Post Election Calls For Electoral Reform

In the wake of voting for our 44th Parliament, there are numerous calls out there to move Canada to some form of Proportional Representation (PR).  I am sympathetic to these calls for reform - our current system of elections really does not give us a government that reflects the diversity of beliefs in our our political landscape. 

There are many arguments as to whether, for example, the views of a party like the PPC in fact are deserving of representation in our parliament, while at the same time wanting to give voice to other small parties like the GPC. Similarly, there are many forms of PR, and hybrid models, and I don't think at this point in time that anyone has done an effective job of analyzing them, and defining a model that is workable in the Canadian context. So we have a lot of discussions to be had over what form of PR we should use, and the specifics of implementation. 

This isn't to argue that there is no form of PR that can work in Canada. There may well be, but at this point in time, nobody has put forward a model with adequate analysis to show that it is both viable and equitable to the people of Canada. 

Canada presents some unique challenges for electoral reform that many proponents do not seem to be thinking of. First, is our geography - Canada is vast.  Hugely so.  We have major differences in political perspectives that are shaped by that very geography. The Prairie provinces (MB/SK/AB) have wildly different concerns than one sees in Southern Ontario around the Great Lakes.  The Maritimes are different yet again, and then there's Québec.  History and cultural considerations further play into the picture, and also need to be talked about. 

Would these regional and cultural considerations spell the end of "national parties" like the current CPC and LPC, leaving Canada dominated politically by a series of regional parties like the BQ squabbling over control?  This latter prospect would no doubt end up with a government dominated by the two central Canadian provinces, and leaving smaller regions with even less ability to influence the national discourse than we see today. 

At the end of the day, however, PR would leave us with a key source of the polarization in our political discourse:  Parties.  The last couple of elections, and the last parliament in particular, have shown us that the party system has supplanted the principles of representative democracy. If you don't belong to the same political tribe as your MP or MLA, chances are very good that you don't even feel that they are willing or able to represent your issues and concerns to the government.  Instead, we are left with their issues and concerns being buried in the mire of party loyalty. Citizen level concerns are subservient to the dictates of the party, and party discipline - meaning that your MP or MLA is really there to represent their party to you, and to do the party's bidding in the legislature. 

This is backwards, and violates the fundamental principles that made the Westminster model work in the first place. One might argue that in a PR driven legislature, the MPs would be more willing to represent individual and constituency concerns because no one party is ever likely to have a stranglehold on power. Perhaps this is true, but there is no guarantee of such a change. 

The willingness of several parties this past election cycle to ignore reality and make things up on the fly leads me to argue that perhaps we need to think much more carefully about our political system, and ask whether or not changing the voting model is in fact going to address the fundamental issues. Or would we just be "changing the colour of the curtains"? 

Harper's Gambit

With his numbers sinking in the most recent polls, Harper appears to be moving to bring out his rear guard actions to sustain his grip on power.

There are several pieces to this discussion:

(1)  Foreign Affairs

Between fomenting a shooting war with Russia in the Ukraine,  a stance on Israel that's about as nuanced as an angry rhinoceros, and taking explicit sides in the ongoing collapse of Iraq and Syria, anyone would think that Harper was trying to drag Canada into a war.

Make no mistake about it, that is one of the cards that Harper wants in his hands.  There are two primary reasons for this:

a.  He thinks he can use it as a weapon against Justin Trudeau.  Play the "tough war president" routine, and try to portray his opponents as "weak" and "ineffectual" on such matters.

b.  If Canada is engaged in a shooting war, he can try to invoke the little clause in the constitution that allows for the extension of Parliament beyond 5 years.  (This would be unprecedented, but I don't put it past PMSH to try if he thinks his grip on power is in danger)

(2)  Escalating Attacks On Trudeau

Harper's war on Trudeau is once again escalating, with Harper attempting to use the government's health agency as part of his propaganda campaign, and of course ratcheting up the rhetoric against Trudeau in their flyers (which taxpayers pay for).

This is hardly surprising, given that October 2015 is when Harper's "Fixed Election Dates" law says there should be an election held, and nothing that the PMO has thrown at Trudeau has stuck.  The boys in the short pants are no doubt starting to panic about the ongoing slump of CPC support in the polls.

Frankly, this one is almost secondary.  For all intents and purposes, Harper can keep going until sometime in 2016 under Canada's existing constitution.  Expect to see Elections Canada spend millions of dollars setting up polling stations for an election that hasn't been called in fall 2015.

(3)  Expanding Propaganda Campaign

The Harper Government has been nothing if not relentless in its use of government resources to spew propaganda.  From the billions spent on "Economic Action Plan" ads, to the more recent (and blatant) attempt to try and turn Health Canada communications into anti-pot propaganda,  and the hyping of military nationalism in the promotion of "celebrations" for 1812, Harper has used just about every trick in the book to try and twist and buffalo Canadians into looking at the world through the narrow little lens that he wants us to.

(4)  The "Fair Elections Act"

We still don't know just how far this one is going to go in changing the balance in the electoral system.  There are enormous parts of that bill which got railroaded through which seriously compromise the ability of Canadians to exercise their right to vote, and to enable further shenanigans next election that will make the Robocalls conviction of Michael Sona look like small potatoes.

I have no doubt that Harper will do everything he can to hang on to power.  If he thinks he can steal the next election, he will do that in preference to the other alternatives, but there is nothing stopping him from delaying the next election well into 2016, if not beyond that.  

CPC Lied To Elections Canada On RoboCalls?

