The Ontario Election: History Repeats Itself

Meet the new election, same as the old election. As the results of the Ontario have been decided it is difficult to look over the results and not see a great deal of similarities between the 2018 provincial election and the 2011 federal one.

In both cases the Liberals were battered down to third place. The Tories secured approximately 40% of the vote and in the weakness of the Liberals the NDP filled the gap to become the Official Opposition after a breakthrough. The ultimate kicker - the leader of the Green Party managed to win her/his seat.

There are plenty of parallels to how the Progressive Conservatives won in Ontario to how their federal cousins did seven years prior. In fact, in 2011 Stephen Harper's Conservatives won 73 seats to Doug Ford's 76. Similarly, the Liberals were reduced to 11 seats federally and provincially it was 11.

I think we see a lot of alignment between these two elections because there simply is a lot of shared blood between the six parties. I am less clear on the Green Party, so I don't want to speak out of ignorance. Kathleen Wynne strongly supported Justin Trudeau in 2015, Jack Layton was a strong ally to Andrea Horwath and Jagmeet Singh did pitch in for the campaign this time around. An obvious move given that his brother now represents his old seat. The connections between the Tories are less obvious, but several Harper era Conservatives successfully ran for seats this time around.

Aside from the parallels in the outcomes and votes I think we can likely extrapolate how some of the politics over the next four years may look. Doug Ford is going to introduce a conservative agenda to the province for the first time in fifteen years. There is going to be substantial resistance from the progressive side and its allies. It will be the ONDP's job primarily to keep the PCs in check and hold them to public account. Ms. Horwath will be challenged to do it as well as Tom Mulcair did. For four years he made the case for why the Conservatives did not deserve re-election.

However, do not expect the 2022 election to be a mirror of 2015. Doug Ford will have only completed his first term and the public is more like than not to give him a second, just out of tradition and habit. More likely it'll be a battle for the opposition parties to assert themselves and reduce the PC majority, if possible, and for Mike Schreiner to prove his worth as the sole Green MPP.

On a final note, I predicted 111 of the 124 provincial ridings correctly. In terms of overall numbers I did better, but I figured I'd fess up and say that I was off. I underestimated the NDP breakthrough in Toronto, and which seats the Liberals would manage to hold, and underestimated the PCs in a few spots. Oh well, still not bad for an amateur. I did call all five of my local ridings correctly though, so that's a bonus.

2018 was a hell of a provincial election and will no doubt make for exciting politics in Ontario for the years to come. Keep watching, there's plenty more to come.

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.

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.

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.

Dismissing the Watchman: The Fair Elections Act

Earlier this month the Conservative government under Stephen Harper (CPC – Calgary Southwest, AB) introduced a piece of legislation called the Fair Elections Act. The Orwellian-named piece of legislation has already moved passed second reading and is now being worked on in committee. It is more than passing reasonable that this bill will become law before the month is out and change the way elections are run in this country.

Having had a week the media has begun to sift out some of the issues in the legislation, or perhaps the problems. If you ask the Minister of Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre (CPC – Napean-Carlton, ON) he’ll tell you the law is designed to combat election fraud. This should be pointed out for what it is, a red herring bearing little resemblance to the truth, like tightening laws on private citizens' use of the internet and calling it a bill to combat pedophiles. Election fraud is not a major problem in this country, at least not because the wrong people are voting.

What election fraud that occurred in the last federal election seems to have been perpetrated by political parties who lied, overspent, mismanaged, misdirected and cheated voters. Elections Canada has been painstakingly trying to reconstruct what happened over the last few elections and has only become to bring some to some kind of justice. But Elections Canada was not only toothless in its punishments, but in its abilities to investigate. The new legislation actually weakens Elections Canada and moves the power to investigate away from that body.

Other bizarre changes will make it so Elections Canada will merely oversee elections, and not even advertise civic engagement to Canadians. Laws will be tightened to make it harder for the poor, the transient, students and seniors to vote. The Conservatives, like their Republican cousins in America, are introducing voter identification laws. In America these are seen as code to exclude minority and lower-income voters, who skew for the Democrats.

