Collaborative Leadership and Proportional Representation

It seems to me that people are sick of Canada's government as it stands today, and not just because of the Conservative Party of Canada.  While there has been more unrest  about the government than there has been since the Conservatives took power.  While people acknowledge the Conservatives are governing horribly in almost every measure imaginable, the other major 2 parties aren't trusted either, for legitimate reasons (previous scandals, lack of experience).  Still there is little talk of changing the underlying system of government we currently use.  Alternatives have existed with successful present day examples of governing democratically, without any one party having total control.  I suppose there are still a lot of big unanswered questions when it comes to proportional representation as a legitimate form of government.  Questions like, why do coalitions have a bad reputation in Canada?  Why are majority governments seen as a good thing?  What would collaborative leadership look like?

Proportional representation is an extension of the parliamentary government system originating in Britain in 1707 which is used by many countries today, particularly those of the British commonwealth.  In this government system MPs are elected in proportion to the percentage of votes that a political party receives, resulting in several political parties working together to form a government, because no party can form a majority on their own, and encourages many small instead of consolidated to big parties that don't really know where they stand on most issues.  The government lasts until the next election or until the parties can no longer work together and the government collapses.  At this point a new coalition must be formed or a new election commences.   This makes for better, balanced laws because no one party can ram through legislation without serious debate and revisions, so people must reach consensus, more closely matching what the countries' citizens actually want and expect from their government. 

In fact, the vast majority of countries that use the British parliament system actually now use coalition governments, including the majority of European and Asian countries, many more than use the winner-take-all dominant party system that is in use by Canada and the U.S.  And in fact in Canada a coalition was actually used back in 1864, so it's not like Canada has never employed this system before.  It is strange though that now in the collective thought, coalition is seen by many as bad.

The main criticism of coalition is that the government seems self destructive and ineffective, unable to carry out their responsibilities of passing legislation and keeping the country functioning.  But we know from our own experience that our supposed "sound, stable majority" has done nothing in the past year but ram through an omnibus bill that no sane person would normally have passed without debate and revision.  Not only has the Canadian Conservative government shut down democratic dialogue by using their heavy handed majority to ram through legislation, but since they have been accused of wrongdoing and scandal, they have blocked and prevented efforts to answer questions about what was really going on regarding the scandal, and they are shutting out the media and other political parties, even to the point of proroguing parliament 3 different times since they have been in power.  There are also many things the government has done that most people are not even aware of, such as the 2013 FIPA agreement, containing guarantees that Chinese buyers would have the legal right to sue Canada in private settlement of inhibition to its activities by that government (including provincial or municipal for whom the federal government would be liable).  Does that seem like a more effective government to you?  The main obstacle is the parties need to learn to work together, but is that a bad thing?

Although I don't know the answer for certain, it seems like many Canadians are opposed to a coalition government because they don't want to think about and deal with government and politics as little as possible, and keep it out of their day to day life.   With coalitions they would expect things to be more uncertain, and politics would be more in your face.  This is the only reason I can think of, other than that Conservative ads may have just beaten their opinion in to the collective consciousness of Canadians. 

What we should want from our government, any government, is that they follow through with promises they make during the election, to research, discuss, debate critical issues and current events to improve the functioning of our country.  We obviously want our governments to be transparent and accountable, and what better to hold people to account than the other parties who at least share in more power, when their hands are not tied and they are able to access the resources they need to answer questions and solve problems as they arise such as the senate scandal.  Imagine how differently that would have played out if all three political parties took a share in power and were able to properly conduct inquiries and come to a consensus on what the problem is and how best to approach and solve those problems.  Shutting down parliament solves no problems only kicks the can down the road when the issue has then snowballed further.  The senate scandal would not have got to the point where people are writing cheques to cover incorrect expenses, because the audit would be conducted sooner and senators held to public scrutiny sooner.  The problem with majority governments is that it only serves one group - the political party that holds the power.  We need to move power away from parties, because they do not truly represent the will of Canadians, just one aspect of it, and twists away from doing the will of Canadians to serving their own interests.  Political majorities do not work effectively because the government essentially becomes the political party ideology, and no one persons beliefs are completely in line 100% with a political parties ideology.  Only by having the parties hold each other in check and to account can you be sure that what they are doing is on the level and serves the public benefit.

