I thought it an apt metaphor for Canada’s electoral system. With Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party winning a majority government with only 40 percent of the popular vote, many Canadians are reminded of the need for our current electoral system to be obliterated in a way. The National Day of Action for Electoral Reform taking place in cities across Canada this Saturday, 14 May 2011 is the first post-election attempt at uniting these voices. A coalition of partners including Fair Vote Canada, Leadnow, and Quebec Solidaire have come together very quickly to organize this event. The Vancouver Rally will take place at the Vancouver Public Library, Saturday 14 May 2011 from 2pm – 6pm. If you’re interested in seeing electoral reform in Canada, you should definitely try to attend this.

© admin for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Election 2011, electoral reform, Stephen Harper, Vancouver Protest

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The Liberals were not alone in this deficiency. The NDP’s immense growth was helped by largely untenable promises made in Quebec and across the country, while the Conservatives eschewed a truly national campaign and instead employed tightly targeted, highly specific messages for key communities and demographics. As in many previous elections, the parties’ national policies are formulated on the fly, in response to the political needs of the moment – as determined through polling. In this all the parties were alike – the Liberals simply had the less effective campaign and the least popular leader.

The internal mechanisms of our major federal parties are built to necessitate this kind of opportunistic, paper-napkin policy making – built, in other words, to fail the public interest. Every political observer is aware that the grassroots policy process in each party is deeply flawed, and indeed a sham. NDP policy conventions are anticipated with dread by the party leadership and moderate members, as radicals from across the country propose resolutions that put the party’s worst tendencies on public display. For similar reasons, the Conservatives find themselves compelled to bar the media from their own policy deliberations. The Liberals’ tortuous, multi-layered policy mechanism is widely known to bear no relation to the eventual content of the party platform. Michael Ignatieff’s vaunted Montreal “thinkers’ conference” of 2010 was rightly seen as more of a media stunt than a serious effort at addressing national challenges in new and creative ways.

Meanwhile, high-quality, in-depth public policy work is continuously being done by groups like the C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – to name a few – and by academics at Canada’s universities. Sadly, there is little sign of interaction and cooperation between these institutions and experts, and the national political parties. In the United States, by contrast, groups like the Centre for American Progress, the Brookings Institution, and the Heritage Foundation enjoy significant input into the policy thinking of the two major parties.

I suggest it is time for each of the Canadian parties – but particularly the decimated Liberals – to invest in serious and sustained policy formulation by creative, pragmatic, and passably objective experts. Our national discussions would benefit immeasurably from the establishment of new institutions – and the advancement of existing ones – where good ideas and real policies can incubate, then find their way into the proposals of politicians to the electorate. Such institutions would not only help to make policy less opportunistic; they would also provide new avenues for the political establishment to engage interest groups, unions, corporations, and citizens in meaningful and beneficial debates about the country’s direction. Perhaps we might even see an environment where politicians must demonstrate that their ideas are objectively superior to those of their opponents – a marked improvement over the current context, where market-tested slogans and cheap sound bites too often win the day.

As the Conservative government retools itself for several years of majority rule, and the NDP seeks to build itself into a mature and disciplined Opposition, the diminished Liberal Party of Canada may be in the best position to lead the way on a new kind of policy development. I am confident that many academics, researchers, and other experts would leap at the chance to debate and formulate prescriptions for the wide range of challenges our country faces, confident that their labours will be introduced into the mainstream political discourse. All Canadians would be well served by such a development – and the Liberal Party might also find its best chance of revival.

Image courtesy of No Barriers Photography.

© Emile Scheffel for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: C.D. Howe Institute, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Conservative majority, Emile Scheffel, Featured, federal election 2011, Fraser Institute, Ken Dryden, Liberal Party, Liberal Party renewal, michael ignatieff

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Maybe you haven’t voted before, or haven’t voted in a while, or maybe you’ve moved recently and aren’t sure what you need to bring to the polls. Well then this post is for you. Voting in 3 Easy Steps!

Step One: Decide Who to Vote For

Do some research, see what the different parties plan to do about issues you care about.

The Major Party Websites are here: Green Party of Canada, New Democratic Party, Liberal Party of Canada, Conservative Party of Canada,  The Bloc Quebecois.

Party Leaders on Twitter: Green Party – @ElizabethMay NDP – @JackLayton Liberals -  @M_Ignatieff Conservatives – @pmharper Bloc – @GillesDuceppe

Other Great Resources:

http://politwitter.ca/ indexes information about Canadian Political Conversations on Twitter. You can find out what the leaders are saying, find candidates in your riding, see what others in your riding are tweeting about, and more.