Election fundraising laws will be relaxed, including some bizarre provisions that will allow parties to write-off money used to raise money from existing donors. While experts I read seem unsure what this means, it could mean that if a party throws a gala dinner to fundraise the entire expense does not have to be claimed. This is an idea rife for abuse. The individual donation limit will be raised which at the current time is a benefit to the Conservative Party.

Leading journalists across Canada have concluded that something untoward happened in the last federal election, which has led some to doubt the legitimacy of the Harper government. I have never been part of that camp, but there were many who appear to have been playing fast and loose with election laws, such as the former Labrador MP and Dean Del Mastro (CPC – Peterborough, ON). Instead of improving our election laws this bill seems poised to make abuse easier and consequences less likely. It causes me great anxiety, and like many things in this country it will pass unnoticed and the risk not fully realized until after 2015.

Below are some pieces on this topic:

Andrew Coyne

John Ivison

Ottawa Citizen  

Justin Ling

Amateur Politics, Penashue and Canadian Democracy

Over the weekend Evan Solomon of CBC’s radio program The House interviewed Reg Bowers, link. The vast majority of Canadians have never heard of Reg Bowers, and until very recently for good reason. Mr. Bowers is a 68-year-old businessman from Labrador who has played a role in local Conservative politics in Newfoundland and Labrador for decades as a member of his riding association. In the 2011 election he was the campaign manager and agent to Conservative candidate Peter Penashue (CPC – Labrador, NL). Penashue narrowly won the election with 79 votes over the Liberal candidate. Being the only Conservative MP from Newfoundland he found himself in cabinet as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Labrador MP’s tenure has been marred by questions about his election. As revealed in the CBC interview and covered extensively by the media Penashue and his campaign accepted tens of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions. He also had sweetheart deals with a local airline which allowed him to visit remote communities and stir up those 80 critical votes.

After months of investigation Penashue announced last week that he had resigned from cabinet and as a MP and seek validation by running in a by-election. The former-minister and Conservative Party blamed the errors on Reg Bowers calling him an “inexperienced volunteer”. Interestingly Bowers was later appointed to an important board position in relation to Newfoundland’s energy sector by the Harper government. Either Bowers is an unfortunate man in over his head and the government appointed a complete neophyte or crony to an important board or, a capable man who ran a campaign broke the Elections Act and was rewarded for his service and skills as a businessman (and political ties) for a plum appointment.

The Conservative Labrador campaign appears to have been rife with law-breaking errors. One must applaud Penashue for at least standing up to his criticism and facing the will of his constituents. The interview with Mr. Bowers raised some interesting questions in my mind. The attack on Bowers, that he was an inexperienced volunteer, simply did not fit with what I was hearing. While his experience in politics was limited he understood he definitely articulated Canada’s election laws well, even if he didn’t follow them. In fact, in the interview he discusses how more suspect money likely slipped through the cracks.

Politics in Canada is a very strange beast. I think shows like The West Wing or more recently Netflix’s House of Cards gives the impression that everyone involved in politics is well-connected, rich, brilliant, cynical, cunning, and savvy. This definitely describes an element of those political activists, but only a minority. Across the country and province political parties are run by volunteers. The head offices of the political parties have very small staffs and the vast majority of the work of politics is done on a volunteer basis.

From my observations the work of politics in this country is carried out by a small group of partisans, idealists, political junkies, and community-minded individuals. They volunteer their time and money to help try to build their parties, but I assume most on non-election, non-leadership race years are not too involved. There are other more activist types who travel to the conventions and sit on the local executives, but that is a small group. There are hundreds of New Democrats in my riding, but only a dozen or so ever attend a monthly meeting. These are sometimes derided as “the usual suspects” who come to every community event and every fundraiser, but they are critical to the function of our democracy, believe it or not.

While political parties do the best they can to train and help candidates and campaign managers (also normally volunteers) they can only go so far. Canada is not the United States and we do not know when our next election will be. Trying to get ready for the unknown next provincial election has many riding associations in Ontario tied in knots. There is no time, and perhaps no resources, for extensive training and support.