Coalition government falls under the greater umbrella of an emerging management concept in business - collaborative leadership.  For example, Valve software has no management hierarchy, and what does that do?  It decentralizes power, encourages creative thought so people are more likely to experiment.  The ultimate form of collaborative leadership is to the point where power has been distributed to voter participation.  With massive amounts of technological power already being in the hands of the average person in smartphones and computing, the next logical step is to increase voter participation.  With an established, secure system of ensuring one vote per registered citizen, online referenda where people can at least voice their opinion to MPs and at most actually vote on issues, similar to Swiss voting system of direct democracy.  Done via smart phone and streamlined to accommodate constant verified voting on all issues, the current technology can minimize costs and our billion dollar spy agency can provide counter intelligence to prevent hacking, and include CSIS involvement in doing something actually useful.

In 2011 CPC was found in contempt of parliament, and the government fell, but were then re elected to a majority government.  Why did this happen?  This is an important question and needs to be addressed first before we can begin to mend 

Canada: The Political Situation 2013

It seems to be a problem that the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) does not live up to their own ideology.  In this essay I want to go through their party platform and beliefs of the CPC and see how and what they have been doing since they took office in 2006, to see how their actions compare to the words and rhetoric.

According to Wikipedia, it is very difficult to nail down the beliefs the CPC holds.  For starters, they want to more closely match US foreign policy - sort of - except we know when the US intervened in Syria and Libya, Canada allied with the Americans only as cheerleaders - didn't actually do much of anything.  They foster strong ties to China and are aggressively pursuing trade agreements with Europe and other countries around the world.  Although the actual benefits of these trade agreements and why they benefit Canada are not talked about specifically, we are told repeatedly that it is good for Canada's economy and we will benefit more as a result in some way.

The Conservatives also mention in their platform that they are in favour of abolishing the Senate, but in actuality they advised to appoint Michael Fortier to the Senate in 2006, and filled all 18 seats that were vacant in 2008.  Every Canadian with a television, radio or internet connection knows how that is working out for them at the moment.  Still in the midst of the Senate Scandal, they are refusing to call an inquiry, declining options to have people connected to the scandal testify, and generally trying to act like it is all going to go away on its own, when their own rise to power happened as a result of the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal in the early 2000's. That idea of SCANDAL, how to deal with one and how to avoid one, should have been the first lesson they had learned before taking power, yes?  Nigel Wright, one of the 4 people whom the conservatives condemned as the ONLY people involved in the scandal, even he has not testified .  In fact, I could not come up with much of anything he has said or done since writing the $90,000 cheque of his own money.  Apparently he is a shrewd, intelligent, rich guy who actually recruited Steve Harper when the current party was being formed.  Harper conversely promoted Nigel to the party Chief of Staff after winning party leadership.  This guy is not an idiot, and he is very well connected by his past to the current Prime Minister.  The fact that he is not saying anything speaks volumes to me: this guy wants to avoid the limelight at all costs, so he can do whatever it is he does innocuously in the background.  It is very difficult to pin his activities down, but he doesn't seem to concerned about having his name dragged through the mud in this case.  Obviously there is still quite a bit going on, and he seems very capable of avoiding any sort of news reports.

Next I want to mention one huge campaign promise the CPC had was at the time of the Sponsorship scandal and wanted to implement measures to hold government to account, including the parliamentary budget office.  Instead of the PBO being an aggressive watchdog, nipping at the heels of government and keeping things in line it seems like some sort of sad pathetic inbred toothless cur, with a failing liver and weak ankles and probably also crossed eyes.

