to raise new issues with the Government and opposition.
• This is a great time to meet with political staff to build and maintain relationships. Political staffers are very busy when the House is sitting but during the summer months their schedules can become less hectic.
• This is also a good time to meet with departmental officials. They are often willing to consult with organizations and want advice as to how policy and regulatory changes will affect you.
• Focus your energy on building coalitions with other organizations that have similar interests.

Use the summer to focus on strategies to further your advocacy goals. Things may slow down in Ottawa but riding-level advocacy across Canada is also very effective. So fire up the grill, and give your MP some summer loving this year!

Here are but a few points of reflection – in numbers – from the Fall and Spring sessions.

Feel free to add your own.

$155: the amount motorists will be fined should they be caught driving while speaking on their cell phone.

106: the number of deaths attributed to H1N1 in Ontario between April and December 2009, with millions of Ontarians vaccinated in the Fall.

#1: the standing in North America that Al Gore granted Ontario’s green energy plans.

2015: the arrival of the Pan American Games in Toronto and surrounding regions.

500,000: the number of amendments delivered by the Ontario PCs in an attempt to delay the passage of the harmonized sales tax.

$7 billion: the size of the Ontario government’s investment with Samsung that is expected to bring four manufacturing plants and 16,000 jobs to the province.

96 hours: the length of time Queen’s Park was prorogued in February.

3: the number of Ontario by-elections so far in 2010, which saw former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray replace Toronto mayor-hopeful George Smitherman, former Ottawa Mayor replace former-former Ottawa Mayor (and Minister) Jim Watson, and former county CAO Steve Clark replace former interim PC leader Bob Runciman.

$21.3 billion over 7: the projected deficit for 2010/2011 and the projected number of years for paying it off.

10: the number of new ideas Tim Hudak and the Ontario PCs announced for 2010.

$300: the amount the average Ontarian’s annual energy bill is expected to rise by the end of 2011.

7: the number of Shoppers Drug Mart stores that shut down in London in protest against changes to curb the cost of drugs.

One full day: what many four and five year olds may soon enjoy for their early education.

10: the number of years Liberal policy-makers were asked to imagine in the future at the party’s Collingwood Conference.

$4.49: the cost of one of the controversially expensed items (Degree deodorant) by Ontario Ombudsman, André Marin.

13%:  a figure Ontarians will see a lot more of when the harmonized sales tax is introduced on July 1.

No doubt there will be more issues and numbers to report on with the return of the legislature again in September.  Will the Premier be able to shake the “nanny-state” label that is continually pressed upon him?  Will the Leader of the Opposition be able to counter criticism that he is lacking on the ideas-front?  Can the legislature’s third party leader find the issue that will elevate her party from one of protest to contender?

Stay tuned for another exciting season.  And until then, start revving up those barbecues!

Edit to add:

You might also like to read what the Honourable Monte Solberg had to say about Question Period in the Toronto Sun.  http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/monte_solberg/2010/03/04/13114001.html

The ‘grip and grin’:

Also known by its street name ‘the classic’, this is the go-to photo-op for politicians who are looking to offer their congratulations or who are coming to some sort of agreement.

The ‘off-site’ photo-op:

This photo-op tactic is becoming increasingly popular because it attempts to show politicians in normal everyday situations in attempts to illustrate to the public that they too drink coffee, eat donuts, support the economy, etc.

The ‘children are our future’ photo-op:

Even when members of the voting public may disagree a politican’s stance on an issue, they can all agree on one thing – photo-ops of politicians reading or teaching children are always heart warming. Whether it’s by visiting an elemantary school to talk about the imporantance of education or lending a hand at a day care, media saavy policitians will no doubt bring the cameras along to capture a perfect mix of wisdom and innocence. A sure fire hit everytime!

The ‘kitten/puppy cuddle’ photo-op:

So you’re down in the polls, your approval rating is at an all-time low and you realize that now is the time to bring out the big guns. If this is the case, may I present the grand-daddy of all photo-ops –  ‘the kitten/puppy cuddle’.  There is no denying the power of a policitian holding a tiny kitten or pint-size puppy to emphasize caring, compassion, and innocence. It shows the public that they’re soft at heart and are worth your vote.

Well it’s the day after the release of the 2010 budget and the question on everyone’s mind is what will the opposition do?  The papers today are dominated by coverage of the budget – so I thought I would do something a little different.  As some of you know, I have been lucky enough to spend some time in the UK this year.  For a political junkie like myself I couldn’t have chosen a better time to visit the UK.  In a few short weeks, British MPs will be heading into an election.  This election promises to be one of the more exciting political contests in the last decade.  While the British Labour Party has governed the United Kingdom for close to 13 years, many Brits have written off the current government’s electoral chances.  In fact, recently British bookies have put the Conservative Party’s odds of winning a majority in the next election at 1/2 versus 12/1 for Labour.

