The Bernier Party

First, I'd like to apologize for the missing posts over the last couple of weeks. During August I went on a brief trip to southwestern Ontario and then followed that up be a few days out of town at a wedding and some social functions at work. Long story short, it has made it so I've been both busy and disconnected from current events.

It was a bit of a shock when I learned the dispute between Maxime Bernier and Andrew Scheer within the Conservative Party of Canada ended with Bernier quitting the party and vowing to start his own as an alternative.

From reports this break-up was brewing for a long time. Bernier and Scheer had been quietly and not-so-quietly disagreeing in public. Earlier in the year he was removed from his critic portfolio. When Scheer reorganized the caucus he put Bernier in charge of developing policy, a bold move that seemed to endorse his more libertarian ideals. Clearly this was a consistent source of friction between the two men.

Bernier's exit from the party is a grave concern. Let it be remembered that Bernier lost to Scheer for the leadership of the party 49-51%. Bernier built a base of support within the party and across the country, as well as significant fundraising capacity. Now, to be fair, that does not necessarily translate into backing for his own alternative party, but no doubt a few will follow him.

Assuming Bernier is sincere in his promise to start a party the real question is the impact that will have on the 2019 federal election. There are already those who fear (or gleefully hope) that this may fracture the Conservative Party the way the Reform/Alliance split the right from the Progressive Conservatives from 1993-2003.

I think there are a few generally safe assumptions to make. First, with a little more than a year to go until the election it is unlikely that Bernier will get a full party off the ground to run the 338 candidates across the country. It seems a tall order. Second, I think it is likely that if Bernier sticks with it that it will result in him being re-elected in his riding under a new party banner. The question becomes how much of a tail, or how broad will his support be. Will the Bernier Party mirror Elizabeth May's Greens and simply elect the leader and no one else? Or, will it manifest into the seat of a truly national party and have competitive candidates and multiple MPs from across the country. Or, will it become a local phenomenon in Quebec?

I see a real possibility for Bernier's Party to perform better than the Greens, though I will not guarantee it. Bernier, from the leadership race, gained a lot of traction in Alberta. It is possible that his more libertarian vision may catch on in Alberta the same places that the Wildrose Party did.

Overall, I don't think this will much impact what I think will happen in October 2019. I tend to believe Canadians are inclined to give governments two terms. Even if Trudeau is less popular than he was, I think he is on track to win a second term. Weakness in the NDP's numbers secures the Liberals' left flank with the Tories united or divided.

Frankly, I am all for more parties with representation in the House of Commons. It's a sad truth that our electoral system penalizes that, but I think a greater diversity of voices should be welcome, even if I strongly disagree with Maxime Bernier's position. I'm sure it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Setting the Stage for the Next Debates

In Ottawa there is some discussion about what should be the terms for the next federal election debates. Canada has no regulation, as far as I am aware, regarding our national debates leading into a federal election. A gentleman's agreement of sorts was what governed how debates operated in this country. A media consortium worked together with the political parties to set the terms of the debates. 

For many years this system seemed adequate. I don't think Canadians were particularly engaged by the debates, but nor were they poorly served by them. In the 2000s, in the minority years, the public got to see politicians perform on equal footing and were well moderated by skilled journalists such as Steve Paikin. However, in the last federal election the Conservatives blew up the traditional consensus and offered to do debates with any number of media organization and in different formats.

In the 2015 federal election the Conservatives threatened to upend this system and the status quo. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to withdraw from convention meant that we were poised to confront a reality wherein Canadians would have no debate as a platform to judge the candidates. Luckily some did manage to occur, but far fewer Canadians saw them than in previous years.

The Liberal government is exploring the idea of creating a commission for debates and enshrining it in law. Very few details are fixed as of yet, but there are some interesting ideas on the table. Financial penalties could be imposed to compel/encourage participation. The leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May (GPC - Saanich-Gulf Islands, BC), has been leading in suggesting how parties/leaders should qualify to debate. She has suggested that participating parties have to have two of the three following criteria: a) received 4% or more of the national vote in the previous election, b) have an elected member of the House of Commons under that party's banner, c) be running candidates in most (or nearly all) of the country's 338 ridings.

All things considered it is a pretty reasonable benchmark to start with. Such a standard would allow the Green Part and the Bloc Quebecois to join the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives in the next federal leaders' debate. Unsurprisingly, the system isn't perfect. This would have excluded other parties from entering the debate that have in the past, such as the Reform Party.

With democracies under strain I think there is a good argument to look at formalizing institutions like this and strengthening them. The practice of a leaders' debate is an important part of the Canadian election cycle. We should never have to worry again if we can see our leaders answer questions and explain their policies as a group. While hardly perfect on its own I think that is something work protecting and building upon, if nothing else.

Liberal Tax Reform Mire

The Liberal tax reform introduced months ago has been a communications disaster for the government. Closing certain tax provisions will increase the amount paid by high income Canadians. The Trudeau Liberals seem to have stumbled blindly into this issue. They seemed entirely unprepared for the resistance to these changes.

The Prime Minister and his team seemed to believe that relying on their tired rhetoric of "strengthening the middle class and those working to join them" would be enough. When you repeat the same thing over and over again to justify everything from tax cuts to road construction to opening a hockey arena don't be surprised if its effectiveness dulls.

There are strong, well-financed forces to push to keep the status quo. Doctors and small business owners will be limited in their tools to save on taxes. A number of wealthy individuals use the existing law to avoid taxes. While perfectly legal there are questions whether it was the intent of the government, or ethical for some parties to pay less in a progressive tax system.

While progressives are generally in favour of changing the tax code the failure of the Liberals to articulate these reforms successfully is putting them at risk. Opponents in advocacy groups and the Conservative Party have painted this as a massive tax increase on small business and an attack on doctor. The attacks have been, to this point, successful on raising doubts about the wisdom of the changes. In reality, it seems offering some sort of transition period would have done a great deal to dissuade modest critics, but the Liberals did not see reason to see that far ahead.

In politics communications often matters more than the policy itself, to my eternal grief. In some parallel universe the Liberals sold these policies to enough Canadians to ensure their passage, now it will cost Trudeau significant political capital. Part of the explanation is who the messengers are.

Justin Trudeau was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his finance minister, Bill Morneau is a very wealthy man. Men who have taken advantage of the same system the seek to right. Morneau has been dogged by questions about his finances and personal business dealings and whether or not the meet the rigour of disclosure and freedom of conflict of interest. Chantal Hebert warns that the Conservatives, by pursuing Morneau will lose sight on the defeating these reforms.

It would be fitting for the Liberals to stumble forward into success. It would join a questionable list of policy accomplishments for the Trudeau government. It leads me to wonder how many more lucky breaks they may have in them.

Political Parties Shifting Gears: Opposition and Government

A strange phenomenon occurs in our system of government after elections. If an opposition party manages to unseat the government they have to switch sides. Our parliamentary tradition is purposefully antagonistic. Opposition parties are expected to criticize the government and challenge its policies. This structure results in some very unusual moments when the newly displaced governing party can begin to criticize policies they only weeks/months before they were responsible for.

There were some bizarre moments in the wake of the 2015 federal election where sharp critiques came from the Conservative opposition. The Conservative Party were a dangerous opponent to the inexperienced Liberal government because in many cases the critic knew more about the ministry than the minister answering.