Politics does not need, and should not be, professionalized, but more training and support is definitely required. In my work with Samara, and reading their blog posts one of the important themes is that political parties should be conduits for our democracy. By training activists to better be able to reach out to their communities, encourage participation and help candidates put their best foot forward the public and politics in generally could only benefit.

Can Mulcair become Prime Minister?

It’s spring 2015. After weeks of rumours Prime Minister Stephen Harper (CPC – Calgary-Southwest, AB) calls a federal election after passing his tenth budget. The Conservative government has a slight lead in the polls, and the budget was packed full of goodies to campaign on. The Liberals and New Democrats viciously attack the budget for being a crash political exercise to grab votes. The mainstream media agrees, but also states that it was good politics.

The election is incredibly contentious as the NDP and Conservatives spend the whole election in a virtual tie and a great number of Canadians sit on the sidelines, undecided. On the night of the election pundits are deeply uncertain of the results and predictions range from majority to minority for the two leading parties. And then the votes were counted...

And? Then what happened?

In three years when this scenario plays out it will be tough to know the outcome, especially since who knows what will happen in international, or national events, or the public opinion of the Canadian people. However, there are some structural challenges that face all of the political parties that deserve some note. Watching the polls many New Democrats have been dreaming that their time will come in 2015 and usher in their first government after the Canadian people have gotten tired of nearly ten years of Harper rule. When I read the polls and consider the electoral map I wonder if the NDP are confronting a ceiling that will block them from achieving power.

When the next election will be called there will be 338 ridings across Canada (up from the current 308). The thirty seats being added fall in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. The new ridings are largely needed to deal with the swelling suburban populations in the first three provinces. Suburban ridings have been typically out of the reach of New Democrats.

To win a majority government the NDP will need to win 170 seats for the barest of majorities. The party currently holds 101, though won 103 in the 2011 federal election. Where can these 70 seats come from?

The East?

Atlantic Canada is pretty friendly territory for the NDP. With a government in Nova Scotia and seats in every province except for PEI they are well positioned for future growth... sort of. New Brunswick is a more conservative province thanone might initially assume. The urban ridings such as Saint John and Fredericton are ringed by suburban and rural areas that are friendly to Conservative candidates. Even in areas where the left does well the Liberals and NDP tend to split the vote allowing Conservatives to win. In the best case scenario the NDP might win two more seats in New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia prospects are about the same. The NDP were successful in Nova Scotia in the last election winning 3 of 11 seats. If there’s an orange tide in Nova Scotia Halifax West and South Shore-St. Margaret’s could flip to the NDP.

As I said, I think PEI is out of reach. In a good circumstance they might snag Charlottetown, so there’s one more. Newfoundland probably offers the most growth for the NDP, in my opinion. Within the last week a poll came out showing the Newfoundland NDP leading in the provincial polls. It’s possible the NDP could see growth on the island in the next election. The province traditionally is Liberal-friendly though. The NDP may be able to pick up the two ridings of Long Range Mountains and Bay D’Espoir Central-Notre Damein western-central Newfoundland along with their St. John’s seats.

So, for the East, that’s 7. Only 63 more to find.

Quebec?

The NDP has a ceiling of support in Quebec of about 45%. As far as I can remember they have never breached that. That is a very respectable number, and a real domination over a province of that size. In the last election 59 MPs came out of Quebec for the NDP. If the NDP are poised to form government they are probably going to be flying high in Quebec. 65 is probably a reasonable ceiling for a number of seats out of the 78. Certain regions of Quebec favour other parties so a clean sweep will be very challenging.

Looking at the last election results I can see five seats that could topple to the NDP in the next vote. But remember those rookie NDP MPs are vulnerable themselves.  

So, there’s 7 more seats bringing us to 14.

British Columbia?

BC received six new seats, and brings it to 42. Despite BCs reputation in Canada as being a somewhat of a lefty paradise it has very Conservative parts of the province.