What surprised me the most about these elections is not the similarities between Brown’s government and the Martin government in Canada.  No – that’s a story that’s been told far too often.  I am shocked to learn that the 2010 British General Election will be the setting for the first televised debate in the history of the United Kingdom.  42 years after the first televised debate in Canada (Trudeau vs. Stanfield) and 50 years after the first televised debate in the United States (Kennedy vs. Nixon), the British people will finally see their political leaders duke it out on Prime Time television.

I know this may shock some of you, but the televised debates are my favourite part of any election (gasp!).  At worst the debates serve as an entertaining break during a grueling campaign and at best they serve as an opportunity to define the major issue of the campaign.  Some of the biggest turning points in recent political campaigns have occurred during the televised debates. On paper Richard Nixon was seen as the superior candidate, but many blame his poor performance on television against JFK in the first presidential debate as the reason for losing the debate and many believe the entire election.

The stakes at Canadian Debates have been high as well – one of the most memorable moments in Canadian politics occurred in the 1984 and 1988 leader’s debates between Mulroney and Turner.  Following the knock-out punch ( “You had an option, sir” ) that Mulroney delivered in 84, Turner was given a rematch in 88.  While Mulroney went on to win the election, Turner’s performance in the debate gave his campaign a much needed boost – and for a moment it looked like they were going to win the election.

So why have the British resisted adopting televised debates during their campaigns?  Some opponents to the idea accuse it of being unnecessary.  They believe that if the people wanted to see a debate between the leaders they could watch Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQ) every Wednesday.  Personally, I don’t buy this explanation.  PMQ’s only occur once a week, as opposed to the Canadian Question Period that occurs every day.  Furthermore, it’s hard to engage people in the discussion when it is being televised at noon on a Wednesday instead of after dinner.  The cynical side of me believes that the reason for not having a debate is far simpler.  What possible reason would a sitting PM have to engage in a leader’s debate?  Just showing up raises the credibility of your opponents and makes them seem more Prime Ministerial.  A sitting PM has virtually nothing to gain from participating in a debate and nearly everything to lose.

That said, the Brits are going ahead with a series of debates and they seemed to have put their own personal twist on the format.  First off they are not going to be called the Leader’s debate.  No, instead they are called the Prime Minister’s debates.  This is no accident.  Only party leaders who are generally seen as standing a chance of becoming Prime Minister are invited to participate.  This excludes the Scottish National Party (the UK’s answer to the Bloc), Plaid Cymru from Wales, and the UK Independence Party from participating.  I imagine that this will cut down on the potential of the 5 person yelling matches we have begun to see in the Canadian debates allowing for a more focused discussion.

In addition to the Prime Minister’s debates, there will also be a debate between the Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK’s Finance Minister) and his main opposition rivals.  Personally I like this idea.  For too many years, Canadian elections have been all about the leader and not enough about the people around him.  Imagine Flaherty vs. McCallum or Goodale?

It will be interesting to see how these debates play out and if there are any lessons that we can learn from in Canada.

For good measure I have pasted another great clip below – Reagan vs Mondale.  Enjoy.

Yesterday’s speech:

• Commits to completing the 2^nd year of the stimulus spending plan announced in last Budget;
• Positions a new focus on productivity/innovation and creating a positive investment climate as ways to address deficit; and
• Pre-positions a major review of federal spending by announcing an across-the-board public service spending freeze.

The Prime Minister is still keenly aware that he is governing in a minority, but he has judged the public mood to be ready for a serious discussion about the future and how to manage the growing public deficit.  Public concern about prorogation undoubtedly played a role in that calculation.

By talking about frugal management, productivity and innovation, the government is attempting to tap into the public’s desire for a plan to tackle the deficit, without getting into the politically difficult specifics of what programs will be cut.  Taking a page from the Paul Martin/Jean Chretien playbook from 1994/5, the Prime Minister is building a narrative and creating time for the public to ‘buy-in’ before announcing where and when the cuts will come.  While there will be great debate as to whether a federal spending freeze amounts to an actual spending cut, politically, this is a wise and even cunning tactic, as it is difficult for the opposition to criticize without specifics on spending cuts. And it delays the pain, in the event an election is triggered before the 2011 budget. The government was also careful to avoid a battle with the provinces by clarifying that there will be no cuts to transfer payments for health and education.

