I was thinking of starting my last post with something like, “please excuse me for not posting for a week, as I decided to prorogue my blog. I felt it necessary to reset it, as it were; put it on pause; recalibrate it. I needed the time to take account of my recent posts and strategize my forthcoming ideas.” Meanwhile, you, dear readers, forget what I had most recently written about, gone on with your daily lives, and God willing, when I finally returned, you were there waiting with willingness.

But then it occurred to me that the similarity was rather weak, because in contrast to me shutting down my blog for a period of time, the Government of Canada doesn’t really care if its citizens take note of its departure or return to business. As I’ve said bef ore, it is becoming increasingly apparent that both the business and recent prorogation of Canada’s Parliament are irrelevant to Canadians. We hardly think they’re working when they are, so why do we care if they’re working at all? And remember, I told you that Canadians in general are easily confused and distracted.

Squirrel!

A few weeks ago, a motivated online group of Canadians organized protests against the prorogation of parliament which were held in 60-odd locations across Canada this past Saturday. For a while I considered attending the one in south Calgary, at the Prime Minister’s constituency office (that is closed on weekends). I even threatened as much on my Facebook page. But then I recalled my experience at the only protest I have ever actually attended – the George W. Bush visit to Calgary in March, 2009. I considered how weird it was, what with the plethora of right-wing, ultra-conservative business people who paid to hear him, and the discombobulated circus of disheveled, left-wing hippies yelling at them in opposition. The loudest protesters didn’t have a clear message; signs bore messages ranging from war-monger, to odd stories about Cubans kidnapped in the 60′s. Some were there with the sole intention of being arrested, in order to make some sort of statement. Frankly, it was embarrassing, and it entirely diluted the effort of the protest in the first place, in my opinion.

The movement behind the protests was an interesting one. I think it was a good idea for the most part. Conceptually, anyway. And it’s important to separate the movement from the protests, in order to identify the two camps of thought involved. The movement, known as “Canadians Against the Prorogation of Parliament” was begun on Facebook, as a social media rallying point for Canadians to voice their displeasure. This was a low-involvement, small investment sort of participation for Canadians – we were able to add our name to a cause, and – more than a petition – actually engage each other. We were able to discuss the issue and draw more people into the fray. It grew into a mass of some 218,000 Canadians, all upset to some degree with the government’s decision to take a break. The movement involved the traditional opposition types – card-carrying members of the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc, but also, interestingly, Conservatives who expected more from their leaders. This was truly a transcendental populous. And because of this diversity, but also the unknown nature of a social media movement, the media were picking up on it like crazy. They didn’t know what the movement meant, nor what it was capable of, and because of that it was newsworthy.

But moving from a cozy social-media discussion into a series of protests (in mid-January, mind you) was probably too great a leap for many of those who signed up to the Facebook page. Firstly, because the organizers were asking people to get off their computers, leave their house and routines and stand outside en masse on a wintery Saturday afternoon. The separation of social media engagement and physical protestation is quite polar, and I’m sure the organizers feared that no one would show up. If the next move of the group was to begin a letter-writing campaign to each person’s own Member of Parliament, which is, perhaps a more natural mobilization of a social media cause, then this exercise might have had more participation and impact.

Secondly, and more importantly in my opinion, transgressing from the new idea of mustering mass support via social media engagement to the tired act of physical protest rendered the movement less useful because it diverted attention and emphasis from a new and exciting media platform to an old, all-too-familiar and somewhat abused one. The organizers had an opportunity to do something different; to speak to political leaders from a more intimate (in voters’ words) and less predictable (how big could this grow?) stage; one where they, their message and their legion would be perceived differently and paid attention to. But in relegating to protesting, which is familiar ground for both activists and their targets, they unfortunately steered their followers off a cliff. The act of protesting branded the movement as nothing more than typical left-wing elitist ideology. It was the wrong move.

It should be clear by now that I didn’t attend the prorogation protest. Instead, I recalibrated at home on that Saturday afternoon, by buying groceries and visiting the Calgary Farmers’ Market. I didn’t think anyone would care or notice. Besides, just think of how interesting and understandable my posts will be since taking the time to reset.

Like a pot-smoking university student, who, upon reading a study disputing the connection between drug use and brain function cries foul of all science and therefore the illegality of marijuana, watching the Harper government and the province of Alberta defend their actions at the Copenhagen summit on climate change is similarly laughable.