Parties have to undergo significant transformations to make the transition successful. The internal culture, language and structures of a party are quite different between government and opposition. Oftentimes what makes a party succeed at one would cripple it in the other. The Conservatives have succeeded in their criticism in part because they have managed to hold on to the discipline the maintained in government. Outside of the House the party shreds itself over the leadership race, but interim leader Rona Ambrose seems to be doing a good job holding feet to the fire.

I think politicians and partisans must do a certain amount of double-think to pull this off. Somehow the issue they didn't voice any concern over years in power are a scandal on the opposition side. The move from government to opposition can reveal factions within the party that had been muzzled for the sake of party unity. Stephen Harper ran massive budget deficits during his tenure, but budget hawks kept quiet. Now they can release their bile on the Trudeau deficits. Unmanaged these factions can tear a party apart. However, the leadership race that accompanies this sort of switch is often a battle of the soul and who is best posed to challenge the new government.

As a New Democrat I am used to my party being on the opposition benches. There is a strange thing that happens with that party as well. As the target changes so does the rhetoric. The NDP can have a more difficult time finding a way to criticize centrist Liberals than right-wing Conservatives. The Harper government could be a crisis of democracy but Trudeau, well... This issue is particularly noticeable for Liberals if they have to switch from criticize the NDP to the Conservatives, or vice versa, as has happened in the provinces.

Much has been made of how the Trudeau Liberals and Harper Conservatives are increasingly resembling each other, especially as the Liberals move to curtail debate. Ultimately there seems to be patterns in our politics that often transcends party. These changes in position force a rethink of party positions and posturing. For the NDP, does the party make another bid for government? Do they aim to recapture Official Opposition status first? Or, does it return to being the permanent third (fourth/fifth) party? How they choose to challenge the Liberals and select as a leader will determine that result to a great extent. 

Draft Nathan Cullen?

After the Edmonton Convention and Tom Mulcair was pushed out by delegates the lethargic NDP leadership race got underway. A number of the prominent candidates from 2012 begged off competing. For many of them it made a lot of sense. Several of them had lost their seats in the Liberal victory in 2015, not to mention they are five years older now.

Several promising candidates said that they were not inclined to run. Brian Topp is working with Rachel Notley's NDP government, now the only NDP government left in the country. Megan Leslie, the young, popular former MP from Halifax, said that she was not ready to re-enter the political arena. Conversations with the media indicated that she was emotionally exhausted after the difficult campaign. She now works at WWF Canada.

One leadership candidate offered a more nuanced explanation for why he wasn't running for leader in 2017. Nathan Cullen finished third place with 24% of the vote in 2012. When asked if he would run again he cited three reasons why he doesn't wish to run. First, he didn't think it was best for his family. Leadership and Ottawa are distant from his wife and family. A valid consideration and one I do not begrudge the British Columbia MP. Second, his riding is Skeena-Bulkley Valley, one of the remotest ridings from the capital. He stated that for the sake of the constituents he served them better as MP. The third reason he cited is that he wanted to focus on the upcoming Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform.

While I will not presume to speak for the personal considerations one of these factors has changed immensely. After Justin Trudeau broke his promise to implement electoral reform Nathan Cullen was furious. He has aggressively criticized the government and been effective both in committee, during Question Period, and in the media.

The NDP has faded into the background since the election, and especially since Tom Mulcair was given the boot. Nathan Cullen is one of the few members of the party who have kept the party at the centre. He managed to apply pressure smartly and use the media to force the government to not hold a Liberal majority on the Electoral Reform Committee, and formed a consensus with opposition members to produce a consensus report.

New Democrats, I believe, want a leader who is passionate and can take the fight to this government. They want a full-throated criticism of the Trudeau Liberals. All of these broken promises almost always go against the progressive promises Liberals made. A savvy NDP leader could take great advantage of these Liberal failures and begin making the case for why progressives should not and cannot trust Trudeau and his government.

I supported Nathan Cullen in 2012 and think he has something to offer. He could build a platform around being the true progressive voice in Canada and guaranteeing electoral reform. Cullen offers a charisma and humour that would be welcome at the head of the NDP.

While draft has an unwanted connotation of force. If Mr. Cullen and his family's consideration hasn't changed, then I accept that. However, as I look at the current and assumed line up of candidates I know I am still looking for something different. I hope Mr. Cullen changes his mind and reconsiders leadership of the New Democratic Party.

Sigh... Electoral Reform

If you have electoral reform advocates in your life or on your social media accounts you have no doubt received an earful in the last few days. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his new Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould (LPC - Burlington, ON) announced their intent to abandon electoral reform. Like those I mentioned I was furious. As far as I am aware this is the closest electoral reform has gotten to being achieved at the federal level. That is also pretty pathetic.

I think it is fair to say that electoral reform is probably on life support federally for at least ten years and probably longer. The Liberals blatant mismanagement and betrayal of their commitment likely means that the Liberal Party will not be trusted on this file for a long time by advocates. Instead of wallowing in anger and misery I'd like to take a little bit of time to see what we can do differently in the future.

Too often in Canada the governments leading the charge for electoral reform have been half-hearted at best. They seem to stumble into the issue and blindly move forward until it is ultimately defeated. The next parliament/legislature that begins to move forward on electoral reform needs to actually fight for it. I think if the Liberals were open about having skin in the game and preferences it would have been better. Let them advocate for preferential ballots forcefully. It's not the type of reform I want but at least it would be a position to debate rather than the shell game. The Canadian public is never going to come to a 'consensus' on this issue without leadership. I think a Prime Minister/Premier who proposed proportional representation and tried to make the case for it may very well succeed.

The other side of the equation is the public. Public engagement on this issue will never be very high, but their comfort and familiarity with the topic needs to be such that they don't immediately reject the questions. Some of the Electoral Reform Committees work on sussing out values rather than positions was valuable. The next time this issue comes up a citizens assembly can be guided by that information and then the proposal can be clearly communicated to the public. Any system can be explained in a five minute video more or less. CGP Grey proved that long ago.

Finally, advocates need to communicate so that they seem less like superior zealots. A lot of thought leaders in media and academia found the rhetoric from leading advocates to be distasteful. I think they let their passion blind them to the reality. Reformers will need allies in the media, political parties and academia to lend credence to their push.

Right now reformers are probably best off letting the federal issue go. Introducing alternative forms to the municipal and provincial levels of government seems a wiser effort at this time.

Chips in Trudeau's Armour?

The last few months have not been kind to the Prime Minister. While I hesitate to use the word scandal for what has befallen his government it appears that they are increasingly mirror in unforced errors. Before I dive deeper into this piece I should make my prejudices abundantly clear. I do not like the current Prime Minister and generally I have not supported the Liberal Party. The issues confronting the Liberals seem to stem from three areas: appearance of improper financial dealings, style, and keeping their promises.

At the end of the year Justin Trudeau's approval ratings were sitting at 51%. This is a considerable number but down from earlier in the year. Similarly, Liberal support has moved from 51% to 42% in the same poll. This is a higher percentage than they won the election with. However, I think this is evidence that the honeymoon can be officially called over as the government passes a year in office. Canadians are off the high of the election and now are beginning to think of Liberals and Justin Trudeau as another politician.

