Of panels and pilot projects

Back in the early days of the Kenney government, some wit (I can’t remember who) quipped that the Kenney government had “more panels than Carol Brady’s basement.” [Millennial/Gen Y readers - this is a joke about how every suburban basement in the 1970s had ugly wood panelling on the walls, with a reference to the iconic Brady Bunch. Trust me, it was a funny line before I had to explain the cultural references.]

The panels sort of made sense, back in 2019. The government knew roughly what it wanted to do, but it needed some political cover. So panels were appointed and duly reported back with the findings the government wanted, and then the government acted on the panel’s recommendations.

Over the past couple of weeks, with the 2023 election only three months away, the Smith government has decided to try to match the Kenney government’s love of panelling. We have the Manning COVID panel, and the oil-and-gas Energy panel, and now a giant addiction and mental health care panel.

These panels all have a few things in common: their members are generally friendly to the government’s preferred approach, and their reporting deadline isn’t until June at the earliest. (The addiction and mental health care panel appears to be ongoing, so without a deadline). Oh, and their composition would meet the diversity standards of, say, the early 1990s, when every lily-white committee needed one woman. Just one. (To be fair, there are two Indigenous members of the addiction and mental health panel).

Strategically, the second wave of panelling tries to take potentially contentious issues and temporarily freeze them until after the election is out of the way. If Smith’s supporters are concerned that the issue they care about isn’t getting enough prominence, she can reassure them that ‘there’s a panel on that’ and she’ll be ready to go once the election’s out of the way. But if her detractors want to pin her down, she can avoid the question by deferring to the panel.

But panelling isn’t the only way of blurring the government’s stance. There’s also dipping a policy toe in the water. Or, if you want to be technical, “pilot projects.” We don’t have R-Star, we have a pilot project. We don’t have a provincial police force, we have community-led policing in Grande Prairie.

Now, I’ve tried to figure out how you set up a pilot project for ditching the Canada Pension Plan, and I’ve come up blank. So I figure it will be a panel, due to report in June. Or maybe we just aren’t talking about the pension plan any more?

While I appreciate the strategic allure of this approach, I can’t help but wonder if it might backfire.

The approach — especially the panels reporting in June — assumes that the UCP will be re-elected. And who knows? Maybe ‘fake-it-’til-you-make-it’ works in politics. Act like you’re certain to be re-elected and voters will go along with your sense of inevitability.

But pity the poor soul tasked with writing the party’s policy platform. It’s hard to write pithy prose about accepting recommendations from panels and waiting to see the outcome of various pilot projects.

Elections are an opportunity for voters to ask simple questions of politicians. If elected, will you go ahead with R-Star? A provincial police force? A provincial pension plan? Yes or no. We will soon see whether panels and pilot projects will be enough to satisfy voters asking these questions.