The corruption that is the CPC's actions in the 2011 election continues to fester.

The most recent instalment comes to us via Stephen Maher's latest column.

In an email May 1, party lawyer Arthur Hamilton told Elections Canada that Conservative call centre workers were not advising voters that Elections Canada had changed the location of polling stations, and that the party had not advised voters to go to a polling station an hour and a half from their home. 

But a report released by Elections Canada last month includes a script that shows the party’s callers were telling voters that Elections Canada had changed the location of polling stations, and investigators found one voter who was directed to a polling station 740 kilometres away. 

The report from Elections Canada found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy to prevent Canadians from voting, but comparing the script included in the report to emails obtained under access-to-information legislation raises questions about whether the Conservatives have been honest about their use of political calls. 

Hamilton sent his email to Elections Canada as the agency was fielding complaints from voters who had been given bad information about their polling station by Conservative campaigns. 

Elections Canada lawyer Ageliki Apostolakos emailed Hamilton on the evening of April 29.“In the course of the last half-hour, Elections Canada has heard that two representatives of the Conservative campaign office are communicating with electors in two electoral districts to inform them that their polling station has changed to another location,” she wrote. 

Hamilton replied 27 hours later, just after midnight on May 1. He wrote that because Elections Canada changed some polling station locations “a number of our candidates have had to confirm the proper location of polling stations to a number of supporters during their respective get-out-the-vote efforts.” 

“The calls being made by our candidates request the voter to confirm his or her polling location. There is no indication by the caller that the location may have changed, or words to that effect. And no voter is being directed to a polling location one and a half hours away from the correct polling location.” 

But a script included in Elections Canada’s report shows that workers at Conservative call centres were told to deliver the following line: “Elections Canada has changed some voting locations at the last moment. To be sure could you tell me the address of where you’re voting?” 

Elections Canada had asked the Conservatives not to communicate with voters about the location of their polling stations.

So, just how much did the CPC withhold from Elections Canada investigators?  A lot.  Enough to call into question the conclusions in the recent Elections Canada report which concluded that there isn't enough evidence to lay charges.

Down in the comments is a bit more interesting information from Nadine Lumley:

Pierre Poilievre owned a robocall company called 3D Contact Inc and was dating Jenni Bryne who controlled CIMS database during last election. 

"When Poilievre was running for election in 2004, he stated that he was co-owner of a political research company called 3D Contact Inc. According to the company profile, these 'contacts' were Stephen Harper, Ted Morton and Stockwell Day. His partner was Jonathan Denis, who later became Minister of Housing in the Alberta government." 

Micheal Sona, Director of Communications, was roomates with Chris Crawford, the person responsible for managing CIMS Database/List at the time. 

"Rougier was key member of the target seat team, working directly under campaign manager Jenni Byrne" His phone used to call Rack9  

The Rob Ford Campaign, aka part 2 of Steve's Ford BBQ trifecta hat trick wishlist, also used 3D Contact. 

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/07/18/poilievre-brings-robocalls-expertise-to-new-job/
http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?5316b0ceba304db3#YH2hGWBgyB8ylA9eZfYSfM7U1mnnvELkutPzE6LkxcQ=
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=6072305

Proof absolute?  Not quite, but enough to continue to call into question the CPC's claims of being "clean", and more than enough for voters to seriously question the motives behind much of what is lurking in the bowels of the "Fair Elections Act".

Stealing Our Democracy: Linda Frum, Talking Points and the Dumbf

*Dumbf = dumbfuckery - a condition that appears to be unique to the creation of Harper Government talking points regarding Bill C-23.

On Huffington Post this morning, I read Michael Bolen's commentary on Bill C-23 which led me to Linda Frum's more verbose op-ed defending her TWITter position from earlier this week.

Ms. Frum is a shadow of her brother when it comes to writing political polemics, and the Op-Ed which the Globe and Mail had the poor judgement to publish demonstrates that in spades.

According to Ms. Frum, there's a conflict of interest in the mandated missions of Elections Canada.

Here’s the institutional conflict of interest to which I pointed: 

Elections Canada is a bureaucracy with two missions: to ensure the integrity of the voting process and also to promote voter turnout. Those two missions are contradictory. You want the biggest vote total? Accept every ballot. You want to eliminate voter fraud? Eliminating improper ballots may reduce vote totals. 

In attempting to achieve a balance between these two different missions, the evidence suggests that Elections Canada has favoured its turnout goals over preserving the integrity of the process.

Seriously?  Ms. Frum's "evidence" for this claim?

Elections expert Harry Neufeld – no supporter of the Harper government’s proposed reforms – nevertheless reported that “some 11.8 per cent of all registration activity on Election Day in May, 2011, showed serious errors, according to the national audit undertaken for this review. That … equals 114,693 voters potentially having the validity of their votes put in question.” How serious are those irregularities? We don’t know, because Elections Canada does not investigate. 

Oh ... right.  So, along come the Conservatives with a piece of legislation that responds to this issue by making it harder for so many more Canadians to vote.  Okay, the Neufeld report identifies a significant percent of election day voter registrations had errors in them.  Rather than order an in-depth investigation of the errors and addressing the causes, the Conservatives have written a law which is clearly designed to benefit their electoral goals over addressing the actual problem. 

If these "serious errors" are the result of clerical errors (incorrect transcriptions of addresses into the voter registry, misspelling names etc.), that doesn't speak to any kind of widespread voter fraud, but rather a series of issues with procedures and training.  

