Here’s a question for you. Who believes that Dr. David Suzuki has credibility for talking about how much money to spend on the Canadian Forces?

And before you think this is an environmental rant, here’s another one: who believes that the Canadian Federation for Independent Business has a policy on spending to help the people in Davis Inlet and Kaschechewan?

Want a third? Who believes that the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has a policy on, say, water reclamation programs administered by the Canadian International Development Agency?

Outlandish? Of course. That’s because we associate these people with the client groups who form their best audience: Suzuki on the environment, the CFIB for small business, and FCB on the CRTC and networks. With the possible exception of internal administration (such as “outside” smoking spaces or handicapped access for their buildings) we very rarely expect them to have a statement or policy on anything other than their own defined area of expertise.

This is why I’m somewhat amused at the National Post’s Kelly McParland, and his rant about how the people in his Rolodex responded to the challenge of Building the Budget. The people who made submissions all responded, essentially, by pushing their own agendas, and this has caused Mr. McParland some vexation:

My God. The idea of a budget is supposed to be What’s Good for Canada, not what’s good for my individual focus group, support network, private agenda or particular personal life-long obsession. No wonder governments of every stripe are under constant siege — the world abounds with so many round-the-clock self interests, all pushing and jostling for the megaphone that will drown out the rest of the clawing crowd, that it is impossible to please any of them without sending the rest off hollering about the injustice of it all and working immediately to bring in a friendlier crew who will be more likely to give them what they want.

Honestly, what else should Mr. McParland have expected? You can’t expect “the usual suspects” to think outside their client group — that’s not what they’re paid for.

And you know what else? It’s the same thing for people who aren’t professional lobbyists or advocates. They’re going to expect the budget to protect the things they’re interested in, at the expense of things they either don’t like or otherwise don’t care about.

I could play this game myself, as an example. I’ve worked contracts for the anti-tobacco lobby, aboriginal health, and the Canadian Forces. So I might advocate the the new budget (a) protect Health Canada spending on smoking education / cessation programs and promotion of health lifestyle for on-reserve First Nations and Inuit, (b) increase spending for Indian Affairs so that they can deal properly with reserve problems in the North, and (c) put a big amount in capital spending for new ships and armoured vehicles, as well as incentive programs for retaining warrants and senior NCMs to rebuild the CF training infrastructure.

And my spending priorities would be just as valid, in terms of generating stimulus, as a person who would (a) introduce a BBC-model license fee to stabilize funding for the CBC, or (b) converted the Canada Student Loans program to a scholarship granting body, or (c) break up Status of Women Canada among the Health, Social Development and Industry ministries.

They’re just as valid because that’s the way I experienced working with the federal government, and the other advocates experienced government involvement.

So when it comes to the budget, my advice to Mr. Flaherty would be just as valid as Dr. Suzuki’s, or Lizzie May’s, which is exactly what frustrates Mr. McParland. Because frankly, the only wrong answer for setting up the budget is the one that, ultimately, makes everyday life worse.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 at 17:12 and is filed under Can Cons, Federal Government, Media Watch, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.