If you’re on Twitter, take a look at some of the hashtags people are using to mark conversations about the election. Try #elxn41 or #cdnpoli, #youthvote, #momthevote #dadthevote and #femvote are also great places to check out. Party specific hashtags are #LPC #GPC #NDP #CPC and #BQ, see what other Canadians are saying!
Your local media may also have more information for you – check out what people in your riding are saying about the candidates, and what the candidates are saying about issues in your riding.

Step Two: Find Out Where to Vote

If you haven’t received a vote card in the mail, the best place to go to find this out is the Elections Canada Website from there you can enter your postal code to find out your riding and your polling place. If you have received a voter card in the mail, it should tell you exactly where to go. A voter card is not ID, if you’ve received one in the mail but with the name of a previous resident, this is still where you will go to vote, but you don’t need to take the card with you.

Step Three: What to Bring With You on May 2nd

On May 2nd you need to be able to prove your identity and your address in order to vote. That’s all.

There are a few ways to do this. 1.) ID such as a Driver’s License will prove both your identity & address. 2.) Two pieces of ID, of which at least one needs to have your address, such as a Passport or Health Card and a utility bill, bank statement, credit card bill or lease. 3.) Have a neighbour or roommate vouch for you at the polls. This person must be a registered voter in your polling division as you (not just the same riding) and they must come with you to the polling station on May 2nd.

More information is available on the Elections Canada website.

Happy Voting! And remember, the vote you cast is private, you don’t have to tell anyone who you’re voting for, it is your decision to make, and yours alone.

Image courtesy of Library Archives Canada via Flickr.

© Pippa Adams for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: canadian election 2011, canadian election social media, federal election, federal election twitter, how-to guide federal election, pippa adams, youth vote

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Policies are fetishized as though they were set in stone. Our political candidates endlessly present ultimatums which divide complex issues into unpractical polarities. The choices are framed as though all Canadians have lived merely for this moment of choice, after which the elected candidate will remain in power as an uncontested dictator.

This election does not represent the end of political life. There will be other elections down the road and there will be other politicians.

However, after all has been said and done, this is still an important moment. The state of Canada’s democracy has become a fundamental issue, and many Canadians are growing increasingly concerned about this. A variety of community groups such as Catch 22 campaign, Samara Canada, and Project Democracy speak to this.

The one common denominator for all voters is our two candidates for Prime Minister. I say two candidates, as I think we can all agree that Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, and Gilles Duceppe will not become Prime Minister this go around. That leaves us with Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, and although people may not care what I have to say, I decided to post what I think of each of them:

Stephen Harper
Absolute partisanship summarizes my view of Stephen Harper. From debates taking place in the House of Commons to the present electoral campaign messages, Harper’s view of politics concerns me. It is a polarized “my way or the highway” style of politics lacking in the space and time required to reflect on issues. His reductive either/or approach leaves little room for alternatives. He does not gives us meaningful choices.

With regard to policies and debates within Parliament, in my view Harper seldom provides meaningful arguments for his stance (i.e. corporate tax cuts, Bev Oda). Too often, his arguments seem ideological in nature. When addressing a question, his habit to undermine the very essence of the question and resort to reiteration, word by word. He is not an open communicator, and thus, is not transparent in his processes of governing our nation. He seems to portray a level of selective amnesia and seems to refuse to recognize the very reasons for which this election is to take place. He advocates blind partisanship and I feel that many Canadians understand that politics is much larger than political parties.

Michael Ignatieff
Michael Ignatieff’s constant focus on himself also leaves much to be desired as is his egocentric claim that only he will be able to defeat Harper’s government. I mean, obviously there is truth to that under our current electoral system, but I often wish he’d take a larger, more conciliatory view.

I am surprised by how quickly and emphatically Ignatieff rejected the idea of working in a coalition. He too, strikes me as too partisan. I feel that we need a leader who can work cooperatively with the other parties of Parliament. One Liberal and two Conservative minority governments have crumbled for this reason and should Ignatieff forget this the best we could hope for is more of the same.

But despite these observations, I feel that there is hope.

The important factor to consider for this election is that our society is not static. Our society is in constant flux as each and every one of us is dynamic; we are all dynamic individuals. This is not a life or death situation as these leaders imply. Inert and stagnant ideals of partisanship do not have to be our only choice. We can vote for change. We can make demands. As our lives are shaped and reshaped by personal and external circumstances, so does the shape of politics change.

Whichever party wins, if Canadians closely watch and participate, political ultimatums of fear reiterated in electoral rhetoric will become meaningless. If Canadians took the initiative and engaged in their democracy a bit more, we will be able to hold our next government accountable. Democracy is a privilege people in countries around the world are still fighting for. Let’s not forget that.