The main source of the decline in the polls seems to be the fundraising issue. To my distress Canadians don't much care about things like electoral reform, but the stories circulating about the cash-for-access fundraisers are eroding sympathy and support for the government. The Prime Minister has appeared at fundraisers where wealthy Canadians and people with links to Chinese business donate money to the party and discuss government business.

If I'm being honest I think some of the criticism is hyperbole. However, the government's handling of the issue has been appallingly bad. For a time the government seemed to hope that it would all go away over Christmas. Though she later retracted the comments Bardish Chagger, the Government House Leader stated that the House of Commons was not the place to discuss this issue. The Liberals have seemed to violate their own guidelines of fundraising. While I doubt $1500 is enough to sway a minister's opinion it looks problematic to say the least.

Perhaps the Liberals could have weathered the storm with Christmas and New Year's to give them cover, but then out came the story of the Trudeaus holidaying with Aga Khan in Bermuda. Much like the fundraising the Liberals have had trouble with their messaging on this issue. Trudeau attempted to dismiss allegations by saying it was a family trip. It was later revealed that a Liberal MP, his spouse and the president of the Liberal Party and her spouse was also on the trip. All told this probably doesn't amount to much, but the whiff of corruption or at least backroom dealings and sweetheart deals is in the air. Despite the disturbing number of times Justin Trudeau can cram "middle class" into a sentence he is an elite and has connections and relationships that compromise his ability to appear objective.

The style of the new government is also losing its appeal. The savvy, social media focused, light and fun government with the young leader is losing its traction. While the PM and the government generally remain popular there is a tonal shift in the media to not so easily fall for these ploys. I'm confident a video of Trudeau playing with puppies would do exceptionally well and smear itself all over my social media channels, but the number of people who would roll their eyes seems much higher now than 12 months ago.

The style problem has been exacerbated by the fact that the Liberals actually have to govern. The first year of endless consultations, reports and committee work now has to confront the reality of making choices and implementing policies. This is most apparent in the relationships with the provinces. The PM cannot simply force policy without power criticism, nor will "sunny ways" impress the likes of Christie Clark, Brad Wall or Rachel Notley.

Finally there are the promises. According to the Trudeau Meter website the Liberals made 223 promises during the election. So far they have broken 28, kept 38 and not started on 90 of them. Some are minor, but others are major. The pipeline approvals went against the expressed wishes of First Nations leadership and the environmental lobby. Commitments to renew the relationship with First Nations has been pushed off. What about proper funding for indigenous children as the Human Rights Tribunal ordered? What about keeping the deficit to $10 billion per year? What about reviving the economy and protecting the middle class? How about this big one, where's movement on Bill C-51?

Individually there is little political penalty for each promise broken or half-delivered, but there are constituencies out there watching. Bill C-51 was important for Toronto ridings. If the bill isn't fixed by 2019 that leaves the door open for the NDP. If the Liberals fail to put in place some sort of electoral reform it will have been seen, rightfully, by Conservatives as a boondoggle and waste of time,  and a betrayal by the NDP, Greens and electoral reform advocates.

I am not a Trudeau fan, but I think evidence is mounting that the shine is coming off the Prime Minister and his party. Initial enthusiasm gives way to the day-to-day business of governing which inevitably angers some and pleases others. The question is how the government will respond and if that response will be enough.

Long-Term Thinking: The Question of Artificial Intelligence

A few years ago Andrew Coyne gave a speech and he talked about why he thought Parliament would be increasingly important and why our consensus on certain issues meant that politics would transform. He argued that the neo-liberal consensus would lead to new debates, debates about the nature of humanity and address the questions that new technology has and will raised. Mr. Coyne seems to have been disproved, at least for now, and my own theory is that the global consensus on neo-liberalism is fracturing. Still, there are a number of issues that the Canadian Parliament should start weighing before we are overwhelmed.

Artificial intelligence is one of my favourite themes in science fiction. Over the last couple of years popular culture has latched onto this concept and a number of films and television series have come out exploring humanity's relationship with artificial intelligence/sentience. The majority of these depictions are negative, or threatening. The public clearly has some anxiety over the creation of artificial intelligence. Writers like Nick Bostrom seem to be suggesting that there are tangible dangers to AI and that precautions are required to protect us. 

As far as I am aware there are no laws governing/regulating the development of artificial intelligence. It would not be unreasonable, for example, to insist that artificial intelligence be developed on air-gapped computers, or that all programs or automatons have a built-in kill switch. The dangers of rogue AI are so extreme that even modest precautions should be accepted at face value.

Beyond paranoia (healthy as it may be) about the development of artificial intelligence there are inevitable questions that will arise if we successfully develop artificial life. If we create independent, autonomous beings as represented in fiction like Westworld, Ex Machina, Her, etc. what rights will be extended to them? Should any? Should artificial beings be treated like biological citizens, or should they be treated like, say, corporations? Corporations are legal persons but they are not allowed to vote and do not exert other rights as living beings. If you kill/disable an AI is that murder, property destruction? Will androids/AI be owned? Is that slavery?

One of the big questions about artificial intelligence is how will we tell if it is real. Artificial intelligence designers may merely create things that are very capable at imitating people, rather than genuine sentience. Then you get into debates about sentience and the nature of humanity's consciousness.

One of my concerns for years is that the creation of androids will exacerbate issues of sexism and inhumanity. When you have the ability to exploit and abuse things that are indistinguishable from humans the threat to broader society seems fairly obvious. Creating intelligent, responsive beings for the sole purpose of our pleasure and violent impulses is unsettling.

Obviously the Canadian Parliament does not need to pass laws on these matters immediately, but it would be wise to start raising these questions and laying some basic regulations to protect ourselves from the worst case scenario. This might be the perfect work for the Senate to take up. As much as this may sound like science fiction, I think the trend lines are fairly clear we're heading in that direction, so why not prepare for it?

Is Electoral Reform Designed to Fail?

When the Liberals won their majority government I was consoled by two things: Harper would leave office, and hopefully end constitutional rot; and Trudeau had promised, unequivocally, electoral reform. As I have written on this blog before, electoral reform was the animating issue that got me involved in politics. There is growing evidence that the Liberals are preparing to break that promise.

The Electoral Reform Committee released its report last week. The committee recommended a referendum on proportional representation. Though the NDP and Green representatives provided a supplement saying that they did not believe a referendum was specifically needed. The result may be the worst of both worlds for the Liberals. They didn't want a referendum and prominent voices within the party do not want proportional representation. Aaron Wherry wrote an excellent summary of the direct fallout here. Following the report's release Minsiter Monsef began to mock and distance the government from the committee's report saying the was disappointed that they had not recommended an electoral system. This was rich given that it was not in their mandate.

Monsef further embarrassed herself and her government by mocking the formula the Gallagher Index, which shows how closely a government represents the proportion of votes received by each party. Monsef was prepared with printed copies of the formula. This wasn't a fluke, it was a plan. Electoral reform often wrecks on the shores of complication. For all the problems with First-Past-the-Post it is simple. Trying to explain an alternative quickly to a disengaged public is very difficult.

Yesterday, claiming that the government required further consultation, https://www.mydemocracy.ca/ was launched. I would encourage any reader to take the survey, because why not? But as you take it I think you'll find that there are some serious issues on the questions.  They fail to tease out what voters actually want in terms of their electoral system, i.e. do you want the House of Commons to reflect the percentage of votes the parties receive? Should a party that does not get a majority of votes receive a majority of the seats in the House of Commons? Perhaps I am revealing my own bias with the second, but the questions are at times "push" questions designed to illicit certain responses.