Consider the most problematic of all forms of voting: where the voter has no identification. In those cases, current law allows an acquaintance, friend or relative of the voter to “vouch for” that person’s right to vote. The voter in question may be a legitimate voter who genuinely lacks ID. The voter may be a visiting relative who isn’t entitled to vote in that district – or even to vote in Canada at all. Or the voter may be valid – but have already used their ID to vote once that day and is now lining up without ID to do it a second time.

This is classic Harper Government tactics - assert that something is happening, and then claim that it is an enormous problem.  Vouching has been part of our voting system for decades.  To the best of my knowledge, there is not a shred of evidence that there is any significant amount of voter fraud taking place using this mechanism, much less on a scale which has a chance of materially affecting the outcome of an election.

One of the key issues in Bill C-23 is that it is attempting to address "voter fraud", when there is precious little evidence of Voter fraud in Canada.  On the other hand, we have very clear evidence of electoral campaign fraud starting in 2006 (In-and-Out Scandal), and 2011 (Robocalls) perpetrated by the campaign machinery of the Conservatives Party.  These misdeeds are not addressed at all by C-23, and arguably clauses in C-23 are designed to further enable political parties to engage in this kind of electoral cheating.

Notable is that nobody in the CPC seems to be standing up and saying that C-23 is wrong.  Nary a peep from backbench MPs, or the party apparatus at the riding level.  Remember this next election - the Harper Government has not chosen to represent the interests of Canadians, but rather to entrench its own cynical political interests in law.

Stealing Our Democracy: The Senate Takes A Swing

Okay, now the Senate is talking about wanting to see some amendments to the Harper Government's bill to undermine Canada's democracy.

The interim report recommends: 

— Removing a provision which would allow political parties to exempt from their election expenses any money spent to raise donations from anyone who has donated at least $20 over the previous five years. Experts have called this an unenforceable loophole that would allow rich, established parties with big donors' lists to spend untold millions more during campaigns. 

— Requiring automated call service providers to retain records of campaign robocalls for three years, rather than the one year retention proposed in the bill. 

— Clarifying that Elections Canada's reduced role in promoting democracy and voter participation will not affect the independent agency's involvement in Student Vote or other educational programs aimed at elementary and high school students. 

— Specifying that both the chief electoral officer, who administers election laws, and the commissioner of elections, who enforces the law and investigates breaches, be able to inform the public of any problems they uncover in the electoral system. 

— Specifically authorizing continued communications between the chief electoral officer and the commissioner, whom the bill proposes to hive off Elections Canada and move under the auspices of the director of public prosecutions. 

— Encouraging Elections Canada to post photos of candidates on ballots, to help voters who can't read. 

— Encouraging Elections Canada to provide information about braille ballots to blind voters and to conduct a pilot project using specialized voting kiosks for the blind.

The first change on the list actually addresses one of the problematic aspects of the bill, but it is one that I consider comparatively minor.  It's a loophole that allows parties to spend stupid amounts of money contacting "previous donors" - those are people who are to a large extent already engaged in the political system.

However, it does not address the key problems with C-23 that have been identified on this blog and by others.  They have not addressed at all the issues with removing vouching, voter id requirements, the appointment of polling station officials, investigation of fraud in the electoral system and so on.

Harper's Senators are apparently acting as the trained seals that Harper likes.  They are proposing a bunch of amendments to address the "shortcomings" of the bill which do nothing to address the key problems which turn Canada's electoral system into a partisan farce on the scale of elections in Ghadaffi's Libya.  These aren't meaningful amendments, this is chaff thrown up to distract Canadians from the vileness of C-23.

Bill C-23: Accountability for Thee Not For Me

It's not exactly news that Harper has never liked Elections Canada.  In fact, it's less than news.  His outraged utterances about Elections Canada when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) in the 1990s set the tone for the content of Bill C-23.

“The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control.” 

In 2001, Stephen Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. That was his opening line in a fundraising letter. 

His loathing for the election overseers was almost pathological, recalls Gerry Nicholls, the conservative commentator who worked with Mr. Harper at the NCC. It was a “blood feud,” he says, one that appears to be “never ending.”

One would have to be blind not to see the blatant and partisan attack on Elections Canada that Bill C-23 so clearly embodies.  It is designed to render it all but impossible for Elections Canada to investigate electoral fraud - in particular of the kind that has been perpetrated by the Harper Conservatives; it constrains the ability of Elections Canada to communicate with the people of Canada at all; it makes the appointment of polling station overseers the domain of incumbent MPs.

There is no coherent response to these criticisms from the Harper Government.  In fact, when so many knowledgeable and experienced people have criticized this bill for the obvious problems in it, it comes as no big surprise that the Conservatives have turned to attacking the message bearers:

“His recommendations really boil down to three broad requirements for him,” Poilievre told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee as it launched a “pre-study” of the bill before the House of Commons considers amendments or passes it. 

“He wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.”

Considering the damage that this bill does to holding our politicians and their parties accountable for their antics during an election, it seems more and more clear that the party who promised Canadians greater accountability and transparency in government is in fact delivering quite the opposite.

Thought's On Chong's Reform Bill

Michael Chong's Bill C-559 is a relatively short piece of work, but it has taken me a bit of time to go through it and start to understand the implications of the changes being proposed, mostly because it contains a series of small changes to much larger acts - in particular the Canada Elections Act, but also the Parliament of Canada Act.

As I read through the proposed changes (which required a lot of flipping back and forth to the current Acts to fully understand), I started to come to the conclusion that in some respects this bill is a resurrection of a piece of the original Reform party wish list.