Another big campaign promise conservatives like to toot their little tug boats about is lower taxes.  As it turns out, the government decided to tax income trusts in fall of 2006, effectively breaking one of their election promises.  The government did lower taxes federally, but announced that the growth of future health and social transfers to the provinces are tied to economic growth.  This forces the provinces to raise their own taxes via methods such as the HST, and doesn't really solve any of the problems associated with lowering taxes.

Conservatives like to use the phrase stewards of the economy - this branding seems pretty effective because anybody I talk to who admits to voting conservative seems to think that they are fiscally confident and wise managers of wealth.  They also think that any other political party will destroy Canada's economy, but there is no actual basis to think that way.  I can say that Auditor General Michael Ferguson was unable to find 3.1 billion dollars in antiterrorism spending between 2001 and 2009.  THEY LOST 3.1 BILLION DOLLARS.  The conservatives can also take full ownership of the fact that they misrepresented the costs of the f-35 jets, which as it turns out would end up costing $25 billion plus maintenance.

On another topic conservatives can be heard bleating about is making a smaller government - Since in power Harper has actually increased the size of cabinet to 39 ministers.  Combine that will expansions of the senate, the addition of the PBO, and the bloating of the deficit by funding government stimulus, the government has only gotten larger during their period in office.

I cannot argue the Conservatives have perused related to their platform is the promotion of traditional religious and cultural values .  Harper has firmly taken the "progressive" out of conservative, by making a huge stink about the royal wedding, queen's jubilee, re-re-naming the Royal Canadian Air Force and Navy...because we want to go back to remind ourselves we are a British colony?  Exporting our resources on behalf of a country whose only gifts to the world are banks, stock exchanges and pharmaceuticals.  Canada is now choosing to define itself by the past in a way that is probably not at all flattering to First Nations, some of whom are getting a flashback of colonial times in the process of protesting shale gas exploration on the East Coast.  By and large many Canadians seem to be enjoying this retro-ification of Canada's culture, possibly because it is the only few things that really are associated with Canada.  They certainly can't tout environmentalism or peacemaker stereotypes that previously defined Canada (although I'm not sure exactly when this was - maybe in the 70's and early 80's?).  It would be interesting to talk to young Canadians to see how they define themselves within the context of their country's culture, because that is a mighty big black box to me.

One 'victory' conservatives like to talk about is their fulfilment to reduce gun controls and scrap the long gun registry.  This one will not be put to rest easily, in part because Quebec and the CPC don't quite get along, but also within the historical context of the Polytechnique shooting in December 1989.  That province is still fighting the gun registry abolishment in court, and trying to hang on to the records that they have already collected.  While the issue seems to have passed in the rest of Canada, Quebec seems willing to fight tooth and nail to hang on to these records in any way or court possible, and if they can establish even a small foothold in keeping those records the Conservatives will find it very hard to shake it by 2015.

Another campaign promise Harper has done with his whole heart is in the promotion of the energy and gas sectors.  When I found out the Canadian government  was spying on Brazil and reporting the information to oil companies, it became very evident to me who Stephen Harper's bosses are.  Wouldn't a genuine conservative want to "conserve" their environmental resources and protect it from outside influence, rather than selling them off and destroying our other resources in the process?

On the promise of enhancing crime and law enforcement,  the senate scandal has made one thing clear: the CPC are doing everything in their power to hinder justice and obscure the truth - criminals in this case are given a blind eye, and they don't see anything wrong with that, no need to call an inquiry, no need for people involved to testify and find out what is actually going on.  Of course conservatives will push for higher sentences for blue collar crimes such as drug possession, shoplifting and vandalism, while the less visible but much more costly white collar crimes such as industrial espionage, environmental regulations, manipulations of the stock market, property and construction, tax evasion, and crimes by politicians have got no such attention, no new bills passed, no tightening of loopholes to bring the rich and powerful to the conservative party perception of justice.  Those super-prisons they were bragging about starting in 2009 will not be housing Rob Ford or other powerful individuals or corporate decision makers who profited in the 2008 market collapse and job destruction.  Instead they will hold petty thieves, small time drug dealers and the mentally ill while the owners of the prisons profit from the influx of criminality.