Canadians on Twitter took to mocking the Trudeau government with the hashtag #rejectedERQs (rejected electoral reform questions). It is amusing but also disheartening because it is more evidence that the fix is in. With the conclusion of this survey the Liberals will be well poised to suggest that a) more consultation is required, b) there is no consensus, c) that Canadians are content with the system as is.

If electoral reform is to happen it will almost certainly not occur before 2019 now. Stalling by the government seems to make that clear and if a referendum is going to happen the laws surrounding referenda needs to be updated. To be clear, I want to give kudos to the member of the Electoral Reform Committee, including the Liberals. At the end they seem to have engaged in the process in good faith. I believe it is the government who is meddling now. I haven't abandoned hope yet, but the government holds all the cards on this one. Electoral reform will only under rare circumstances become an issue of importance. However, PEI's recent vote may be a sign of hope, though their government's reaction may be the ultimate warning. The status quo is hard to overturn.

One Year Later, the Election and Trudeau Government

Two weeks ago the anniversary of the 2015 federal election passed and in three days the first anniversary of the Trudeau government will pass. A great deal has changed (or not) since October 19th and I think it might be valuable to reflect on where things currently stand. Let's begin with the Liberals.

For the Liberals and their supporters there are a lot of things to celebrate still. The Liberals are sitting high in the polls, the Trudeau honeymoon seems to be continuing, the media continues to gives positive coverage and around the world Canada and its shiny, new PM is mostly seen as positive. In my opinion many of the voters who supported the Liberals were motivated by two main factors: the desire for the removal or Harper and the desire for a change in tone. The Liberals beat the NDP as the anti-Conservative Party and that is why they are in government today. Liberals supporters may remain in line as long as the new government does not come to resemble the old government.

While writing that I could hear the old progressive refrain rattling in my head "Liberal, Tory, same old story." In recent weeks the Trudeau government has placed support that may be showing very little difference between itself and its predecessors. The LNG pipeline in BC was approved in British Columbia and Aboriginal representatives are beginning to feel betrayed by this government on a number of issues. Prime Minister Trudeau recently caused a controversy by seemingly backing away from his commitment to electoral reform and there is a long list of promises that the Liberals have failed to keep.

The Liberals made, according to Trudeaumetre.ca/, 219 promises. Of those 34 have been kept, 64 are in progress and 26 have been broken. The Liberals overburdened themselves in their platform and it is likely that the most sensitive voters, or one-issue voters, may peel off and return to the Greens, Conservatives and NDP. For example, Bill C-51 was a major issue in Toronto, yet no amendments have been moved. There is no sign that the Liberal coalition is fracturing, but it seems a growing risk for them.

A year after the defeat I think it is hard to say that the Conservative Party was utterly routed. The Conservatives have a strong core in the House of Commons. In the first by-election of the forty-second parliament the Conservatives managed to gain on their wins a year previous in Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner. This is Conservative territory, but a stronger Liberal support would be a healthy sign. There are fourteen candidates running for the Conservative leadership. The healthy number suggests that there is a great deal of interest and that it is a prize worth having. The Tories still have strong fundraising and the parliamentary leadership has been solid in confronting issues that matter to their supports: spending and the economy.

While Trudeau's popularity seems unassailable at the moment, Stephen Harper will not be on the ballot next time. A new Conservative leader will be well poised to make at least limited gains.

The fortunes of the Green Party are unclear. Elizabeth May had to do battle over the soul of her party this year when they adopted a strong anti-Israel stance. May was most effective as a critic of the Harper government. Most of her focus has been on the electoral reform committee. The success of the committee will dictate to a great degree the future of her party.

Finally, the New Democratic Party. The future of the NDP is unclear at the moment. Since the election the party kicked out Tom Mulcair, though he remains on as interim leader. The party seems uncertain if it wants to contest for power still or return to the role of third party and conscience of the Parliament. Fundraising has plummeted since Mulcair was removed as leader. I think much of that is the membership sitting on their hands, saving for a leadership contest, or to see what the party will do next. Unfortunately, and very worryingly, there are no declared candidates for the federal race. However, it appears that Peter Julian (NDP - New Westminster-Burnaby, BC) will enter, and there are a few others in the wings. Mending the party between moderate and leftist and French and English will be a daunting challenge.

There is opportunity for the NDP. The Liberals ran on a fairly left-wing platform, but appear to be governing from the centre. Progressive voters will be disappointed. There is plenty to criticize, so just as the Conservatives are minding the pennies the NDP should be minding the broken promises to young people, Aboriginal Canadians, etc.

It has been a dramatic year since the election and the formation of the Trudeau ministry. I assume that things will have stabilize as we enter the second year, but by this time next year the Conservatives and NDP will have new leaders and once again the stage will be set for the future going forward.

The Next NDP Leader?

It has been two months since the NDP convention in Edmonton and so far the NDP leadership race is still a relatively quiet affair. So far the NDP leadership race is a long list of no's and one sort of.

It is not unusual for leadership races to start off slowly. The Conservatives who have known longer that they will be in a leadership race have only three candidates declared and many of the major potential candidates have declined to formally enter the race yet. But unlike the NDP the major candidates for the Conservatives have not ruled out running.

The obvious place to begin with a leadership race is the last leadership race, especially given that it was only four years ago that Tom Mulcair was selected to be the leader.

Brian Topp came second to Mulcair and since then has been busy helping provincial parties, first in British Columbia and then in Alberta. He currently works for Rachel Notley. He was asked shortly after the convention and expressed no interest in leaving his current position in Alberta's government.

Nathan Cullen became the instant favourite and frontrunner. He came third in the leadership race proposing electoral reform and an agreement with the Liberals to win the 2016 election. He also had an easy humour and charm that appealed to New Democrats. I was one of his supporters at the convention. Cullen announced that he would not seek the nomination due to family concerns and that he wanted to focus on electoral reform in the House of Commons. That's admirable, in my opinion.

Peggy Nash was eliminated on the third ballot in 2012. Along with Brian Topp she was seen as the left-wing approach and was strongly supported by union activists. Nash lost her Toronto seat in the Liberal wave, which is certainly an impediment to a run. Perhaps more so is the fact that Cheri DiNovo (ONDP - Parkdale-High Park) has tipped her hat that she may enter the race. DiNovo backed Nash in the last leadership contest and it is unlikely that both women would not have consulted each other before making such a move.

Paul Dewar has not ruled out considering a run, but on April 28th he told the press that he "is not considering" a run. Dewar, like Nash, lost his Ottawa Centre seat in the Liberal wave. He was a serious and conscientious politician for the NDP but without a seat and his tepid interest I think it is unlikely that he'll enter the fray.

Martin Singh was the outsider who ran to replace Jack Layton. He was able to garner about 4000 supporters on the first ballot and immediately withdrew and threw in with Tom Mulcair. Singh used his profile to run for a seat in Brampton North, but was handily defeated, finishing third. It's possible he will run again.