Vancouver Island will be getting an additional seat, but many of the ridings on theisland will be competitive between the NDP and Conservatives. The NDP have a chance to sweep the island if they are doing well, or lose the whole thing (except for probably Victoria) if things are sliding. So, let’s give the party the three seats on Vancouver Island they need.

According to Earl Washburn at Canadian Elections Atlas, with Vancouver’s new seat there will be a good chance for the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats to win two seats a piece. The rest of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland is tough going for the NDP. So, one more for the NDP.

In the rest of BC there was only one other seat close for the New Dems, that brings the possible added total to 5 and our overall total to 19.

Alberta?

Yeah, I know. While the NDP looks for new seats in Alberta I’ll begin my search for air on the Moon. But, the NDP already have a seat in Edmonton, Edmonton-Strathcona. In the most recent provincial election the Alberta NDP elected four MLAs. Mr. Washburn’s analysis suggests that the NDP will becompetitive in one new seat. 

That brings us to 20. 50 to go.

The Prairies?

Aside from Elmwood-Transcona, it appears the NDP have won all the reachable seats in Manitoba. Saskatchewan offers a lot more possibilities. The NDP in the last election won nearly a third of the votes and zero seats. New Democrats have stated that if the boundaries of the ridings were different there would be several MPs from the province. With the ridings are as they are (their new boundaries have not been released), the NDP could win 2, maybe 3 seats.

4 more from the Prairies.

The North?

The North is small and tends to favour incumbents. I don’t imagine that they will switch parties unless something pushes that region one way or the other.

Ontario?

Here’s the big question. With fifteen new ridings coming to Ontario and no map of where they might be going, it is difficult to make any sort of prediction at all. The ridings in Brampton, Mississauga, and York region are guaranteed to be split to make new ones. Toronto will see growth, and rearrangement as well. Most of Ontario’s growth has been in the suburbs around the GTA, which is a traditional Liberal-Conservative battleground. The Conservatives have unquestionably won the battleground for the moment.

The NDP elected its first MPP in Peel in the last provincial election, and in both the federal and provincial elections in 2011 won seats previously out of reach. Still, 21 and 17 seats out of the over 100 seats in Ontario is not enough. From the last election results I can imagine four Ontario seats falling to the NDP without too much trouble.

From my estimates that is 28 seats, well short of the 170 needed, and probably not enough to form a minority government unless the Liberals revive and form a coalition with the NDP.

The problem for the NDP and the biggest hurdle to overcome is Ontario. Most of the province’s ridings are competitive between Liberals and Conservatives, but the NDP have very little tradition outside of Toronto, Hamilton, union towns and the North, especially on the federal level.

Today’s story is about the possibility of a by-election in Etobicoke Centre. In that race the NDP will probably not be a factor. During the Orange Wave the NDP didn’t break 15%. While seat is slightly more conservative, this is the sort of seat the NDP will have to find a way to be competitive in. If the party wants to form government it must win seats across the GTA in small cities and in the suburbs.

The NDP cannot rely upon stealing from the Liberals either. If the NDP wins every Liberal seat in Ontario (and elsewhere) we would still have a majority Conservative government. The New Democrats have to defeat Conservative MPs if they hope to name Thomas Mulcair (NDP – Outremont, QC) prime minister.

The NDP faces structural problems. They need to develop candidates and campaigns that can win in the suburbs, like Jagmeet Singh, or rural areas, to get the other 70 seats they need.

There is some hope though New Democrats. Given the peculiarities of First-Past-the-Post a small shift in the popular vote could mean dozens of unexpected seats going orange. The Quebec Orange Wave tells us just how uncertain politics is, and predictions that are sound can turn to dust on an election night. Lately the federal NDP have been polling a few points ahead ofthe Conservatives, in the mid-to-high 30s. Still, the road to power for the NDP could be a very difficult one. A breakthrough needn’t happen overnight, as Mr. Harper has shown us.

If you have any comments about this analysis, please feel free to share. I hope you like the new aesthetic changes I have made to the blog as well.