Internet surveillance is finally becoming a reality as the release of documents by Snowden revealed the extent of collection and analysis of users' internet usage both in the United States and Canada (and presumably most or all other countries with internet access).  For a long time surveillance of all kinds has been getting a hard push, under the pretence of terrorism.  Whether or not the loss of all privacy is "worth it" in the long run is an issue that will only grow as the surveillance becomes more elaborate and more intensive.  I'm sure all sorts of dirt will be found on who is sleeping with who, who is using which drugs, and other (mostly) victimless crimes are brought to light and a perverse sense of justice, as the number of criminals increase and another excuse given to fill up super-prisons, I'm not sure what point has to be reached before a serious debate begins on if this is the direction people generally want to be headed in.

As I've already mentioned, there is still a stalwart base that will vote conservative regardless of the obvious criminal activity and lack of transparency on the part of the CPC in their time running the Canadian government.  The few conservatives I have spoken with and comments I have read express that they feel the CPC is their only choice in Canada's electoral system, that other parties will "ruin Canada worse" or squander Canada's resources more so than what is already happening now.  I can't say with any certainty that the Liberals or the NDP would manage spending and the economy any better than the Conservatives have, but nobody with any fairness can say they will manage things any worse, either, since they actually haven't been given an opportunity to.  Overall the Liberals had a VERY good spending record during their long period running the country, and the NDP have yet to have been given a chance FEDERALLY.  Being as scrutinized as they would be, it seems to me like an NDP minority would ensure a very responsible spending policy, since it is such a contentious issue constantly being parroted by the conservatives as the holy grail of government responsibilities.  I would argue that until they have been given a chance, you can't know with any certainty how good or badly they would perform the task.  And given that the CPC has squandered every opportunity to create a transparent, responsible, accountable government, we can't collectively sit on our hands and say "well we can't hope for anything better", because we CAN do something better: what needs to happen is that our very fundamental system of government is the problem, and by changing the way the government works in a more broad sense external of which political party is in office, we are capable of bringing a new concept of government in to the world, a system where people can make their voice heard and actually bring back democratic values to a system that is obsolete, broken, and thoroughly corrupt.  In future posts I hope to discuss ideas for Canada's political future in more depth.

Canada's Leader Debate 2011

Being as obsessed as I am about politics it is no surprise I tuned in to the Leader's Debate tonight, featuring the 4 major parties. Nothing too surprising or exciting happened, and I actually found myself tuning out towards the end with very little conflict or drama. Some of the one on one debates, particularly the ones with Duceppe were just some policy agreement. Except of course when he was vs. Harper at the beginning, immediately putting a shot across the bow challenging Harper on the most recent Conservative scandal, where the auditor general questioned 50 million dollars in spending on the G8 summit. As usual, Jack Layton seemed to perform the best out of anyone with some very good points made, challenges issued and shots taken on both Harper and Ignatieff. Gilles was sidelined pretty much most of the rest of the debate, and I've been told that he tries much harder during the french debate because obviously more Quebecers will be tuning in to that. Ignatieff, while an intelligent debater and a pretty smart guy that I can respect, did drop the ball a couple of times, able to issue smart arguments but failing to put an emotional punch when he was agressing Harper.