Perhaps a more apt political connection to the current Alberta defence of oil sands extraction, and appropriately capturing our politicians’ unadulterated arrogance, was the Bush administration’s spin and propagandizing of Iraq’s terrorist connections and weapons of mass destruction to make it incumbent upon themselves to force a war in Iraq. It’s about the continuance of self-fulfilling agendas, greed and power. Truly, that is it. Alberta is a province so entirely hypnotized by oil’s financial windfall that they’ll defend their callous actions to any extent and at any expense.

The malicious decision-making and two-facedness that Stephen Harper, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner employ is identical to that of drug dealers, mob hitmen, and the likes of Ponzi schemers Bernie Madoff or Gary Sorenson. They are selfish, sly and greedy and are irreverent to the negative impacts they have on the people around them, but exonerate themselves in the name of money. Their love for people, ideas and long-term thinking is shallow. Their commitment to the good of their province and country is skin deep. They communicate almost exclusively with their inner circles (mostly corporate power brokers), treating the rest of Canadians like idiots and that we can’t possibly understand the bigger picture. It’s sleazy and patronizing. They each hold their heads high as they walk to their cars each morning, fully knowledgeable that they’re complicit in destroying the world for their children and for others, yet are entirely and uncompromisingly consumed by the idea of wealth, power, and the expressed wishes and needs of those that support them.

That, or they’re all idiots, and I wouldn’t write off that possibility for at least two of them.

Oil sands production – the industrial rape and pillage of Alberta’s northern landscape – strips oil-rich dirt from the earth’s surface. From a moral perspective, the practice is not unlike diamond mining in Africa, asbestus mining in Quebec, or child labour in China. All are profoundly morally unacceptable, defended by their practicing parties and overarching governments because of their economical impact, and our consumerist societies increasingly depend upon them whether they help keep the costs of consumer goods low, or fuel regional, provincial or national economies. Additionally, it is every other country in the world that cries foul against them, and the offending nation defends its actions by pointing fingers at other similar offenders elsewhere. It is as though we are only interested in associating with the weakest link, rather than proactively engaging in leadership.

The fact of the matter is that this is contempt for our environment. Where do they get off having such a significant impact on the world that other people live in, simply for the sake of money? Add to this a recent announcement by Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice that his administration actually has plans to hit even lower targets than they’d set for themselves before, by enacting special protections and tax breaks for oil sands development under the terms of the industry being a vital (and thus unaccountable) trade commodity.

And why aren’t we trying to take the high road? Why does a man like Rob Renner go on radio talk shows defending the oil sands as an acceptable and modest practice of extracting fossil fuels, disputing science and overlooking serious health impacts in neighbouring communities? I’m not asking him to hate the oil sands or stop funding them (though engaging a realistic impact assessment is actually his job); rather I ask why he cannot simply rationalize his province’s destruction of its own natural environment for the sake of money, and call a spade a spade. He would rather dispute proven and indisputable scientific facts (which make him sound like a Rumsfeldian or Bushist idiot) than accept that what is being done in Alberta is wrong, though we make a heck of a lot of money from it. Tragically, it is because of this stonewalling that we cannot begin to make progress and walk, however slowly, towards the light at the end of our poisonous and calamitous tunnel.

The facts are clear, and they are this:

- Oil sands development and extraction in Alberta are an enormous (Canada’s worst) contributor to greenhouse gas emissions

- The destruction of northern Alberta has serious impacts on ecosystems (the muskeg and boreal forest) and wildlife (recall the deaths of over a thousand ducks in one incident), which further degrade our environment

- Oil sands tailing ponds and effluence are making people sick in nearby communities

- Oil sands depend on more resources, including fuel and water, for production than they produce themselves

- The oil sands contribute several billion dollars to both the Alberta and Canadian economies

- Other countries depend on, or will come to depend on, our oil and thus position us for a strong exporting stature (though that would be finite and thus limited)

Why can’t we all agree on these items and begin having real conversations and debates in terms of viability and our future? Why are we misinforming and therefore blindfolding ourselves?

Calling into dispute the science behind the warnings, and in fact defending the practice as sustainable and sensitive does not only frustrate those potentially interested in leading us in new directions; it makes the province and those that defend it look stupid. Again, I draw parallels to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush, who, despite overwhelming evidence against terrorist connections or weapons of mass destruction (and their lack of ability to find any afterall) pushed forward on increasingly obvious private agendas to invade and overthrow Iraq. Their leadership was laughed out of office; their ineptitude scrawled onto every historical annal that has been published and will be for a hundred years.