At its core, it creates an environment which removes from the party executives direct control over the nomination of candidates.  In doing so, it removes from party leaders one of the bigger levers used to maintain control over their respective caucuses - namely the threat of the leader refusing to sign their nomination papers for the next election.

Consider the following changes:

Current Canada Elections Act S.67(4)(c):

• (c) if applicable, an instrument in writing, signed by the leader of the political party or by a person referred to in subsection 383(2), that states that the prospective candidate is endorsed by the party in accordance with section 68.

Proposed Amendment in Bill C-559:

(c) if applicable, an instrument in writing, signed by the nomination officer of the political party’s electoral district association for the electoral district that states that the prospective candidate is endorsed by the party.

You do have to read this a couple of times before it becomes clear what Chong's legislation does.  It completely removes the party executive from the nominations decision making process.  It creates a position at the riding association level called a 'Nomination Officer' who essentially has the final say over who the party nominee is going to be.

Superficially, this is not entirely a bad thing.  It hands a level of control to the riding association level in each party that has been constrained historically by the need for the party executive to "sign off" on candidates.

Is it a good thing?  That's a little more subtle and difficult to ascertain.  The Reform Party was big on "direct democracy" back in the day.  Then they started to discover that having things concentrated at the riding level meant that they got a fair number of candidates that were unelectable.  The PCs in Alberta ran smack into this a few years ago when one Craig Chandler engineered a takeover of a local riding association by his supporters and got himself nominated.  Even Ed Stelmach could see that was a good way to lose a seat, and killed Chandler's nomination.

This does create a problem to consider for party apparatus people to consider.  Can you deal with the inevitable selection of candidates at the riding level that are for one reason or another "bad news"?  If one looks at the candidates as part of the party's "marketing image", this could be seen as a significant problem.

The second part of Chong's bill is more interesting - it basically creates a mechanism through which MPs could trigger a leadership review process within a party.

(k) the extract of the party by-laws that provides that 

(i) a leadership review may be initiated by the submission of a written notice to the caucus chair signed by at least 15% of the members of the party’s caucus, 

(ii) a leadership review is to be conducted by secret ballot, with the result to be determined by a majority vote of the caucus members present at a meeting of the caucus, and 

(iii) if a majority of caucus members present at the meeting referred to in subparagraph (ii) vote to replace the leader of the party, a second vote of the caucus shall be conducted immediately by secret ballot to appoint a person to serve as the interim leader of the party until a new leader has been duly elected by the party.

MPs (or MLAs, come to that) are the people who have to work with the party executive on a day to day basis outside of elections.  The idea of MPs being able to trigger a leadership review based on the  actual work of the leadership team is not entirely bad.

However, I do think that Chong's legislation has some very fundamental problems here.

First, its threshold value is far too low.  15% of a party caucus could probably be found at any time - even when things are going well for the party.  This will create an environment where the focus is constantly on "finding enough supporters" to advance one's favoured leadership candidate, rather than handing MPs a set of tools which can be brought to bear when serious issues are found with party leadership.

The second problem I see is that there is no time fuse on when the leadership review has to take place.  The lack of a time fuse on the matter is problematic, as the leadership can then delay things as long as they choose.

The last problem, and perhaps the one that is most fatal to this proposal is that it effectively hands control over the party leadership to the MPs.  While triggering a leadership review seems like an effective tool for MPs to have access to, I do not think they should have the right to depose a leader without the consent of the party membership at large.

While I can appreciate Chong's frustration with the leadership of the CPC these days, and the overbearing control that the party discipline mechanisms are exerting on MPs, I am less than convinced that this legislation will actually have the effect that he is seeking.

This Is Governing?

So ... it seems that the Con$ are suing Elections Canada.

Over what you ask? Turning back some half a million dollars in GST expenses that Elections Canada refunded after the 2004 and 2006 campaigns.

But the latest court battle between the governing Tories and Elections Canada may not be as self-defeating, or altruistic, as it first appears.

If successful, the cash-flush Conservatives would both increase their election campaign spending limit and ensure that their poorer Liberal opponents have to refund a similar — if not larger — six-figure sum.

A Tory win in the case could also reduce the amount by which the party exceeded its 2006 campaign spending limit should the party lose another court case with Elections Canada over the so-called “in and out” ad-buying practice.

Not only is this childish on the part of the Con$, but it should remind all of us that this is a party so bent on power that it will stoop to any tactic it can dream up. They aren't interested in governing Canada - they are only interested in power itself.

Reminds me of a lyric from an old Fleetwood Mac tune: Players only love you while they're playin'

The Con$ are players ... the public ... well ... we better ask ourselves if we will be able respect ourselves in the morning.

Reform Starts Within

One of my biggest complaints with those who demand electoral reform is that so often they do so from outside the systems the comprise our government.

Our current Prime Minister is a classic example of this. He keeps on rattling about various kinds of 'electoral reform', and yet it's quite clear that he runs the Conservative party with an iron fist. The Conservative caucus in Ottawa is not our representatives to Ottawa, but rather, Stephen Harper's representatives to the party faithful. (Arguably, in Calgary at the very least, Conservative MPs are very careful not to be heard at all - I haven't seen anything consequential out of my MP since 2004 ... and Calgary voters still elect these twits)

Ignatieff is showing us what it means to effect change, but starting out with two moves in the last week that are very interesting. First was his approach to the Newfoundland MPs who were upset by the Harper budget. He sat down with them, listened and then created a compromise position that everybody could live with. I don't think you will ever hear something so pragmatic coming out of the Harper PMO - where the pattern has been to expel dissidents.