Focusing on long term productivity, innovation, and creating an attractive investment climate will be difficult for the Liberals to criticize as they have long contemplated making productivity a main budget pillar, most recently in Paul Martin’s first budget in 2004, but backed down when extensive focus group testing showed poor receptivity amongst key demographics. In short, it couldn’t be sold. But that was then and now the Prime Minister thinks the post-recession public is ready. And he is undoubtedly emboldened by Michael Ignatieff’s recent economic speeches that have called for similar efforts.

That said, the government will also try to sell productivity differently by localizing it with references to creating jobs for families.  The risk of course, is the opening this type of economic plan provides for Jack Layton to paint it as ‘pro-business’ and ‘laissez faire’. Most moderate commentators will likely seize on the significance of the coming spending cuts and the government’s commitments on productivity/innovation, as evidence that an era of smaller government and a bigger role for business may be upon us.

While there will be much to cheer for if creating ‘winning conditions’ for Canadian business becomes the next agreed-upon national project, it remains to be seen whether a minority government distracted by the constant threat of an election and already focussed on managing the massive stimulus expenditure program and reviewing government-wide spending, will have anything left in the tank to tackle the difficult tasks of increasing productivity and innovation. Moving the needle in impactful ways on regulatory modernization and building competitive tax and investment structures are serious challenges that require sustained effort and attention, and support from provincial partners.  Many in the PMO are probably hoping the economic growth witnessed recently continues unabated over the next year, requiring fewer cuts to be necessary.

It warrants mention that the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Guy Giorno, worked for former Ontario Premier Mike Harris on an ‘innovation’ agenda articulated in a policy document called Roadmap to Prosperity.

Key Points of Interest

As mentioned previously, the Throne Speech was more specific than its predecessors.  Key policies that were articulated, that will be further fleshed out in tomorrow’s Budget, include:

• Reconfirmation of continued adherence to the previously announced corporate tax cut schedule;
• A promise to ‘open Canada’s doors’ to foreign investment in satellite and telecom via changes to foreign ownership restrictions;
• Regulatory reform on environmental assessments for oil, gas and uranium projects;
• A new national Digitial Economy Strategy and a “bolstered” Science & Technology Strategy aimed at product commercialization.
• A commitment to table legislation on intellectual property and copyright, and to re-table food, drug & consumer product safety legislation from the previous Parliament.

Next Steps:

The various votes on the Throne Speech and the Budget will take place on successive days between March 8 and 10^th. There are three separate votes and all are considered matters of confidence.  FH does not expect the opposition to attempt to defeat the government on either the Throne Speech or the Budget for the following reasons:

• All three opposition parties would need to vote against the government and recent polls show the Bloc and the NDP might lose seats
• NDP Leader Jack Layton is undergoing cancer treatment
• A substantial number of MPs from all parties who were first elected in 2004 will see their pensions vest in June, and would lose their benefits if they lost a spring election prior to that
• The Liberals are still smarting from the public reaction to their 2009 efforts to defeat the government, and are convinced it is in their best interests to wait.

The full text of the speech is available here. Fleishman Hillard will continue to monitor developments and will follow up today with additional analysis of Budget 2010.

Jim Flaherty and his budget shoes (Reuters)

Four o’clock today will indeed be the witching hour, when reporters, senior government officials, interest groups and associations, and the odd communications adviser or two, will emerge from a day-long “lock up” in Ottawa to release to Canadians details of the federal budget.

I really liked the way my old Washington colleague John Ibbitson summed up the situation in the Globe and Mail when he wrote “we are entering a dark decade that will test the will and ability of governments across Canada.” As we noted in a previous post the Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that Canada’s fiscal situation is unsustainable without tax increases or massive spending cuts, or both. Given an aging baby boomer demographic moving out of the workforce and into retirement, program spending demands in health, social security and social services will hit record highs while our economy grows more slowly, or so the theory goes. Ibbitson’s argument is that if we start to take some painful steps now, it will limit the damage to Canada’s fiscal situation down the road.

The issues have never been more serious. But for some Canadians, this government-prompted debate over whether the words of our national anthem need to be changed will be more compelling water cooler talk. It shouldn’t be. The fiscal reality facing Ottawa and all Canadian provincial governments is overwhelmingly the most important public affairs environmental factor for anyone who engages with our elected officials – today or in the years to come. Help government with this issue and you will help yourself. Most ‘cap-in-hand’ requests will result in an empty cap. Instead, we are looking at a freeze in government spending, deregulated industries and more openness in terms of foreign investment. It not just spring training in Florida, it’s a whole new ball game.