Alternative fuel research is being torpedoed by Alberta’s multi-billion-dollar investment in compensatory research – carbon capture and storage (CCS) – which allows oil sands development to continue unabated while these recovery techniques are explored. Additionally, CCS is unproven, theoretical, and would require even greater fuel consumption just to function. Some estimates say it would be necessary to increase a refinery’s fuel consumption by 20-40% just to capture and exhaust the carbon underground. So we’re feeding our environmental recovery by burning more fuel… Again, arrogance and hidden agendas.

K, you distract the staff, while I pocket the goods. Then we’ll be out of here with the stuff we’re after, and no one will ever know…

The defensiveness and distraction provided by our governments are nothing more than a ploy to mislead and confuse the public so that the ‘debate’ (which is truly sound science, yet the conversation has been made to be seen as unproven bias) can continue, rather than determining a better – and God forbid, different – course of action.

Presuming for a moment that oil sands are not ruining the environment, we do know that this resource will dry up eventually. What forethought, then, is the province and country putting into our next lucrative and home-grown energy export? Surely the oil companies have all the resources they need to continue business as usual (land rights, governmental permissions, legal protections), so our defence of them is very likely irrelevant. So what’s next? Why can’t we see past the ends of our noses and begin to plan for the future, regardless of what that is? And why are our elected officials schilling on behalf of oil companies anyway?

And returning back to the indisputable science confirming the negative effects of the oil sands, why aren’t we recognizing the environmental impact and our responsibility to protect ourselves, and investing in these new arenas now?

In entering what appears to be a fall election, the immediate requirement of the Liberal Party of Canada is going to be to sell Canadians on the fact that we need an election. This must not be understated nor undersold. Just as the party and Michael Ignatieff need to work to convince a majority of Canadians that they are the correct choice, they must first convince a majority of Canadians that they need to get out and vote.

Making a case for calling an election is the principle matter at hand, not only because the Liberals want to win and want to take advantage of relatively strong polling numbers, but because if an election is called, it is the Liberals who are the perpetrators and they’ll need to vindicate themselves for forcing an election. If they can’t convince Canadians that such action is required, they’ll have an impossible task of convincing Canadians that they should receive their vote. On the other side of the debate, Stephen Harper will be working with his team to convince Canadians that there is no need for an election, that an election now is a waste of money, effort and resources, and finally, within the guise of this unfounded election, clearly he is the wisest choice; in that order.

‘Need’ has been poorly conveyed in each of the last several elections – clearly indicated by lackluster voter turnout. Politicians repent that they wish Canadians would be more engaged politically, but it is my opinion that the interest and energy is there, if only they felt the need.  Quebeckers are a good example of this attitude: if an issue really gets to them (whether belligerent Conservative politicians taking them for granted, or matters of distinct cultures or sovereignty) they passionately show up in droves and unequivocally make their opinions known. If an issue is absent from a debate, the sentiment is almost the opposite – one of resentment. And it is widespread resentment that the Conservatives have leveraged as a platform from which to attack wasteful spending from otherwise opportunistic opposition parties in the past.

If the Liberals can effectively convince Canadians that there needs to be an election; that another month of Harper would be inherently bad and detrimental to the country; then I think the next step of selling the party and its leader as the wise choice to replace him would be a piece of cake.

Again, as with my previous posts, the emphasis on making a successful case for calling an election falls on clarity and sound argument. There can be no mistake or confusion on calling Harper out for being a dangerous politician who is directing our country towards irreparable economic damage and does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. The Liberals have already done a fair job of crying foul over stimulus spending, but within the framework of a non-confidence vote in Parliament, that rhetoric must be shifted into high gear. There must be examples, sound bytes, quotes, and otherwise evidence to help earn the support of the entire Liberal caucus, the other opposition parties, the media (to help frame the debate) and finally, voting Canadians.

In some circumstances the performance of the sitting prime minister and his party provide all the ammo necessary to bolster voter support – such as in the United States with George W. Bush’s performance and subsequently Barack Obama’s victory; though such obvious malpractice is not often apparent in Canadian politics. Not since Paul Martin and the sponsorship scandal, anyway. Thus, it is incumbent on the federal Liberals to convince Canadians that the need is there – that the requirement of an election is valid and reasonable.

Let’s see how this all transpires.

This morning, as with every morning, I awoke to CBC Radio’s Calgary Eyeopener. I enjoy beginning my day with the news as reported by Canada’s public broadcaster (who are more interested in quality reporting than their advertisers). Today at about 6:20 AM they had on a regular guest political commentator: Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Riley, who seems to be a rather astute political commentator.