Then, we have Ignatieff's approach to advice and leadership:

Every morning at 8:30, he meets a proxy group of about 10 Liberal MPs and gets their input and advice. That's in contrast to the way most opposition leaders have operated; usually, it's been just the leader and a tight unelected clique of advisers who held sway.

The kitchen cabinet members, a veteran group to contrast the leader's newness, include Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale, David McGuinty, Ujjal Dosanjh, Marlene Jennings, Denis Coderre, Albina Guarnieri and Roger Cuzner.

Think about this for a moment. Ignatieff has just surrounded himself with a dozen or so MPs who are more experienced than he is, and he meets with them daily. When was the last time we heard of Harper listening to anyone's advice except his own ego?

Ignatieff has the potential to be the person who actually overhauls the Liberal party for the first time in decades - mostly because he's willing to listen to those around him.

"We've been punching well below our intellectual weight," says Mr. Graves. "We have the most educated public we have ever had but, instead of reaching higher to them, our politicians go the other way." They should understand, he says, that "you don't have to be aw-shucks and lowbrow to relate to average people. Average people are smart. Obama's victory showed that. On the Republican side, Sarah Palin was making George Bush look like a Nobel Prize winner."

Which is precisely what I've been saying about our politicians for a long time. Speak intelligently about things and you'll get a lot more traction. I'm glad to see that Ignatieff is willing to listen, and not willing to put his brain on a shelf for the sake of political ideology.

He may not be charismatic, but he's probably one of the brighter lights to appear on our political stage in the decades since Pierre Trudeau stepped down. (Especially in an era where the PM is elected because he successfully assassinated the character of his rivals)

Was The 2008 Federal Election Illegal?

In reading the December/January issue of The Beaver magazine, I was reminded that in the wake of this past fall's election, Democracy Watch is suing the government claiming that Harper's election call broke the law.

Sadly, I think that Democracy Watch has it all wrong. While I have no issue whatsoever with the claim that Harper broke the spirit of his fixed election dates law, I think that Democracy Watch failed to notice that in fact nothing about that law actually limits the Prime Minister's discretion in asking the Governor General to dissolve parliament. It unquestionably obliges Elections Canada to set up the apparatus for voting on a fixed date, but it at no time obliges the sitting Prime Minister to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament prior to that date, nor does it demand that the Governor General sign the Writ of Election prior to that date.

Harper did not per se break his own law because his own law has absolutely nothing in it to constrain when an election is called. In fact, the real tragedy of Harper's Bill C-16 is that Canada already has fixed election dates, and has had them since the days of the old BNA Act.

From the Constitution 1867 Act: (Formerly known as the British North America Act)

50. Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

It is only by tradition that our parliaments typically are dissolved somewhere after the end of the fourth year.

Harper's bill C-16 is, in fact, completely redundant, since the constitution already mandates that a parliament has a maximum duration of five years, after which it must be dissolved. All Harper had to do to make his law work was to limit the powers of the PM to demand early dissolution of parliament. He didn't do that.

As a result, although Harper has certainly broken the stated intent of Bill C-16, he actually has done nothing more than demonstrate that he holds Canada and Canadians in contempt. Not only is he woefully ignorant of our traditions and constitution, but he also has shown us that his disrespect for Canada will drive his legislative agenda. Truly ironic for the tradition of conservatism in Canada is to preserve that which is right and good about our nation, not to hold it in contempt.

Must Read

Go Read ... Now

So We Have An Election Call

So, Harper decided to call an election for October 14 instead of abiding by the stated intent of his own fixed election date law.

I can think of better things to do than sit an listen to politicians yammer on for the next four weeks, making promises that they have no intention of keeping.

Mr. Harper justified breaking his own law by saying Parliament, which was to resume Sept. 15, had become "dysfunctional" and by arguing he requires a fresh government mandate as the country sails into global economic turbulence.

Bullfeathers, Mr. Harper. By your own stated intention to govern for four years, you still have the high side of a year to go in your current mandate. Whether you have the negotiating skills and personal attributes to actually accomplish anything during the next year or so is another story.

So far, you've shown Canadians that you are a bullying autocrat that can't deal with even so much as the smallest amendment to the legislation your MPs put forth - even when the legislation is obviously brain-dead.

On Saturday, Mr. Harper said he expects the upcoming election campaign to be "very nasty" with him as a target.

"I anticipate a very nasty, personal attack campaign," he said in an interview with CTV. "That's what the opposition's done in the past.

This coming from the man who has authorized his party's operatives to engage in a continuous smear campaign against Stephane Dion from day one. You reap what you sow, perhaps? Or perhaps you merely expect others to be as small-minded and thuggish as you are, Mr. Harper.

The Lust For Power

Harper's lust for power has long worried me. Lust is one of the so-called seven deadly sins, and for good reason - as it completely distorts an individual's judgment.

This past week's posturing is particularly revolting in this regard. Harper has been strutting about calling the current Parliament 'dysfunctional' and trying to pin the blame upon the opposition parties. While I can hardly call the opposition in this parliament effective, I'd say that they have been far more cooperative with Mr. Harper than Mr. Harper was when he was the leader of the opposition.

Mr. Harper's statements about Bill C-16, the 'fixed election dates' amendment smack of dishonesty. He is playing exactly the games today that he complained about so bitterly back then. Why? Because he lusts after a more absolute degree of power. As long as he heads a minority, he knows that sooner or later his government is likely to be brought down by the opposition.