Niki Ashton seems the most likely of the 2012 leadership contestants to run again. She represents a seat in Northern Manitoba and managed to hold on to her seat in the 2015 election. I'll do the foolish thing and predict that if she does enter she likely will not be the ultimate winner. In the 2012 race Ashton was a stiff, awkward performer. Watching her approach in the House I have a hard time imagining she has much improved on that front. Her pitch for the youth vote went nowhere.

Romeo Saganash was in the leadership race but withdrew from the convention. I was initially a supporter of his. However during the last session he had an incident on an airplane related to alcohol and admitted an addiction issue. Sadly I think that might preclude him from running again. Robert Chisholm withdrew from the race due to a lack of support and his insufficient ability in French.

Pretty dismal. So what about others?  

Peter Julian (NDP - New Westminster-Burnaby, BC) has not ruled out a run (as far as I can tell). He has been on the NDPs front bench for many years and is a prominent critic on important files. With Cullen out of the race that leaves British Columbia wide open.

Alexandre Boulerice (NDP - Rosemont-La Petitie-Patrie, QC) is Quebec's Peter Julian. He was elected in the Orange Wave and maintained his seat. He was an outspoken critic of the last government and passionate. He might be the only candidate to come out of Quebec for the leadership race, which is certainly an asset.

Jagmeet Singh (ONDP - Bramalea-Gore-Malton) was elevated to deputy leader in Ontario to prevent him running federally, or so the rumour goes. Perhaps the opportunity to give the big job a shot will be too much to resist. He is young and has a passionate following in Ontario, and certainly could pull voters away from Trudeau on that front.

I've already gone on a while but I just wish to conclude with what I want to see in the leadership race. I think the NDP needs to do a better job walking the talk when it comes to representing all Canadians. The current caucus is very white.  I want the leadership race to better represent the diversity of this country and perhaps select a leader who represents the New Canada, as it is sometimes called, that the NDP claims to speak for. One person I would love to see get into the race is Desmond Cole, he is an activist, commentator and writer in Toronto, but unlikely to enter the race. Laurin Liu was a Quebec NDP MP from 2011-2015, she was a passionate advocate and fluent in French, English and Cantonese. She's very young, but perhaps we should consider how much that matters at present. Jenny Kwan is a new MP from Vancouver, but has a long history in British Columbia. She has experience and might bring something fresh to the race. I'd also like to see Indigenous Canadians represented in the race, but no candidate comes to mind.

That by no means is an exhaustive list. I just wanted to propose some names because I am sometimes frustrated how many people seem to want to back the children of politicians in the NDP. Niki Ashton is the daughter of a NDP politician, Bill Blaikie's daughter became party president and his son is a MP, people are looking at Mike Layton to run and follow in his father's footsteps and Avi Lewis (of the Leap Manifesto) gets a lot of heft because his father is Stephen Lewis. I want fresh blood and new ideas, not a social club for leftists. Hopefully we some movement in the race in the next couple of months, otherwise the leadership may be the prize no one wants. 

Electoral Reform at Risk

During the election Justin Trudeau (LPC - Papineau, QC) repeatedly stated that 2015 would be the last First Past the Post election in Canada. If the aftermath of the Liberal victory this is one of the few things I hung my hat on and had some hope for, as a person who strongly dislikes the Liberals and their current leader. I'm an electoral reform nerd. I've read all the articles about different forms of government, looked a possible models Canada could adopt and read up on what other countries do. I have been waiting for a serious push for electoral reform at the federal level for about 10 years now. However, the Liberals have put that all in jeopardy.

Changes to election laws are often very contentious and for very good reason. Fears about changes can broadly be broken into two groups, threats to democracy and tipping the partisan scales. These are connected but ultimately different problems. Occasionally a story will emerge where an autocratic president or prime minister changes election laws (or perhaps the constitution) to better secure their own power and curb democracy. Changes to term length, ending term limits, altering finance laws, or freedom of speech, or who can vote can erode the central democracy in a political culture. If the changes goes to far the system may collapse into despotism altogether. Then there are changes the preference one political party over the others, and usually it is the party in power. This might mean redistricting in such a way that benefits strongholds of one party over another or changing fundraising laws that benefits the ruling party.

Due to the risks inherent in tinkering with the electoral system of a given country it is often wise to ensure that broad consensus is reached on any reforms. Take for example the so-called Fair Elections Act. Massive public outcry on the provisions of that act forced the Conservatives to amend it into something more palatable. Making changes along party lines raises the possibilities that someone might tamper with the deck.

Earlier this month Minister Maryam Monsef (LPC - Peterborough-Kawartha, ON) announced the government's structure for the committee that will make recommendations about electoral reform. The Liberals have decided to give themselves a majority on the committee. Six of the ten seats are occupied by Liberals, three were meted out to the Conservatives and one to the NDP. The Bloc and Green Party will be permitted a seat, but they will not be allowed to vote.

Public reaction to this was decidedly negative. This is the sort of committee with which you ram something through, not arrive at consensus. This ploy by the Liberal government might jeopardize any chance reform has for legitimacy. It also sets a terrible precedent that any majority government can make major changes to the electoral system on their own.

It didn't, and doesn't, have to be that way. The Liberal reformers have allies in the progressive opposition parties. Both the NDP and Greens are hungry for electoral reform. The Conservatives are likely bad faith partners in this exercise. Their current electoral calculus means that any reform will likely cause them to lose seats and make it more difficult for them to form government. Likewise the Bloc is threatened by something like proportional representation as a regional party.

While the NDP and Greens would gladly sign on to a package for proportional representation it is not clear that the Liberals are willing to accept any form of PR. Trudeau has publicly expressed a preference for the ranked ballot option. It is widely assumed that this option would be a tremendous benefit to Liberals. A ranked or preferential ballot could be implemented without widespread changes to the rest of electoral system and so perhaps this is where the Liberals have been leading all along.

The way the committee will function is still uncertain. Monsef said the committee will evaluate systems based on five principles: effectiveness and legitimacy, engagement, accessibility and inclusiveness, integrity and local representation. Those aren't the five I would have chosen, but there you have it.

The risk of failure here is very high. The public and opposition parties could be easily alienated and any reforms seem an underhanded way to secure power for the Liberals. As a person who wants to see electoral reform I fear the Liberals have gotten off to such a ham-fisted start that it might already be too late to save.

Sexual Harassment in the Halls of Parliament

In the last parliament two Liberal MPs were expelled from their caucus after allegations surfaced that they had sexual harassed New Democratic parliamentarians. It was reported earlier this week that former MPP Kim Craitor (OLP - Niagara Falls) was pushed to resign in light of a sexual harassment complaint. The public was never informed that this was the reason for Craitor's retirement. Craitor denies this and is a current city councillor.

Samara Canada, a non-profit organization that explores Canadians engagement in their democracy, filed a report in 2015 looking at Question Period and suggested that heckling and decorum of the House helped to create a toxic atmosphere that disproportionately impacted women. At the time I was skeptical of the report. I think aggressive, spirited debate is valuable. The sexism and name-calling are uncalled for, but suggesting that MPs should never heckle or boo each other I think tamped down the life of the House of Commons.

The type of sexual harassment we have come to expect is a politician taking advantage of an inferior, see Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. This is a horrendous abuse of power, but the fact that our representatives have to bear up under this treatment is stunning. Michelle Remple (CPC - Calgary Nose Hill, AB) recently wrote an op-ed talking about her experiences, including inappropriate touching. Rempel's position was endorsed by her colleagues.