Today’s Budget marks a reversal of declining revenue growth. Revenue growth is expected to average 4.9% annually over the next three years. Projected revenue growth parallels improvements in commodity shipments, especially a turn-around in the forest sector. Increases in spending are almost exclusively dedicated to health and education. The health budget will receive an additional $2 billion over three years, consuming almost all of the Province’s anticipated future spending increases. By 2012/13, spending on healthcare will reach $17.9 billion or 42% of the total budget. Economic stimulus, by way of spending on infrastructure, is forecasted at $20.7 billion over the next three years. This assumes federal contributions of $1.5 billion and reflects a continuation of capital spending levels announced by the Province in 2009.

The Budget commits to achieving cost savings through efficiencies among the Government’s resource and development ministries. Forests, Land Management, Community Development, Energy and Mines, and Transportation will collectively reduce expenditures by $320 million over three years through consolidations and efficiencies. Across Government, the size of the civil service is predicted to shrink by 11% (approximately 3,500 jobs), mostly through attrition, but job cuts will take place.

The Budget introduces new program funding in the following areas:

• $108 million for directed at families and youth of which $60 million will go to a 2010 Sports and Arts legacy;

• $69 million for justice and policing;

• $58 million for community infrastructure;

• $35 million for LiveSmart BC; and

• $100 million for clean energy development funding.

With B.C. leading the rest of Canada in economic performance (with the exception of Saskatchewan), the Government will rely on economic growth to return the Treasury to balance and pay for services, rather than tax increases or significant spending cuts. The Budget predicts the HST will be revenue-neutral after rebates and other considerations are factored in. Meeting Budget goals will require that large-spending departments, such as Housing and Social Services and Children and Families maintain current spending levels.

The Budget also assumes a “net zero” increase to collective agreements currently under negotiation between the Government and the public service. Outside of Health and Education, most Ministries will experience spending cuts over the next three years and some contraction of staff levels. A lively Budget debate should be expected as the Opposition is likely to target flat spending on social services as essentially a cut to essential services.

Confidence Votes
Votes on the Speech from the Throne and the Budget are normally considered matters of confidence and can therefore provide an opportunity for the opposition parties to bring down the government. With 145 of the 308 seats, the Conservative government has only a minority in the House of Commons, and requires the support of at least one of the opposition parties to pass. If all three of the opposition parties vote against the budget the government will fall and we will be into another election.

The exact days that the confidence votes will take place is unknown for various procedural reasons. The Standing Orders provide up to a maximum of six days of debate on the Speech from the Throne. But this debate is not mandatory and is scheduled at the government’s discretion. In other words, the Standing Orders only set the rules for the debate and do not require a debate to happen. You may recall that in the last parliamentary session, the Conservative government did not schedule the debate. Instead, it moved directly to the budget proceedings. I suspect that the government will likely take this route again this time. If however, the government does schedule the debate on the Speech from the Throne this could potentially open the door to up to three confidence votes.

Some leeway also exists for the scheduling of budget votes. Although the Standing Orders provide for a maximum of four days of debate on the budget speech, the four days of debate do not have to be consecutive. Following past practice however, these votes will likely occur during the week of March 8th but they could also be scheduled for later in the month. In response to the budget motion, one amendment and one sub amendment can be presented which provides the opposition parties with the opportunity to bring forward a motion of non-confidence. The sub amendment is voted on after the second day of debate and the amendment is voted on after the third day of debate. The main motion in turn is then voted on at the end of 4th day of debate. 

Other possible confidence motions could also occur this month.  These include:

• Ways and means: If there is a raise in taxes there could be a confidence vote on the ways and means
• Supplementary estimates: At least 1 confidence vote on the supplementary estimates by March 26^th
• Opposition days: There could be up to four opposition days scheduled for the month of March.  If this occurs all 4 could potentially be considered confidence votes. 

What affect does prorogation have on legislation?

The recent decision by the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament means that the 36 Government Bills that were in the House and in the Senate that did not receive Royal Assent before prorogation have died on the Order Paper and must be reintroduced as new legislation. With unanimous consent of the House, or the adoption of a motion, a bill can be reinstated at the stage it had reached prior to prorogation.

Unlike Government legislation, prorogation has little effect on Private Members’ Business. Private Members Bills that originated in the House of Commons continue on at the same stage and order that they were when the session ended.  Bills that originate in the Senate however must be reintroduced as if they are new.

Committee work stops and all orders of reference lapse. This means that the committees will have to be reconstituted and an election held for the positions of Chairs and Vice-Chairs. In some cases however, committees will be able to pick up where they left off. A committee may continue with a specific study or review of a report if a motion is passed to that effect. Also of note, the government is still required to respond to committee reports from the last session.

This post was written with the help of Greg MacNeil