Provinces, Take Your Seats

One of the key priorities of the Harper Majority government is to prepare for the next election. While I’m confident that’s true in the partisan meaning, I meant in the non-partisan governmental way. Every ten years the government of Canada examines the results of that years census, in this case 2011, and reapportions the number of seats per province. The Harper government is planning to address imbalances that have developed since 2001 by adding about 30 new seats to the fastest growing provinces in Canada – Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

If you read the link above you’ll soon find that the process of allocating seats is incredibly complicated. Perhaps needlessly complicated, as are many things in Canadian politics. But before we return to that I want to discuss how I would allocate seats in a perfect world.

First, there may be a real need to increase the number of MPs, not substantially, but slightly. We are a massive country and the ability for citizens to gain access to their members of parliament is critical for our democracy to function as it is intended. But how many seats? Well, a reasonable riding would probably have about 100,000 (+/- 15%) people in it. Remember that a significant portion of this population will likely be under 18, so non-voters, so it still won’t be too difficult to campaign. This is roughly the size of districts now. How many MPs do we need to pull this off? According to an estimate Canada has about 34.5 million people, so the simple math says we would need 345 MPs. That’s an increase of 37 seats, or about 10%, more dramatic than what I initially thought.

Regardless, the break down in the next parliament would look like this:

Province	Seats in 41st Parliament	Seats in 42nd (Future) Parliament
Newfoundland and Labrador	7	5 (-2)
Prince Edward Island	4	2 (-2)
Nova Scotia	11	9 (-2)
New Brunswick	10	7 (-3)
Quebec	75	78 (+3)
Ontario	106	132 (+26)
Manitoba	14	12 (-2)
Saskatchewan	14	10 (-4)
Alberta	28	37 (+9)
British Columbia	36	45 (+9)
Nunavut	1	1 (-)
Northwest Territories	1	1 (-)
Yukon	1	1 (-)
Canada	308	341

I came up with these numbers by taking the provincial population numbers and dividing by 100,000. Even with the dramatic increase in seats many provinces see a decline. Why? A number of provinces are dramatically inflated. The most dramatic example is Prince Edward Island. PEI has a population of about 140,000, I was generous and gave them two seats, but after the review they will still have four. The reason is because in 1915 a law was passed that a province shall not have fewer seats than it has Senators.

There are more problems though. Quebec feels it is entitled to compose 25% of the House of Commons, regardless of its population! The concept of representation by population has been part of Westminster Parliamentary Democracy since 1832, yet we have structural blockages in our tradition. Even if the government adds the much needed seats to BC, Alberta and Ontario there will still be significant imbalance.

Playing politics with this is dangerous to say the least. Each citizen’s vote needs to be equal to another by inflating the seat counts of smaller provinces you hurt voters in the big provinces. Let’s hope we see democracy triumph over small-minded interests.

Pro-Minority Majority

There is a recent article in the Globe and Mail that despite Stephen Harper’s success and advertising campaign very few Canadians are comfortable giving him and his party a majority government. Only 26% of Canadians according to this poll are comfortable with the idea of Harper winning a majority government in the next election, 30% are extremely unhappy with the idea.

People are obviously welcome to whatever opinion they desire, but I would like to comment on this feeling. I cannot help but think that Canadians are hesitant to give any party a majority government. Given the constitutional power invested in the Parliament, which has accrued to the Prime Minister, we elect a virtual dictator when we put a majority government in office. Majority governments are dramatically less accountable and cannot be as easily held to public pressure.

While minority governments may be “unstable”, majorities suffer from far too much stability. The fate of the government is in the hands of one leader, not the people’s. I wonder if similar percentages would exist (or be higher) for Michael Ignatieff, or Jack Layton? Maybe Canadians are tired of majorities.

It’s unlikely that Canadians are intellectually thinking that majorities are less accountable, but they probably like the idea of the power of the government constantly being confounded by the Opposition. I know I do anyway, at least until we can make Canada a more democratic country.

Five Years with Stephen

On January 23 it was the fifth anniversary of the election of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. I had not originally planned to make any special note of Prime Minister Harper’s half-decade as the leader of the government, but then I saw a commercial on television that changed my mind.

