Why the leak of the Pre-Budget Consultations report doesn't matter, except to the committee's researchers

As someone who was involved in the House of Commons’ Finance Committee’s pre-budget consultations for several years, the leak of the committee’s draft recommendations by a, shall we say, opportunistic, Conservative staffer couldn’t help but catch my eye. While reports are focusing on the effect of the leaks on the political parties, let’s not forget the researchers who actually wrote the report.

The whole pre-budget consultations process is pretty intense. In the space of three months or less, the committee, aided by their tireless researchers and a committee clerk, hears from hundreds of witnesses in Ottawa and on the road. Researchers then have to take these hundred of submissions about every conceivable topic (seriously: we heard about every conceivable issue to which a dollar sign could conceivably be attached) and write a big honkin’ report that has to be translated, submitted to the committee for approval, edited and revised to reflect the will of the committee.

Writing the report and attending the meetings was actually a lot of fun, like getting your own personal annual update on the state of the Canadian economy. And I think that the reports did (and do) a fair job of accurately representing Canadians’ main economic concerns, which is what I think the Finance Committee always sets out to do.

But let’s not overstate the importance of the process. Far from being a crucial input into the making of the federal budget as the Globe and Mail’s breathless reporting suggests, the Finance Committee’s pre-budget consultations report is exactly as effective in influencing government policy as any other parliamentary committee report.* Which is: hardly at all.

For starters, the committee’s report is not binding on the government. There’s also the fact that the Finance Department and Finance Minister have been conducting their own pre-budget exercises for years (dating back to the Liberals, I believe). Between this duplication and the current government’s incessant appetite for polls (different in degree, not in kind, from its predecessors), I’d be surprised if the government learned anything new from the committee’s work. I’m also fairly certain that the overall thrust of the budget is not determined by the Finance Committee.

Oh, and then there’s the fact that when there’s a majority government, the government effectively controls the committee, so it’s not like anything embarrassing to the government would get into report anyway.

The report can be useful as a way for MPs to signal to the government what they feel are important issues, and specific recommendations may not be 100% in line with the government’s agenda, but I’d be very surprised if something that the government (read: Prime Minister) of the day really didn’t like would ever get into a pre-budget report. (I should say here that as a non-partisan staffer I was never privy to intra-party discussions. We simply followed the will of the chair and the committee.)

That such a potentially valuable annual exercise doesn’t contribute more to the federal budget is a sad reminder of the growing irrelevance of Parliament, and it’s something that Canadians should be concerned about. I also feel for the researchers who’ve been working 12-hour days for the past month only to see their work trashed by the inexcusable and offensive actions of a political staffer. But as far as any effect on the way that the budget is currently made, the cancellation of this year’s Finance Committee’s pre-budget report will hardly matter at all.



* The Globe article, as the Globe's Parliament Hill coverage tends to do, focuses exclusively on the horse race aspects of the report. From that perspective, sure, the cancellation of the budget robs parties of the chance to score political points based on the differences between the committee report and the eventual budget. Me, I'm more concerned with more boring stuff, like what's actually in the budget. Even if you care about the political horse race, based on what I wrote above I don't see how the report can really tie the Finance Minister's hands. The Conservatives control their own MPs and could easily dismiss any annoying opposition recommendations.

The Wikileaks dump: Kind of a big deal

Four quick points about the Wikileaks document dump.

1. I think it’s a mistake to simply shrug off the leaks, as my good friend Erin at Media Souffle and many others have done. The conventional wisdom that’s emerged about the leaks – that they don’t tell us anything we don’t already know – misses the most interesting thing about the whole situation. Which is: even without access to insider views, academics and journalists (when they're speaking truth to power) have been providing us with a pretty good picture of how the political world works.

This is huge. I live in Ottawa, so I’ve had my share of conversations with people with security clearances who attempt to trump every argument with an infuriating, “If you only knew what I knew…” (infuriating military corollary: “If you’d seen what I’ve seen…”). Well, these releases actually prove that in 99 cases out of 100, we do know what you know. There’s a tendency, particularly in some parts of government, to fetishize “secret” information, merely because it’s classified, and to denigrate open-source information sources. These leaks are actually a good argument in favour of open-source research.

For us academics, most of whom don’t have access to this deep kind of insider information, this is fantastic news: it means that our theoretical models and information-gathering methods are actually providing us with a reasonably accurate picture of the way that the political world works.

And, of course, there is the one case out of 100 that actually does tell us something new. I, for one, had no idea that every country in the Middle East is pressuring the U.S. to attack Iran. I’d also argue that having proof that United States is spying at the United Nations, breaking formal international obligations, is a big deal. Saying that this isn’t a big surprise says more about our lowered expectations for the rule of law and what we consider appropriate behaviour than it does about the leaks themselves.