Solutions to this type of problem are not obvious. Typically in human resources these instances are tried to be handled quietly for the dignity and privacy of the victim. On the other hand there is the right of the public and voters to be informed of their politicians' behaviour. I know if my MP/MPP was accused of sexual harassment I would like to know about it. Any process that works quietly and behind closed doors are at risk of falling victim to partisan manipulation and sweeping allegations under the rug.

One hopes that over time the toxic misogyny that exists in the House of Commons is driven out as it should be in the rest of society. There are no guarantees. What is clear is that MPs require training, like any workplace, and must have real consequences for their actions, but finding the balance that works for both the public interest and the theoretical victims will be difficult.

Proportional Representation, Representing Even Unpopular Opinions

If the Justin Trudeau's Liberal government holds to its promise our next election will use a new system to distribute seats. Given this opportunity reformers have been aggressively pushing for their preferred choice. As should be expected critics have popped up to offer their views on proposals. I, like many reformers, support some sort of proportional representation in our new electoral system, but many dismiss it as an alternative.

I've read a couple of editorials in newspapers and opinions on Twitter that touch on a flawed argument. Proportional representation would award seats in parliament roughly in accordance with their share of popular support. A party that gets 10% of the vote would get about 10% of the seats. Countries with proportional representation tend to have a greater number of parties. Denmark, for example, has nine parties in its parliament. In Germany five parties are represented in the legislature, but over a dozen others contested the 2013 election.

Some argue that introducing proportional representation to Canada would similarly fracture our political system into smaller, more niche parties. I have my doubts. Canada already has a large number of parties for the first-past-the-post system. That system works best with two parties, the fact that we have five parties in the House of Commons already somewhat puts the idea that there will be an explosion of parties a bit to the side.

This piece by Christian Leuprecht in the Globe and Mail particularly raised my hackles. Leuprecht argues that proportional representation would lead to the growth of extremist parties, like the Front National, Alternative fur Deutschland and Donald Trump. This argument, to me, reeks of high-handed elitism. In essence it says, 'We cannot use proportional representation or otherwise those people with odious opinions may be given a voice.' You might not like what the United Kingdom Independence Party stands for, you may disagree with them  passionately, but having over 12% of the population support them in exchange for 2 seats in the House of Commons is hardly a roaring endorsement of the current democratic system. Saying a great feature of your electoral system is that it marginalizes the minority political opinions of your polity strikes me as anti-democratic at its core.

When I was going door-to-door during the election I heard many people say that they opposed letting in any of the Syrian refugees, yet none of the political parties had that position. These people were shut out from candidates and parties that expressed their opinion. Many Canadians have questions about our immigration policy on the right side of the spectrum, and on the left there are grave concerns about justice policy, the relationship between police and minorities and gender equity that the major parties pay little attention to. Shutting these people out of the system does not mean we have successfully ended racism as a problem in this country. We have deluded ourselves through our system which rewards centrist parties that don't rock the boat overly much. I for one want the presently unpopular positions, policies and opinions to be represented so they can argued.

Canada has a long tradition of sweeping the unseemly, impolite aspects of our culture under the rug. I don't believe in that. There are Canadians out there who wish Donald Trump was running in Canada, who have views that I find abhorrent, but that does not justify me, or anyone else, to perpetuate a voting system that keeps their opinions excluded from the system.

If Canada was to adopt proportional representation I believe we would more than likely see a new party appear on the right in Canada, likely taking up the socially conservative mantle that the Conservative Party has suppressed internally, views held by many in Canada that currently have no home. The NDP would probably move to the left as they do not have to rely on centrist voters to maintain their support. If not, a hard left party of socialists would probably pop up. Observers have expressed frustrations about how close the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP have become in policy, proportional representation would allow a truly diverse set of views to be shared and properly represented. Opposing a system because you are comfortable in the current milieu is hardly a reasonable justification for opening broadening the discourse and better reflecting the true opinions of your fellow citizens.

Book Review: Irresponsible Government by Brent Rathgeber

Brent Rathgeber until the fall of 2015 was a Member of Parliament for Edmonton-St. Albert, and in the 2015 election he was an independent candidate for St. Albert-Edmonton. He partnered with Dundurn Press to share his impressions with the failings of the Canadian parliamentary system. This book, if nothing else, is a fascinating snapshot of the Canadian political landscape in 2013. It would be foolish  to dismiss this book as an anti-Harper book from a disgruntled former MP. Rathgeber offers a thoughtful deconstruction of Canadian governance from the perspective of an insider, a man with a particular ideology, and a person who believes in responsible government.

Rathgeber, for context, was an elected representative from 2008 to 2015. He was elected as a Conservative. He was a strong MP who sat on the backbenches. He began running afoul of the Prime Minister's Office over issues of substance early on. The breaking point came when his private member's bill to disclose the salaries and responsibilities of civil servants over a certain amount, similar to the sunshine list in Ontario, was gutted. On orders from the PMO the minimum was raised to over $300000, making it essentially useless. He resigned as a member of Conservative caucus and afterwards became a much more outspoken critic of the Stephen Harper government. That all said, this is not a partisan rant, or an excuse for Rathgeber to sharpen knifes and get back at old slights.

The title of the book is taken from the loss of responsible government, the system by which the executive is held to account by the elected representatives of the people. Rathgeber suggests that the government in Canada today hardly reflects this initial principle in our governance. The decline of Canada's parliament has taken decades to unfold and has been the responsibility of Liberal and (Progressive) Conservative Prime Ministers. If you're familiar with my blog you are well-versed in the long list of problems, and Rathgeber shares his take on them. While I cannot recall if Rathgeber labels his ideological stance, but libertarian or fiscal conservative would probably be the best fit. He suggests that the tremendous growth of the government and social welfare programs and bureaucracies make it incredibly challenging for Members of Parliaments to properly scrutinize spending and understand it. It's a rarely heard argument.

The book is divided into brief, comprehensive chapters tackling a specific aspect of the problem: cabinet as a bloated, ineffective institution; convoluted program spending; excessive party discipline; centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office; the toxic partisan atmosphere of the PMO; the ineffectiveness of the media and broken access to information laws.

While much of Rathgeber's arguments will be familiar to those familiar with this debate he does offer something new. His take on a couple of topics is different from what I've read elsewhere and so I imagine those fascinated by this subject will gain something valuable. Rathgeber also tackles the topic of electoral reform and possible solutions to our irresponsible government. The author thinks the system's original structure is worth preserving and therefore is hesitant about a total overall proportional representation would suggest, but alternative vote seems to appeal to him. One of the bolder recommendations he made was that outside of the Prime Minister the cabinet should be drawn from outside of the Parliament so that MPs can focus on the business of governing rather than try to fulfill their ambitions. It is a radical solution, which at first I rejected, but I think it might have real merit in the provinces where legislatures are smaller.