Over the last few weeks the Conservative Party of Canada has released a number of political attack ads targeting leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff. Harper also recently concluded an interview with Peter Mansbridge, and then came this ad:

I’m all for speculating for how elections will turn out, I’m less interested in when they will be called. That being said, it looks like this spring might be another election season, and since I’m in the business of predicting elections, this might be Stephen Harper’s best shot at a majority in a long time.

I should first make something abundantly clear, despite having “Tory” as the second part of my blog’s name I am not a member of the Conservative Party and I am not a partisan for them. In fact, I’ve only ever been a member of the NDP. That being said, I believe Harper is making a highly measured and effective pitch to “middle Canada.” Harper has cultivated a certain hockey dad mystique about him, I don’t know if it’s all an act, he does like hockey and he is a dad. Harper has increasingly put himself in a position where a large number of Canadians would likely nod along with him.

During his interview with Peter Mansbridge, viewable here, Mansbridge asked Harper if he intended to bring the death penalty back to Canada. Harper said that no, he didn’t have any plans to bring it back, but (and here’s where he gets a whole lot of Canadians nodding) there are times when he thinks it may be appropriate, and thought it could be used in extraordinary circumstances. The next day Ignatieff and the Liberals took the bait, they jumped on it criticizing Harper for a secret agenda. I frankly view this as a mistake. For the Conservatives to make their opponents look foolish next election all they have to do is say, “We don’t plan to bring back the death penalty, we just sometimes this, like many Canadians, that it should be used on our most vile criminals.” And there you have it.

Probably hundreds of times in my life I’ve heard people’s reactions to crime news items and muttered how a person should be put to death if they get caught, if not worse. The rapists, pedophiles, and those who break all the social norms. It’s the type of argument that would work on the vast majority of the suburban family types I know and grew up with, those that don’t think the death penalty should come back, but believe that perhaps there are those who deserve death for what they’ve done.

The second think I’d like to point out is that ad that I started the blog with, that I embedded above (I just learned how to do that!). The ad is cheesy, like all Canadian political ads, but there are two features I want to point out. The first, because I think it’s funny, is that if you go to the 38 second mark and watch you’ll see the Prime Minister drinking from a coffee cup. Pause at 39 seconds. It’s a Beetles coffee mug, the subtle reminder that our P.M. has shown a sense of humour lately and some musical talent. The second thing, is that from the narration, to the imagery and the messaging, the commercial reminds me of an accounting ad. That’s what Harper is selling Canada, he’s a competent, effective manager, and you should trust him to manage your biggest investment, your country.

I’m not a Harper fan, though I do respect our Prime Minister. I see the politics here, like using E.I. benefits that opposition forced into the budget to run on yourself, but I also see a good appeal to voters. Five years under Harper has not been that bad, and in general he has been a pretty good P.M., not perfect, but good. I have my complaints, and I don’t know if I ever want to see a Harper majority, but with moves like these we may see one within the next 12 months.

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

For Americans, their political system is set on a very specific clock. Without an intense overhaul of their political system anyone can tell you the date of every major election they will have between now and.... well forever I suppose. Whether the American Republic will last forever is a different discussion altogether (though the answer is no).

The reason the Americans can tell you when their elections will be is because they have set election dates. On the first Tuesday after November 1st elections are held. If you ask when the next federal election will be to a Canadian, at best, he or she could give an educated guess. Or worse, a wild stab in the dark. I follow Canadian politics closely and I have no idea. So-called experts can only hazard a guess. Right now the person who is in the most control of the date of the next Canadian election is the Prime Minister himself, Stephen Harper, and I bet he does not even know when the next election will occur. Unless he’s scheming.

Canada, for the most part does not have fixed election dates. Most parliaments in Canada are only allowed to sit for a maximum of five years, unless there is a major crisis – such as war, which can extend it. Parliaments can fall at any time. A simple motion of no-confidence sponsored by the opposition or the government would lead to an election following dissolution.

Four jurisdictions in Canada have fixed, or semi-fixed election dates: British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories chose to fix elections because holding elections in the winter in such a jurisdiction was less than pleasant.

In Canada municipalities also have fixed election dates. Elections, for the most part, are held every four years at roughly the same time.