2. One of the reasons that these leaks didn’t tell us much that we couldn’t have inferred from paying attention to the world is that they came from the United States. One thing that stood out in my dissertation field work was how open U.S. government sources and lobbyists were in presenting their positions. Sure, they know that you might disagree with them, but they are more than willing to share their perspectives with you. With some notable exceptions, the Canadian government was much harder to deal with (Exhibit A: Three years and counting for the documents I requested under the 30-day Access to Information process).

I wonder if a document dump of Canadian cables would have been as shrug-worthy as the ones from the more-open U.S. government. Just sayin’.

3. I can't wait until the cables from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa are released. It looks like some of them deal with Canadian copyright reform. Given the nightmarish experience I’ve had at the hands of the Canadian Access to Information process, I’m viewing this release as a form of karmic balancing. I may have to adjust my dissertation’s argument to account for this new information, but probably not (see point #1).

4. Does anyone else find all the angst about the loss of face in the international community bizarre? For all the advances of the past several hundred years (a United Nations, democratic countries around the world), our diplomacy hasn’t left the 18th century. It’s the 21st century, and everyone is acting like the United States is Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons (or, for the more camp-inclined among us, Sarah Michelle Gellar in Cruel Intentions). Which would make Julian Assange either John Malkovich or Ryan Phillippe:

Read it now! "From 'Radical Extremism' to 'Balanced Copyright': Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda"

In what has to be some kind of land-speed record, From 'Radical Extremism' to 'Balanced Copyright': Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda is now available in a print edition ($65) and online (free, under a Creative Commons license). Did I mention that the entire thing came together in just over four months? And that all the chapters were refereed?

My contribution, "North American Digital Copyright, Regional Governance, and the Potential for Variation," is also available for download. It's all very exciting: there's nothing like having your first refereed contribution come out just as you're finishing the entire dissertation.

I haven't had a chance to read the other chapters yet, but if they come anywhere close to approaching the quality of the presentations made by several contributors at the book launch last Thursday, the whole book is going to be a vital contribution to the immediate political debate over Bill C-32 and the long-run academic debate over Canadian copyright.

Enjoy!

Book launch! From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda

I've been quiet on the blog lately, distracted by paying work (not related to copyright), finishing up the dissertation and applying for postdocs and the like, but I couldn't let this pass without notice. Michael Geist has put together a ridiculously well-timed edited collection of essays on Canadian digital copyright, From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda, and yours truly has a chapter in it.

In it, I examine the potential for Canada, Mexico and the United States to implement autonomous copyright policies (specifically those related to the WIPO Internet treaties and the legal protection of technological protection measures). In a nutshell, I conclude that these countries' decisions around whether and how to implement are shaped mainly by domestic political, economic and institutional imperatives (e.g., which groups are invited to the negotiating table). In other words, even decisions to implement U.S.-style copyright laws in Canada or Mexico are rooted in domestic considerations.

My alternate pitch, to family and friends: It's basically my dissertation boiled down to 20 pages. So if you want to know how I've spent the past five-plus years but don't want to slog through the 300 closely argued pages of my dissertation, check it out!

This chapter is particularly exciting for me, as it represents my first substantial contribution to the academic literature. I've seen my name in print many times over the past 15 years, but seeing it in a book, surrounded by contributions from so many fantastically smart people, will be a highlight.

Even better: there's going to be a book launch, this Thursday afternoon (October 14) at 3:30 p.m. at the University of Ottawa (Room 12102, Desmarais Building, 55 Laurier Avenue East). I'll be on a panel, along with Michael Geist, Elizabeth Judge, Ian Kerr, David Lametti and Teresa Scassa, discussing our chapters. And there'll be a reception afterward! Feel free to stop by and say hi.

Access to Information by the Numbers (II)

More success! Last week, after waiting almost three years, I finally received a response to my Access to Information request from Foreign Affairs and International Trade. A bit beyond the 30 calendar days that the request is supposed to take? Um, yeah.

Funny story, though. I made this request at the very beginning of my PhD research. So I guess it’s only fitting that it should show up in my mailbox – wait for it – the day before I completed a first draft of my entire dissertation.

The symmetry is enough to bring a tear to one’s eye, or a palm to one’s face.

It gets better! In the time it took me, a lowly PhD student, to travel to two countries, interview scores of people, and put together a three-hundred-page (sorry, dissertation committee: I know that’s a lot of reading) dissertation, they couldn’t even complete the entire request:

“We wish to advise you that we are presently undergoing consultations with other government institutions. Once the consultation process has been concluded, we will advise you accordingly.”

Really, they should just repeal the Access to Information Act: it would save taxpayers a bit of coin, and it would be more honest than the system they’re running now.

Quick update: For some reason, while reading through DFAIT's Access to Information response, this Simpsons moment sprang to mind. I have no idea why.