Why the lusting? I suspect that in Harper's mind, and those of his advisors, that there is but one goal - to gain the kind of control over parliament that will allow them to ram bills through that the Conservatives can only support at the moment as private member's bills.

Consider the voting patterns of Mr. Harper:

Bill C-484: In Favour
(This is Mr. Epp's odious little piece of legislation)

I think it is quite significant that Mr. Epp's little piece of legislative experimentation got as far as it has. A quick glance through the list of Private Member's bills before the house shows that it is one of a handful to move beyond first reading since introduction.

Harper has quietly allowed this little play to the social conservative "base" of his support to fester in the order paper as a way of signalling to the social conservatives what his agenda really is.

It's not like we haven't had plenty of other signals from the Harper government - it's amazing how their funding cuts always seem to go after minorities, women and the arts, meanwhile they mysteriously seem to think that there's an infinite pile of money for their latest he-man military expenditures.

When Mr. Harper can't even abide by his own fixed election date law, you have to know that his word is of limited value. I shudder to think about what he might do if given a majority government.

So Much For That ReformaTory Plank

Apparently, the best way to tell if a ReformaTory is lying is to listen to how they are going to 'reform' things - and then to recognize that they are full of it.

Remember when Harper was bragging about how he was going to move to fixed election dates to take all of the games playing an brinkmanship? Well apparently that was just so much smoke.

At an Ottawa press conference Tuesday, Mr. Harper insisted he would not be breaking his word by disregarding his own fixed-election-date law that sets voting day in October, 2009, insisting that opposition parties want to bring down the government before then, so it is up to him to remove doubts about who will govern.

“They're committed to an election well before then. If they're clearly committed to that course of action, and I think they are, then it behooves the government to provide some responsibility,” he said.

No Mr. Harper, you are breaking your word. In fact, you are doing exactly what you used to complain so bitterly about. Apparently you can even stand on your own principles. Remember, Mr. Harper, it was you who blathered on incessantly about fixed election dates; you who blathered on about electoral reform and you who has clearly done exactly nothing that is meaningful in this regard.

What else have you lied to Canadians about?

The Great ReformaTory

Remember when Harper was campaigning in 2006?

Remember him promising fixed election dates to end the gamesmanship around precisely when an election would be called?

Do you remember his government introducing Bill C-16, which created a fiction about fixed election dates?

I thought you might.

So, then. Why is Stephen Harper trying to trigger an election? The news on CBC this morning hinted that Harper could decide to trigger a general election instead of just allowing the current lot of byelections to finish.

I can think of lots of reasons - the most fundamental of which is that he has run out of script, and the longer his party is off script, the greater the probability that they'll say something that Canadians don't want in their government. Of course, the longer that the Ethics committee hearings into the Conservative In-and-Out campaign funding scam go on, the worse it's going to look for them - especially with their obvious attempts to subvert the process.

Alberta - Compassionate Conservatism For The Wealthy

These two stories were brought to my attention over coffee this morning:

Alberta Increases Funding For Private Schools
Alberta Increases Fees For Nursing Homes

So, in short, who is hit hardest by this? Seniors who live on fixed incomes and need long term medical care. These are the people who are least able to fight back against the thick-witted malice of the Stelmach government.

Who benefits? Those parents who are wealthy enough to be able to afford the tuition costs of privately run, for profit schools. Students whose parents are of more modest means get to continue attending underfunded public schools which are in desperate need of repair, and whose teachers are rapidly finding that their salaries are so far behind the curve that they can't afford to live in the province.

Not only is Stelmach rolling these changes out using Ralph's playbook to squash debate, it's clear that they now believe themselves to be infallible, and infinitely re-electable.

Alberta's voters hold the bag for the colossal mess that Ed and the Boys are going to make of our province - the current government was elected by just over 20% of the eligible voters, and a total turnout of just over 40%. That means 60% of Albertans couldn't even be bothered to vote. Remember that as Stelmach bumbles through the next four years or so and blindly imposes his brand of "compassionate conservatism" on Albertans.

On Restructuring Government and Term Limits

I get e-mail - and from time to time, a writer takes the time to approach a topic in some detail. What follows is the body of an e-mail I received at the end of last week. I will add my commentary on some of the topics after the writer's e-mail. (Please note, I have edited out references to names and personal context in the e-mail for privacy reasons)

Because I am not sure exactly whether you mean to limit the terms of the legislator or the government I have approached the matter from two aspects. The first is possible if highly unusual, the second should never be possible in a parliamentary system.

a) Lets look at the first, at the possible, if highly unusual situation;

By this method legislation would be needed to limit the length of time a person would be allowed to sit in the legislature. After that time that person would have to step down in favour of another person. From what I know of the make-up of a legislature anywhere, this would be a highly unusual step. Even in the US there seems to be no limit to how long a person may be in office in Congress. The US presidency is a different situation as he is limited to two 4-year terms. A possibility, but not too likely, is for the political party to have this form of limit in its constitution. The best bet would be that the prospective MLA/MP would state in his/her election campaign that they will step down after a fixed period. I have only known of two people to do this in Canada – Frank McKenna, former premier of Nova Scotia and R. Gary Dickson former Liberal MLA for Calgary Buffalo.

b) The second scenario affects the government per se.