The book has some issues. Having been published in 2014 the book is remarkably of that time. The Mike Duffy scandal is very much unfolding and the future of the Harper ministry is unclear. Still the snapshot is very informative and does not hinder it a great deal. And for those who think the election of the Liberal government in 2015 fixes these problems I would suggest they consider the institutional flaws discussed in this text. Finally, the editing of this book was sloppy in places. In one chapter it appears two versions of a paragraph appear one after the other. There are a few instances when I rolled my eyes at the errors of the editor. Aside from these flaws this is a valuable text from a wonderful former Member of Parliament with insight to the crisis at the heart of our political life. Even the ideological disagreements between myself and the author helped to illustrate other potential issues and causes worth pondering. If only all our MPs could have this as a guide we'd be well on our way to a better, more responsible government.

The Future of Tom Mulcair and the NDP

In the wake of the election the defeated parties are forced into moments of introspection and scrutiny. The reaction can be predictable. Some group within the party who felt maligned and pushed out by the current leadership will declare that they are right all along. "If only they had listened to us!" And then there are those who will instead blame the public for not embracing the party of their choice. The NDP is currently in this position and is questioning its future, its ideology and its leader.

Since the leadership of Jack Layton the NDP has moved towards the centre of the political spectrum. Following the tremendous electoral gains and death of Jack Layton the NDP was left with a political conundrum, would they press forward to try to win power or remain the conscience of the parliament? The battle for the future of the party was embodied in the leadership contest.

In the final, fourth ballot Tom Mulcair defeated Brian Topp 57.2% to 42.8%. But looking at the candidates who ran it is clear that most hailed from the centre-left, not the hard left. In 2011 the NDP was in a different position and ready to be the government-in-waiting. The moderation of the NDP federally was not an aberration. The federal party in many ways was mirroring what its successful peers provincially had done across the country.

Despite many successes and solid poll numbers under Tom Mulcair's leadership the election slipped through the NDP's fingers. I haven't written about this on this blog but the NDP did not lose the election because of Tom Mulcair. I think he had troubles in his first election as leader, but he was building real support across the country. Ultimately it might be the flawed appeal to Quebec that sunk the NDP. I think the campaign assumed Quebec would be in the bank and no part of the platform appealed to voters in that province. One of the most prominent parts of the platform, $15/day daycare, was superfluous in Quebec given that they have $7/day daycare. Then factor in the niqab debate and NDP's hopes for the province eroded dramatically. As the national numbers declined anti-Harper voters fled to the Liberals.

Mulcair holds responsibility for the election, but should he resign as leader?

This isn't a simple yes/no question. If you believe Mulcair should stay on then fine, but if you believe he should leave then you have to suggest an alternative leader. Despite the beating the NDP experienced in 2015 it has a strong presence in Quebec. Who do you propose who can speak French fluently to lead the NDP? Will the left-wing of the party call in Brian Topp to lead them? He currently works in Premier Rachel Notley's office, not as an elected politician. Can the Trudeau Liberals continue to hold onto their gains in Quebec? If the NDP are not there as an active opposition they may revert back to the Bloc.

Surveying the NDP landscape I have a hard time seeing a better candidate to lead the party than Tom Mulcair. He is fluent in French and English, a tremendous performer in the House of Commons, and with real political experience. The real problem is the political position of the NDP. The Liberals were able to capitalize on a popular leader and collapsing Conservative support. The NDP should probably move back to the left slightly to hold the Liberals to account, but frankly they have moved to the left themselves on many issues. Holding the Liberals to their promises should be enough to drive up NDP support, but without a credible, effective leader these benefits will accrue to the Conservatives. Party members will have a chance to express themselves this April in Edmonton. Hopefully they have the ability to look past their anger and ideology and make the right choice.

Moving Towards Electoral Reform

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (LPC - Papineau, QC) has repeatedly stated that 2015 will be the last election fought under the first-past-the-post model. Some version of electoral reform is on its way, that much seems very likely. I was tempted to say inevitable but there is a caveat that I will address soon.

The electoral reform will be selected by an parliamentary committee that will study this question, provide and recommendation and the government will move forward from there. Of course any parliamentary committee will be composed of Members of Parliament who are members of political parties with distinct interests in the electoral reform question.

The Greens and NDP are aligned on the electoral reform debate. They favour a proportional system. In such a system the number of seats a party wins in the House of Commons would approximately match the number of votes that party received. So, in the last election the Liberals received about 39% of the vote and would therefore be allocated 39% of the seats. The Greens and NDP favour this position for two reasons. The first explanation is rooted in equity. In a proportional system every vote is equal, there are no geographic distortions and minority desires are not shut out. The second reason is, of course, political. Smaller parties prefer proportional representation because their popularity often exceeds their ability to elect members. Both the NDP and Greens have concentrated support in certain areas but also receive votes across the country that do not add up enough to elect members. Proportional representation reflects that support in the House of Commons. Proportional representation is the standard in the democratic world. Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the vast majority of Europe and Latin America all use it.

The Conservatives oppose all forms of electoral reform. This is because the only system that allows them to form government in the current political dynamic is the first-past-the-post model. The Conservative Party is, at the moment, Canada's only right-wing party. The rest of the political spectrum is filled with centre/centre-left/left-wing parties. It is fair to say that in any given election that about 25-40% of the public may vote Conservative, which means they are very unlikely to form a government under proportional representation. Proportional systems encourage coalition governments and the Conservatives would have a much more difficult time finding willing partners. Their closest allies would be the Liberal Party, their chief rival. The Conservative Party has a vested interest in seeing electoral reform fail.

The Liberals are in a different place entirely. While I can recall Liberals advocating for proportional representation Justin Trudeau has expressed that the preferential ballot is more to his liking. Unsurprisingly the preferential ballot would likely disproportionately benefit the Liberal Party. In a preferential ballot voters rank their choices (1, 2, 3, 4). The candidate with the fewest votes is bumped off and those votes are redistributed to their second choice. This continues until one candidates has a majority of the votes. This reform would have the least dramatic implementation while still reshaping our politics. The impact would be particularly pronounced in Quebec now that many races are four-way contests.

Given the composition of the House of Commons I expect that this committee will recommend a preferential ballot. The question is whether or not the committee will impose a poison pill - a referendum. Referenda on electoral reforms have failed consistently in Canada. The status quo simply bears too much weight and the fear of change is pervasive. In any referendum the Conservatives would campaign hard and at least some percentage of the chattering classes will be dissatisfied that their preferred system wasn't chosen. In moments of deep cynicism I would not be surprised if the Liberals attached a referendum if proportional is selected to see that it fail.

Ultimately I hope 2015 is the last election with the first-past-the-post system. My preference is for a mixed-member proportional system, as they use in Germany. Given my opposition to FPTP I would even consider preferential as a more desirable option than the current model. If carried through this will be a major component of Trudeau's legacy, but it will be a very difficult task.

New versus Old in the Liberal Government

As the Canadian government transitions from the Harper to Trudeau leadership it may be useful to consider the changes Canada has experienced since the last time Liberals held power federally. While political parties are institutions that help preserve continuity the Liberal Party that has formed the government is very different from the one that last held power in 2006 under Paul Martin.

One of the strangest aspects of the Liberal win in October was the fact that their caucus contains such a huge group of rookies. From 36 to 184 seats in the House of Commons, even with some returning MPs, there will be a steep learning curve, and difficulty managing the green caucus. When selecting a cabinet Trudeau relied upon experienced former ministers such as Ralph Goodale, Lawrence MacAulay, Stephane Dion, and John McCallum to balance out new faces. Still, the Liberal Government is hardly a return of the one that was defeated, and the country it seeks to govern and the world it finds itself in has changed.