The Great Canadian Census Debate: The Economists Call It

It looks like we can call it a day on the Great Canadian Mandatory Long-Form Census Debate: the economists have weighed in, and they think the government's wrong, wrong, wrong!

Today’s Globe and Mail reports that 76 percent of economists surveyed by the Canadian Association for Business Economics say that it’s a bad idea to scrap the long-form census. Out of 252 economists surveyed, only 14 thought that it was a good policy. Of course one of these 14 was the Fraser Institute’s Niels Veldhuis, who has demonstrated a less-than-encouraging understanding of statistical analysis in his creative defence of the government’s position (Check out Stephen Gordon's merciless takedown of the Fraser Institute).

Does this mean we can tentatively conclude that about five percent of economists don’t understand statistics? Or, as Gordon might put it, that they are not part of "the community of evidence-based policy analysts"?

But the truly bizarre finding from this poll? That 30 economists surveyed didn’t know whether or not scrapping the mandatory long-form census was a good idea.

Really? In a field that worships numbers and statistical analyses, in a debate that has galvanized the Canadian research community, 30 economists didn’t know whether scrapping the long-form census is a good idea or not? That’s 30 economists who either haven’t been paying attention to the policy-wonk equivalent of a monthlong Lollapalooza festival, or who can’t be bothered to recall their first-year stats training.

Can anyone explain this? Are we witnessing the birth of a new subfield of economics that rejects the possibility of knowledge through statistical analysis? (I hope so; a postmodern turn in economics would be great fun.) Were these 30 economists actually sociologists in disguise? Enquiring minds, etc., etc.

What the Census debacle can tell us about governmental accountability

Jeffrey Simpson nails it today when he notes that the scrapping of the mandatory long-form census is a “temporary triumph over ideology.” (Well, one can hope that any such triumph would be temporary, but I’m feeling pessimistic today.)

This whole census mess raises another point that I haven’t seen discussed much. Namely, we’re about to find out what, if anything, can convince a Canadian government to change its mind on something.

Not just this government. The Harper Conservatives may be pushing the limits as to what is possible in our Parliamentary system (Exhibit A: choosing prorogation, rather than face a vote of confidence in the House), but they’re not breaking any laws. The powers that they’re using are available to any government, doubly so for a majority government. Custom and tradition are no match for someone with the ability and will to ruthlessly use the rules to their advantage.

On most issues, you can find reputable people supporting one side or the other (yes, even in copyright, despite the rhetoric). This census debate is different because of the nearly unprecedented diversity of voices opposing the decision: business groups and NGOs, provinces and territories, all statisticians, pretty much every economist and social scientist I can think of, Statistics Canada itself. All serious think tanks with even a basic understanding or respect for statistics and facts (which would exclude the Fraser Institute, based on the comment reported here, which would have gotten a failing grade in any introductory statistics course) are against the decision.

On the other side, you have Stephen Harper.

So, what might cause Harper to change his mind, especially if, as Simpson writes, this decision is based on ideology and not facts?

I can think of three things that could convince a government that prefers ideological arguments to rational, fact-based ones. (Hint: facts won’t do it.) The first is that the opposition could tie up any changes in committees, which are controlled by the opposition because they have the majority of seats in Parliament. Of course, all you have to do is introduce changes via regulation to get by that one, and that’s what we’ve seen here.

The second is a worry that the issue would hurt them in an general election. In theory, minority governments are susceptible to this type of pressure, but a vote of no confidence is like a nuclear bomb: the opposition can’t deploy it to thwart every thing they don’t like, and there’s always the possibility that that bomb might (pardon the pun) blow up in their faces if they lose the election. However, if all this unpleasantness rubs enough voters the wrong way, then the government might back down.

The third reason they might back down is if the party’s financial backers threaten to withdraw funding. However, I understand that the Conservative party’s funding now largely comes from individual donors. As a result, I think that any collapse in party revenues would be related to a drop in Conservative support.

Unlike the U.S. political system, which was designed to avoid concentrating excessive power in the hands of one person, the Canadian system has no such checks and balances. Previously, an independent public service was seen as a check on the government, as was the Governor General. But that’s tradition, not a hard and fast rule. At the end of the day, the only thing holding any Canadian government in check is fears about an upcoming election. If you’re the government, no fears = no worries.

What should give supporters of all parties pause is that these constraints will be much, much weaker for a majority government of any party: Liberals and New Democrats are no more or less virtuous than Conservatives. The farther you are from an election, the freer you are to do whatever you want, evidence and opposition be damned.

As someone who’s kind of a fan of popular control of one’s government, I find that even more worrying than the scrapping of the mandatory long-form census.

Post-script: As I write this, Donald Savoie is talking about this very issue on The Current (available here soonish). I’ll have to pick up his latest book when I finish my dissertation’s first draft.