Steven of course played his normal role of prudish miserly grandmother, chastising the other party members for not supporting him and mindlessly repeating his droning argument that he wants to continue his "work" even though he was found in contempt of parliment and routinely hides things from parliment and taxpayers, and has a party composed of corrupt and dishonest hypocrites. He constantly ignored direct questions and repeated his mantras, hoping the Canadian public is too dumb to pay attention to his invalid arguments.
Like I said, Layton was great in my opinion. I really had no heart for the NDP until I had seen him in the 2008 debates - he does a really great job and stands apart from the two major party cardboard cutouts. He made some great points, like "What happened to the old stephen harper who wanted to come to ottawa and clean up government?", kept on track in answering the initial debate questions with straightforward answers, and even stuck up for Elizabeth May getting left out of the debates and made a good argument for proportional representation:

The Bloq and Green party got about the same amount of votes but the green party didn't get any seats, proportional representation can more accurately represent Canada's ideals and wishes for government. I agree that our government needs real fundamental change in how it is run. Stephen thinks the answer is a majority government, but that will just help him ram his agenda through and will end up pissing off a majority of Canada in the end. A system where more views are represented, and where parties are FORCED to work together to form policy that works for everyone. Possibly even a component similar to Switzerland where citizens are able to regularly vote on important issues and keep their parlimentary representatives in check and more accountable for policy decisions. We can all agree that the world has been changing too much to think that old ways of doing things are still functional, and besides it would also be pretty awesome.

What is a Marine Protected Area?

Awhile ago I watched a CBC news program that featured David Suzuki and then Environment Minister Jim Prentice take a tour of the Gwaii Haanas Park. In the words of Jim Prentice: "Protection will extend from mountain tops to sea floor" The area is protected, according to the Parks Canada website, in 10 Kilometers offshore from the park in every direction, a total of 3,400 square Kilometers. This seems pretty extensive and good for the environment. But after mentioning this to my ecology professor Dr. Reimchen, the entire work seemed to upset him.

"It's a farce. The problem with the proposal of these Marine Protected Areas is that it doesn't include a ban on commercial fishing, which is entirely the problem why the area needs to be protected in the first place."

When I consulted the Parks Canada website further, this seemed to be true, at least in a lie of omission. Nowhere in the description of the Marine Protected Areas, or any information specific to the Gwaii Haanas Park, does it mention what exactly creating the MPA does or what it changes. From the Parks Canada website:

"A National Marine Conservation Area is a type of marine protected area managed by Parks Canada. The objective of the National Marine Conservation Areas Program is to protect, and conserve, for all time, marine areas that are representative of Canada's oceans and Great Lakes. The idea is to balance protection and sustainable use. The program is also intended to increase public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of our marine heritage."

As usual lots of talk without saying anything. They state an objective without any concrete rules or regulation, because, well, there probably aren't any.

The Rot of Parliment

Imagine waking up next to this face every morning. I've been doing just that in an attempt to watch Question Period for our Canadian parliment. I've tried convincing politically interested friends to do it with me, but so far noone has been able to tolerate more than 20 minutes or so without walking away, becoming interested in anything else, or screaming and raging within inches of punching my monitor screen out. If you want to give it a try, just head to this website, but the odds are good you may have the stomach for it.

People are interested in politics, but their apparent disinterest indicates otherwise. After talking to them about it, the problem isn't the issues themselves, it's how they are dealt with. Question Period is supposed to be a way to get information from the Canadian government and get them to account for their actions. Unfortunately, there seems to be no obligation for the minister questioned to actually answer the question. Instead it is a lot of backtalk, accusations, subtle and not so subtle insults and honking about what a great job they are doing. The questions asked aren't always objective either and often try to trap the person answering the question, which is probably what started the behaviour in the first place. Either way, it has become a skeletal farce of angry shouting bureaucrats, where really very little gets accomplished. Ask anyone and they will tell you bureaucracy sucks for a wide variety of reasons, but sadly we have not created any better system that balances representation, due process, and thoughtful action.

I may keep watching it through the summer, or I might give myself a little vacation. I find myself mentally tuning out the droning Bairds and Prentices and Odas with their robotic reading and rereading of party rhetoric, but the ineffective hammering repetition of the opposition parties doesn't really encourage me either. Does the fundamental pillars of our parliment need to be redesigned from the ground up, or is there some way to wade through the bog currently in place and make something usable a few minor but well placed adjustments ?