The political transformation over the last nine years have been dramatic. We saw the unification of the Conservative Party, which was table to construct a durable coalition to hold power, the separatists were obliterated/marginalized from federal politics, the NDP developed into a national force with a strong presence in Quebec, and the Green Party has gained a foothold in Parliament. Oddly, despite all the shake ups at the federal level continuity has been the name of the game in the provinces. Many of the provinces have seen premiers in power several terms, and successfully passed onto their successors. Notable exceptions, of course, include places such as Alberta. The new Liberal government must consider themselves in a two-front struggle more than any previous government in the preceding 20 years. The NDP represents a real challenge on the left and not the rump it was in the 1990s. However priorities have clearly changed as well. The Martin Liberals was a party who embraced balanced budgets and a tighter spending than what Trudeau has signaled, a definite shift.

Elsewhere on the domestic front Canada's economy has continued its evolution. The last nine years saw an economy buoyed by decent financial regulations and high resource prices. Canada's strength compared to G8 peers largely has to do with the fact that natural resources kept our economic growth going and Canadian housing increasingly became an attractive investment for international buyers. With China's economy flagging the demand for raw materials is plummeting. Prices for oil and other natural resources have declined, and with them the resource-dependent economy they brought. Canadian manufacturing continued is sad, steady erosion, and with it the provinces of Ontario and Quebec languished. Due to this changes Ontario seems far less willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the rest of the country, and is looking for tangible support from the federal government. This may become clearer given the importance Ontario played in the Trudeau majority. As a country we move forward to a potential demographic crisis as the Boomers prepare to retire. The looming economic and social problems associated with the graying of our population has not been adequately tackled or addressed by our leaders.

When reflecting on the past nine years economically the looming presence of the Great Recession is hard to avoid. So much of Canadian life has been marred by its shadow. Instead of stable periods of growth or contraction we seem doomed to this prolonged limbo of stagnation. As a member of the struggling Millennial generation it is particularly evident in the lack of opportunities for my peers and I. Barring some international recovery Trudeau will have to manage growing social expenses while revenues remain low. This problem is already evident in the provinces which carry a much larger proportion of social service expenses.

Perhaps most striking thing for Canada's new government is the changed international landscape from 2006. In the early 2000s it was easy to continue to hold the post-Cold War image of 'America as the only Superpower'. Developments since that time has again and again shown that America does not have the power and influence to act alone and impose its agenda unilaterally. It has been my opinion that the world has returned to an era of Great Powers, such as in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Two striking examples of this has been the rise of China and Russia's belligerence on the international stage. Russia remains a threat to world peace: the invasion of Georgia, pressure on the Baltic States, and the military interventions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. China likewise has become more aggressive in its sphere of influence and appears to be making investments in its military to ensure its dominance is harder to challenge. Meanwhile the past nine years has seen a crippling crisis slowly unfold in the European Union. Canada will have to navigate a more adversarial international scene and perhaps might have to find a faction to align its interests with besides the United States.

In 2003 PM Chretien's choice to keep Canada out of the War in Iraq felt fitting, but the position of non-intervention and peacekeeping-only seems more and more naive in a world where ISIS and like-minded revolutionary movements burn across the Middle East and North Africa. Add in the Syrian refugee crisis a refusal to engage in global affairs, with military force if necessary, seems irresponsible. When countries such as Belgium and Denmark are getting involved in these international crises it will be difficult to excuse Canada's absence from these conflicts. Likewise Canada may have to finally take military spending much more seriously to effectively participate in the global community.

In 2006 there were 32.6 million Canadians, today there are roughly 35.7 million. Much of that growth can be attributed to immigration. Many thousands of Canadians, increasingly from the "Global South" move to Canada every year. In time this has changed the character of our country, fueled growth of our cities, changed the nature of our classrooms, and streets and enriched our lives. At the same time, while broad multiculturalism is accepted by many Canadians there is a growing tension. During the recent election the niqab debate was a strong indication that our belief in diversity may be more surface level than we like to assume. If you recall the Marois Government in Quebec tried to introduce the Charter of Values, which would also have restricted clothes associated with minority groups. The place of minority cultures that challenge Euro-Canadian ones still remains up for debate.

It is not as though the Canada of 2015 and 2006 are unrecognizable from each other, but I think it is clear that the nine years that Stephen Harper was in power saw significant transformation of the country, and not all of it due to the social and economic policies of his government. The Liberals under Trudeau cannot simply pretend that returning back to the policies and practices of the 1990s will work in the current context. Perhaps Trudeau, like many new governments, will find oddly more to take from his predecessor than he first assumed. 

Benefits of a Long Campaign

At several points during the election campaign I thought, "Thank God we have eleven weeks," or "How could we have done this in six weeks?" As you may recall much of the conversation at the beginning of the campaign was about the fact that the 2015 federal election was the longest campaign in modern history and therefore the most expensive campaign that would greatly expand the spending limits. Despite the added costs and challenge I think it is hard to say that the public did not benefit from a longer campaign.

This was the first election that I worked very closely with a campaign. I have volunteered on a few campaigns, but this was a different level of immersion entirely. I believe that the higher voter turnout, up to nearly 69%, can be attributed in part to the longer campaign. One of the first things you learn in a campaign is that voter contact is key to turning out your vote. Campaigns had eleven weeks to reach out to voters, compared to the usual six weeks. Add in the fact that election advertising had much longer to reach a greater number of Canadians and the media had more time to inform voters about the campaign and the issues. Every once in a while I'd hear a story about a voter who didn't know that there was an election on.

The short campaign benefits the incumbents disproportionately. In an era before fixed election dates this was even more the case. Incumbents can quickly secure their nominations, usually unchallenged and go on with the rest of the campaign. Challengers have to be invited to compete in a nomination contest, sign up members, hold a meeting and then try to bring together the local party afterwards. This directly affected Brampton South, my riding. The NDP did not nominate a candidate until August 17th. We were working towards an August 30th meeting when the election was called. The reason for the delay is quite simple. There are rules governing how the nomination meeting has to be run, such as at least two weeks notice to party members before holding a meeting sent by mail. Not to mention candidates need to sign up new members and want more time.

The longer campaign also made it a better, more substantial campaign. The initial "gotcha" stuff got out of the way pretty early, which in a standard campaign would have dominated the early third. Several substantive issues came to the forefront during the campaign including the Duffy trial, the Syrian refugee crisis, niqab and civil liberties, and debts and deficits. Historically our elections often only revolve around an election or two, but in the last campaign there was enough time to present a number of competing visions for Canada. The longer campaign also allowed time for more debates and gave local organizers more opportunity to prepare for their own.

It is not all upside, of course. The longer campaign means a heavier burden on candidates and volunteers. One of the most troubling stories during the last election for me was that an NDP candidate in Saskatchewan has to resign as the candidate due to financial pressures. Being a core volunteer for 11+ weeks was certainly challenging for me. Remember that candidates often have to take a leave of absence from work and are living off debt or savings during a campaign, or a spouse's single income. A longer campaigns, if not considered carefully, will exclude less well off candidates from running.

Overall I think it's clear that the benefits outweigh the cost and that perhaps as a country we should move the minimum length of an election 50 days. Though if we do other related parts, such as funding , need to be re-examined.