© Min Reyes for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 2011 Federal Election, blind partisanship, Canadian Democracy, Canadian politics, citizen engagement, michael ignatieff, Stephen Harper

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

What does it mean to be non-partisan in 2011?

This question has been on my mind a lot lately. Having been recently invited to redevelop BC Vote, a unique political blog aimed at providing an online forum for non-partisan political discussion, I was at once excited and stumped. Where was I even supposed to begin?

My introduction to partisan politics took place in 2001, when my pal Max Fawcett and I entered the murky world of federal youth politics as undergraduates at the University of British Columbia. I was excited. I hoped I could make change from the inside. I looked forward to talking about policy with likeminded colleagues, the camaraderie associated with political affiliation and the opportunity to rub shoulders with the political elite in this country.

The twelve months that followed gave me the political education of a lifetime. Caught between the political mudslinging and backstabbing of a leadership race, I couldn’t extricate myself from the political process fast enough. I wasn’t alone in my disillusionment. Many of those I entered federal youth politics with all grew equally disinterested. In our youthful naivite, we’d thought that partisan politics would prepare us to become the leaders of tomorrow, that our ideas would help change the shape of the country. Instead, it turned out that we were little more than electoral cannon fodder, and the enemy was within our own ranks.

After a little over a year, I casually tossed my political membership card into the circular file. The political process I had believed in and which I had respected so much felt instead like an exercise in self-defeating futility. Partisan politics, I concluded, were a waste of any intelligent person’s time and possibly the slowest way to affect meaningful change in our society

Despite this, I have never lost my passion for Canadian politics, and have remained a keen observer to the political process at both the federal and provincial levels. And while a part of me has always missed the thrills of political involvement, I knew partisan politics was not the avenue through which I would pursue it.

In June 2010, after several years of sitting on the political sidelines, I began talking with Jeca Glor-Bell, a good friend and the past-president of the Sierra Club of Canada, about re-engaging in the political process. In early September, we hosted a meeting aimed at not only re-engaging our legions of smart but politically disengaged friends but also at re-enagaging ourselves and identifying the best way to do this.

Despite the fact that many of my friends cared deeply about their society and understood the impact that partisan politics had on their lives, what was most interesting about these discussions was the realization that any sort of engagement in partisan politics had been almost entirely rejected as a viable way of making change in society. The political parties had failed.

Those conversations got the juices flowing and as so often happens in life, events conspired to feed that growing interest. It was by Nicole Garton-Jones, a lawyer at Heritage Law, to develop BC Vote, that you’re here reading this right now.

Our goal with BC Vote is to foster a political dialogue for the rest of us, a space that promotes a politics of inclusion, not division. We want to create forum that aims to puts an end to the polarization of politics in a province that’s already the most polarized in the entire country. And with federal, provincial, and municipal elections all occurring in British Columbia this year, the timing couldn’t be more perfect. We’re young, we’re ambitious, and while we’re not always going to get it right we’re certainly going to have fun trying. Join the conversation.

Photo credit: Diana Murphy, Office of the Prime Minister, 2002.

© Stephen Irving for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: BC Vote, Canadian politics, Featured, federal election, Jean Chretien, Nicole Garton-Jones, non-partisan, Stephen Irving

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

This week’s discussion has revolved around whether or not Green Party Leader Elizabeth May should be included in the televised leaders debate. This was quickly followed by the controversy over a possible one-on-one televised debate between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, to take place after the leaders debate.

As far as I’m concerned, all parties should have an equal opportunity to present their policies and ideas to the public. By having a one-on-one debate, not only are alternative parties shut out of public discourse, but the Conservative and Liberal Parties become placed upon pedestals while undermining the legitimacy of other parties. Once again, two options are presented to Canadians. Blue colour or red colour. Pepsi or Coca-Cola. Your choice. Any issues not on the radar of these two parties fall off the political radar.

The way I see it, Canada’s democracy is under threat. The Canadian political structure is built by layers upon layers of undemocratic political parties, policies, priorities, and media practices. British Columbia is even governed by a Permier that’s not even been elected to the Legislature. What is it going to take to restore democracy in Canada?

The Broadcasting Consortium is composed of Canada’s largest television networks, including CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global, and TVA in a joint effort to offer Canadians complete political coverage during election campaigns, including leaders’ debates in French and English. Why does the Broadcast Consortium deny the voice of the Green Party? Whose interests are they protecting and what issues are they attempting to avoid from reaching the public discourse? What is the CBC trying to do by reporting on the decision of the consortium and providing Elizabeth May with a chance to voice her side of the story? Is it a strategy by CBC to retain some credibility?