What made me write this was something I noticed about American media coverage following the 2010 Midterms. Within hours of the outcome becoming clear the pundits and newscasters began to postulate on 2012. That, generally speaking, does not happen in Canada. When an election finishes in Canada, or even Britain, there is about a week worth of analysis, maybe more if it was a close election. Then the media usually starts focusing on the “What next?” story.

Questions circulate over how the new Premier/Prime Minister will govern, who he or she will bring into Cabinet, if there will be a coalition and what policies will come forward. Then, because we just finished an election, we are generally spared election talk for about 6 months. Then periodic crises (if it is a minority parliament) draw our attention to the possibility of an election. Elections come and go, and after about 8 weeks it’s all over. Between these periods is, generally, governing. On the other hand with two years until the 2012 elections the American political machine is gearing up. Governing will take a backseat to partisanship for the next two years. I’ll take political jockeying over elections over non-stop politics any day.

Defining Qualities: Jihad, Elections and Obamanomics

There are a variety of things I'd like to discuss today and so I shall do my best to cover them all in a brief, and concise manner.

I am fresh from a seminar, what the particular seminar about is not really important, because what we talked about could crop up in almost a dozen different disciplines. The subject had to do with a particular historical group of Muslims and their attempt to overthrow a despotic regime and replace it with one more in line with the peoples needs. The regime would not go down without a fight so they declared a jihad and began a protracted military campaign against the ruler.

The opening question of the seminar was really quite simple, "What does jihad mean?" The answer around the room was a fairly uniform "Holy War" answer. That assumption is utterly incorrect, yet the T.A. did not step in and correct them, and I thought it would be in bad form to tell seven of my colleagues that they were clearly wrong. Jihad means literally to strive or to struggle. Muslims adhere to several interpretations of what jihad is and it is expected that a Muslim goes through such a period. The most critical jihad, the founder of the religion said, was the one between you and your faith. Yes, there is a component of war, but there is also one of fighting injustice, and also the personal struggle to do the right thing.

Sigh. I just expect more from my colleagues.

On the Canadian election results I can say quite honestly that I am satisfied with the results though I wish certain things turned out differently. I wanted a stronger NDP presence in the House, and weaker Liberal, Bloc and Conservative one. The outcome is truly unknown right now. The question is how will the House of Commons operate when it returns. Also, who will staff the cabinet. Did Harper receive enough solid candidates to make a stronger cabinet, or is it him, a handful of others and another bunch of suits?

Also, will the historically low turn out push the parties in to finally enacting much needed election reform in this country, as advocated in an earlier posting on this blog. What an utter waste of time First-Past-The-Post is. With such a system you might as well just have two parties, or just anoint a benevolent dictator.

The final thing that occurred to me to write about is that a few days ago I was watching TV and I saw the speech Obama gave on the economy, and his solution to the economic crisis. I've since read the reports of what he said in the debate but I'm not sure I can agree to everything he said, but the main tenents of his economic policy is pretty much what I would do in his shoes. The technology investment fund, investment in clean energy industry (not subsidies, investments), and the best part - Infrastructure investment.

The improvement of roads, rails and whatever else is critical to the success of any economy. According to many America's infrastructure has been slowly crumbling for decades (see the bridge collapse in Minnesota as proof). A broad spectrum investment program will put lots of people to work, and if the right areas are targeted it will jump start the economy.

That being said I oppose Obama's tax increase on those making over $250,000 - at first I thought it was reasonable, but the more reading I do about it the more I realize that small businesses are critical to economic growth and recovery. Also his tax plan relating to small businesses and thought to prevent outsourcing seems like whistling in the dark to me.

His speech made me much more comfortable that I have been about an Obama presidency before now. It's not the best economic strategy in the world, but it's alright, definitely satisfactory a B- plan. Still, if I was an Ohio voter instead of an Ontario observer I don't know who I'd vote for, though I have a great deal of respect for McCain and divided government.

We can only hope for the best and try to make the decisions that work best for us and our communities economically at this point. It should be an interesting next few weeks, months and years.