She was being interviewed on the topic that public and media opinions seem to suggest that Michael Ignatieff and the federal Liberals have benignly wasted their summer opportunities: failing to make headlines, calling the government to task, shedding light on policy initiatives or otherwise garnering any media attention whatsoever. The popular suggestion creeping its way across Canada is that Ignatieff has been off the map, as though he’s been taking holidays. The truth of the matter is that he’s been cris-crossing Canada all summer, including a whirlwind first week of July, where he was in Fredericton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. I was with him for the latter two (photos here). Riley wisely suggested that rather than this being an issue of Liberal malaise, it was instead indicative of an inept communications/ media relations department.

Perhaps it is not popularly known (another communications debacle?), but the space between doing something and everyone hearing about it falls entirely into the lap of communications. As much as I would love everyone in the world to know I’m writing this blog post, for example, unless I tell them about it, only those proactive enough will ever find out. If I truly wanted to tell the world and had some resources at my disposal, I would consider developing and nurturing media relationships, writing and sending them press releases, following up to establish some sort of connection to/with them, engaging some publicity stunts and photo ops (organizing “how many days until he visits his riding” rallies outside the often vacant offices of Jason Kenney and Rob Anders?), and perhaps buying some advertising in key outlets that best attract my target audience. In my case it would be print publications like the Globe and Mail, The Walrus; online pubs like thetyee.ca and theglobeandmail.com; on TV stations like CBC Newsworld, Showcase, and maybe a few highway and roadside billboards (ha!). Once the word was out, it would be up to me to substantiate the effort with content.

The Liberals enjoy the luxurious position of having a very substantiative leader – what’s missing for some reason (at least recently) is the call to action to pay attention to him. While I won’t pass judgement on the professional ability of his communications department (because I’m sure they’re capable people), I agree with the journalist in principle. The man has been doing his part (though I do wish he was releasing more policy and spending more time listening to Canadians and engaging their questions), but it seems that his actions are not translating into press; therefore not translating into voter behavior nor poll results. Thus, we have an exhausted Liberal leader whose actions are going unnoticed. This is a major problem in itself, regardless of the fact that their inadequacy may determine whether or not there is indeed a fall election (or a successful one). Added to this are some more serious concerns: if this party can’t get their communications streamlined during the passive summer months, what could we expect during an election or if Ignatieff becomes Prime Minister?

The communications departments likely do not have it easy up on Parliament Hill, what with the rat race and hierarchies and bureaucracy, etc. That said, there ought to be a more cohesive effort, because in general it appears that the media are waiting for something to write about. And left with little press material coming from the Opposition, they are resorting to making it up themselves, which is where the “Michael Ignatieff is nowhere to be seen” story line comes from. In my opinion, the Opposition Leader’s Office and Liberal Party of Canada communications teams ought to have entered the summer with a plan and anticipated and even scheduled roll outs of material. Just as they book Ignatieff’s flights, so too should the communications teams have worked with advisors to ensure each week began and ended with a compelling story line highlighting the action the party had been taking despite the holiday season. Alas, here we are with a well-travelled politician with little respect being paid to the thousands of kilometers he’s traveled or the thousands of hands he’s shaken. Quite shocking really, that such substantial action can be so entirely disguised.

Further to this critical tack, I would like to add an addendum to my recent post discussing both Ignatieff’s and Obama’s struggles with regards appropriately addressing their respective ongoing debates (the Liberal brand and US health care reform):

It is important that the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff himself start to pay more attention to public opinion and respect (in other words, not dismiss) the fact that a viable proportion of Canadians do not believe they know him or that the party has definitive policies on major issues. It’s neither here nor there whether or not this sentiment is true. If these opinions are indeed true, then we are dealing with a leader facing an identity crisis and a party facing an ambiguous and therefore tumultuous stance leading into a fall session where an election may be called. If these allegations are unfounded, then we are dealing with a communications crisis whereby the leader and party have been unable to effectively communicate their identity, values and stance to voters. Either way, these situations must be rectified immediately.

It is when a popular belief is reinforced publicly through polling that it gains traction in the media. When nothing is done by the political parties in question, true apathy and disgust begin to take effect. With their new leader and a refreshed focus on supposed ‘real’ Canadian issues, the Liberal Party of Canada has temporarily washed away this opinion, suggesting that things are different and that they have a new leader capable of listening to his citizens and representing their wishes. This must be reflected in day-to-day operations, however because trust is a scarce commodity in politics and can quickly decay. People are all too familiar with disassociating politicians’ words from their actions, as has been the pervasive precedent throughout Canadian politics (see my post on that here).