I frankly do not believe that this is possible nor should it ever be contemplated under the Westminster style of government that we follow in Canada. Presently governments are elected for a maximum term of five years (certain provinces and the federal government have set fixed election dates – every 4 years) after which an election is called. The obvious problem is that the same bad apples (Alberta?) can be re-elected. That is the risk that the electors face. To state that a governing party must turn the reins of government over to another party goes against the main underpinning of a parliamentary democracy, namely that it is the people who elect the government. In short, a government is elected by the people for the people, at least that is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately once they get into power they forget that basic principle. Sir Winston S Churchill always stated the he and the other MP's in the UK were elected by “the will of the people”.

So all this begs the question “How do we change the government”. The simple answer is by having a strong opposition party which can make its presence felt both in the legislature and in the media. This requires an electorate which is prepared to be knowledgeable about the platforms of the various parties and to use that knowledge on voting day. Thus a parliamentary democracy always reflects “the will of the people”. Another problem with restricting the term of office is that the province or country could be denied the necessary services of the likes of Peter Lougheed, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Sir John A. Mac Donald to name but a few. The only way I can think of to rid ourselves of the likes of Rob Anders, Graig Chandler (although he was not elected) is to have strong candidates on the other side coupled with enough voters who will vote for the person not the party.

Many years ago the question was raised as to why do we need a strong opposition. I cannot remember who raised the topic but I came across it when reading “Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century”. This book discusses each of the premiers of Alberta from Alexander Cameron Rutherford in 1905 to Ralph Klein. If I remember rightly it came up during the term of office of the UFA in the 1920's or early 1930's. Unfortunately I haven't, since, been able to find the comment. I must re-read that part again sometime. I don't think the question was ever answered but the raising of it points to a flaw in the way Albertans think on matters political.

This fairs quite nicely with some other conversations I've been having with a few other people.

(1) On term limits, the Westminster system of government is designed in such a way that it pretty much precludes term limits in any practical sense - unless we would apply them to all members of the house. The problem with doing that is one of continuity. One of the key premises of either the Westminster or the US Republican style of government is that the legislative houses provide a significant degree of continuity between political leadership and the bureaucracy. This is achieved by permitting individual legislators to sit for protracted periods of time - in effect becoming a part of the system with ties to both the electorate and the bureaucracy.

While I would like to see limits placed on how long someone can hold cabinet posts (including the Premier/Prime Minister), I suspect that doing so may be impractical without harsh changes to the party constitutions.

(2) Democracy depends on the active participation of the public in order to work effectively. The reason for this is simple - even in Alberta, there is quite a wide diversity of political opinion. Unfortunately, several decades of single-party rule have accustomed Alberta voters to a "it doesn't matter" apathy (as the last election demonstrated so well)

What breeds voter apathy? Several things - a lack of knowledge and awareness is key. Far too many people simply have no clue how government policy affects their daily lives. The majority of people I know that do not bother to vote claim that they don't believe that government above the local council (and in Calgary, even that's pretty abstract for most of us) has any direct impact on them.

Apathy is also the spawn of complacency. Alberta is an interesting case study. We have had close to 20 years of comparatively good economic fortunes - quite frankly a shaved chimpanzee could have balanced Alberta's books in the last decade or so. When times are perceived to be "good", people are reluctant to shake things up by changing the government. (A classic case of 'The Goose Who Laid the Golden Egg")

I have come to view education as a vital and key part of making a viable, living democracy. If people are given the intellectual tools with which they can understand the basics of our system of government, they can then influence it more effectively as voters.

Alberta is a unique case for several reasons. First, in the last thirty years, we have had not one, but two very strong personalities occupy the Premier's Office - Peter Lougheed and (choke) Ralph Klein.

The second part of the picture is that conservatives in the province have been very effective in demonizing the very term "liberal" since Pierre Trudeau's ill-fated NEP. This has proven to be an amazingly powerful tool for them to use in reinforcing their grip on power in Alberta.

The third part has been a subtle, but significant campaign on the part of Alberta followers of the neo-conservative movement out of the US to dismantle and handicap the public education system. This started back when Don Getty was the premier. For those who do not remember, it was under Getty that the first rounds of the cutbacks that Ralph took to new heights happened. One of the key areas cut was public education - at all levels. This strongly mirrors attempts by Ronald Reagan to dismantle the US Department of Education during his tenure in the White House.

Besides the usual conservative mantra about "less government", there is a deliberate intent to weakening the public education system. In general, a weak education tends to favour the simplistic talking points and sound bytes that the neoCons like to toss around. If you look back at the 2006 Federal Election, it's pretty clear that Harper said nothing meaningful through the entire campaign.

Without an adequate education that engages people in the political process in their youth, government becomes an abstract, and untouchable notion - something that is easily demonized and that plays into the goals of the neoCons.

The last point I'd like to raise is that of electoral reform. To be polite, I'd claim that Alberta (in particular) has experienced a degree of manipulation of electoral boundaries that has all but undermined the basic principles of Representation by Population that is the theoretical underpinning of our riding system. I believe (and have believed for some time) that the representation system in Alberta is a disaster today. Radical reform is needed to dispel the sense that there is a significant disparity between rural and urban vote "weight" in the government.

Without an educational infrastructure that enables people to understand how government affects them, and how their participation is meaningful, no reform - whether we talk about term limits, riding reform or voter recall will achieve any significant results.

As my writer earlier points out, the Westminster system works best when there is a strong opposition. A strong opposition is not going happen easily in the current environment in Alberta.

Further Musings On Alberta's Election Results

I've been doing quite a bit of musing about last week's very disappointing election in Alberta.

Just over 40% of Albertans voted - and half of those voted for the status quo. This speaks volumes to me. It explains why after the previous election I couldn't find anyone who would admit to voting for the incumbent - they didn't, in fact, they didn't bother to vote period!

Similarly, I suspect I'll find the same thing in a year or so - nobody will remember voting for Ed Stelmach either. After all, if the PC's took 53% of the popular vote, and that "popular vote" number was based on 40% of the electorate, I've got better than a 75% chance that any random person didn't actually vote for the government.

Numbers are easy though, and I can bitch and whine about how brain dead it is that 53% of the popular vote translates into 86% of the seats all I want, but that doesn't address the real issue - that over half of Albertans can't even be bothered to take an hour out of their oil-boom addled day and actually put an "X" on a slip of paper. I think I'd be a lot less bothered by the results had 80% or more of the electorate actually turned out to vote.

In fact, tinkering with the system in small ways isn't going to address the fundamental problem - even something as dramatic as a Proportional Representation system isn't going to solve anything on its own.

Alberta's voters simply can't find a way to engage in the politics of the province. There's a good reason for this - after thirty some years of single party rule, and since Lougheed stepped down, steadily declining voter turnouts. It's completely understandable when votes for anything other than the PC's seldom result in a victory for anything other than a PC - only the hardiest are going to stick to their guns and continue to vote against the apparent tide.

Worse, as we have scraped away at the situation, we find that the riding distribution is borderline on what in the US would be called "gerrymandering", providing a disproportionate weight to votes in rural ridings. (The last re-evaluation of riding boundaries was done just before new census data was published, forcing the use of data that is now over a decade old. Then it comes out in the election that the Premier's office has been taking an overly active hand in selecting the Returning Officers. This latter issue should have caused more of an uproar than it did, as it calls into question the objectiveness of supposedly non-partisan people.

It seems to me that this issue needs to be addressed on multiple fronts.

Problem #1: Disengagement

Let's be honest with ourselves - Alberta's voters are seriously disengaged. In many ways to the point that they simply can't be bothered to either vote or even think about the issues.

Fair enough, I can get this - when day to day life is stressful enough - and Alberta's boom has made this one of the highest stress locations to live - there's precious little time to think about the "big picture". Far too many people I've talked to don't vote simply because they cannot see how the different levels of government affect their daily lives.

Problem #2: Peer Pressure

One thing that surprised the heck out of me this past election was the amazing amount of peer pressure to vote for the governing party. The reasoning went one of two ways - either voting "conservative" was just not done; or "why would you throw a vote away?".

This is a huge problem, as it says that we are not celebrating the diversity of opinion that makes the democratic process work.

Problem #3: Systemic Bias

As the riding boundaries and the selection of Returning Officers issues suggest, the PC's have become entrenched both politically and bureaucratically - and they don't see anything wrong with this. The perception of bias will tend to further yield to the "my vote doesn't matter" problem.

Problem #4: Lack of Understanding

I would venture to guess that "civic literacy" (understanding of electoral and government processes) is at an all time low in Alberta these days. I would imagine that serious understanding of how things are intended to work exists primarily in the hands of academics and political junkies like this writer. Most people simply can't be bothered to figure it out. (Granted, reading legalese isn't something most people do for fun, either!)

There are solutions, but they have to exist and function on multiple levels, and are not short term "quick fixes" that politicians like.

(1) Education

The politics of our country must become a central part of the educational system. We have steadily eroded the amount of time spent on the subject of government over the last thirty years, and today's high school graduates often have little or no understanding of the political environment we have or how it works.

If we make a conscious effort to make our government important for our youth, they will become active and engaged voters as adults.

(2) Electoral Reform

I don't think that this is strictly necessary per se - a higher level of voter engagement would produce a satisfactory result in the existing system. However, the education subject is one that will be a minimum of a decade in producing measurable changes in voter habits, and the level of disengagement in Alberta is such that the optics around the current model are so poor that a re-design is called for.

(2)a. Take The Politicians Out Of Riding Boundaries

I'm unimpressed (to say the least) with the mucking about that our politicians have done trying to manage riding boundaries. Anyone currently sitting as an MLA is going to be unwilling to change their riding boundaries much unless there are specific areas that are hostile to them. As far as I'm concerned, the riding boundaries must be established by a commission whose members are given a mandate to equitably define the riding boundaries on strict guidelines.

(2)b. Remove Elections Alberta From The Control of the Premier's Office

Whether or not the returning officers did anything wrong is immaterial here. The Returning Officer job has to become something that is seen to be non-partisan. If that means making the R/O jobs in each riding a random selection process similar to Jury duty, then so be it.

(2)c. Move to a Proportional Representation Model

This may mean redesigning the Legislature, or perhaps creating a "Senate-like" body that is run on a P/R basis. The whole point here is to dramatically change the dynamic that allows a party that gets ~20% of the available vote to take 80% of the seats available.

First Past The Post (FPTP) isn't necessarily that bad, but with a high level of voter disengagement, it develops serious problems where the government sitting in Edmonton does not in fact represent the broader will of Albertans.

I will argue that the optics in the current environment are so bad that a radical change is needed to convince the disengaged voter that it is in fact time to re-engage. Some form of P/R is dramatic enough to catch public attention.

In closing, I do not believe that any one of these will make a significant difference, but these are starting points in a long-range plan to re-energize our electoral system which is currently on the verge of collapsing (if it hasn't already) into the kind of pseudo-democracy that we accuse leaders in other countries of being. Some of this is "window dressing", intended to plant in the public mind the notion that change is happening; other parts are longer term, and will only start to have an impact as the generation that will be born to those now in high school comes of age.