And whose interests would a one-on-one televised debate between Harper and Ignatieff serve? Why is this two-party debate even being considered? What are the political and social implications of this two-party debate? What issues would be left out should this debate take place legitimizing only two parties while undermining the legitimacy of alternative parties?

Canada is a democracy. However, as in many areas in the world, democracy is not a gift. It needs to be fought for. And in order to restore it, Canadians need to start asking some fundamental questions.

© Min Reyes for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Broadcasting Consortium, Canadian Democracy, federal election 2011, Michael Ignatiaff, one on one debate, Stephen Harper

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

But given the fact that Stephen Harper proposed a coalition government with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois himself in 2004 and is the leader of a political party that is a coalition between the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties, this argument is both hypocritical and devoid of logic.

Where does the news media fit into this? Too often the media in Canada seems to turn a blind eye on politics unless the story is completely scandalous. The media, which should by definition be playing the role of political watchdog, is too often missing the mark. It was through the proactive efforts of the Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition that Stephen Harper’s government was brought down. Now Harper, shamelessly counting on the assumed apathy of Canadians, has the audacity to ask for a majority while demonizing the concept of a coalition government. Maybe this is why the media landscape is so rapidly transforming.

What could be more democratic than a coalition government? They work in other countries. What is wrong with a coalition of leaders that are required by the constitution to work collaboratively? When did Canada lose its sense of community? Why should the concept of community and working together for a greater goal be demonized and radicalized?

Canadians are proud citizens. And as such, we have the right to demand our political community to work together. No one party will ever be perfect. Then, why not a coalition? In the context of my daily life, I find the process of building ideas and projects together much more democratic. Canada is built on the idea of cooperation. Why have we forgotten that?

Our current political leaders seem to want to break away from having to work with others, leaders who think that diversity of ideas are politically dangerous. How is this democratic? Do they even understand the definition of the word?

I think it’s unfortunate that we have a Prime Minister in charge of a government that’s been found to be in contempt of Parliament asking Canadians for a majority government. Further, his repeated attempts to discredit the idea of a coalition does nothing more than to confuse and miseducate Canadians on truly democratic ideas. Reiterating something long and loud enough, does make truth. I just hope Canadians see this in time.

Image courtesy of itzafineday via Flickr.

© Min Reyes for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: 2011 Federal Election, coalition government, fear mongering coalition, hypocrisy, michael ignatieff, Stephen Harper

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

We all suspected this was coming. There could be no other reason that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would start preemptively running attack ads against Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party this past January.

I always find it interesting to watch how these things unfold. As soon as an election is called, the construction of campaign narratives begins. Stephen Harper is blaming the opposition for the election, stating that Canadians do not want it and cannot afford it. Elections are very expensive, I’ll give him that, but I see things differently.

Harper’s Government was found in contempt of Parliament, the first time this has occurred in Canadian Parliamentary history. A series of scandals have come to light around the Conservative Party in the previous months, including Minister Bev Oda falsifying government documents, and the Harper Government’s purchase of fighter jets without informing Parliament and the citizens of Canada of their actual cost.

Despite the dubious honour of being the leader of the first government in Canadian history to fall on contempt of Parliament, Prime Minister Harper is skilled at the political game and has an uncanny ability to spin his message. Whether or not he can use these skills to downplay the impact of these scandals throughout the campaign remains to be seen.

Undoubtedly, we will hear attacks about Michael Ignatieff’s willingness to form a coalition government (an action, I might add, that is constitutionally valid and something Stephen Harper tried to do himself in 2004). We will hear endless questions about Jack Layton’s health (which I hope he will keep deflecting by jokingly offering to take off his clothes on camera). We will see Stephen Harper concentrating on the economy, ignoring the problems that the opposition have raised (if he takes questions from the media at all). We will see Gilles Duceppe continuing to fight for the benefit of Quebec, unconcerned with what the rest of the country thinks. We will see a valiant effort by Green Party leader Elizabeth May to take the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands away from Conservative Cabinet Minister Gary Lunn and give the Green Party their first seat in the Canadian Parliament.

Undoubtedly as well, Canadians will be subject to an endless barrage of attack ads which they won’t be able to turn away from as the commercials will air during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

While this election seems to make more sense than the 2008 election, at this point I’m doubtful of whether it will change much in the composition of the House of Commons. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Image courtesy of Itzafineday via Flickr.

© Pippa Adams for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Contempt of Parliament, Election 2011, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe, House of Commons, Jack Layton, michael ignatieff, Stephen Harper

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The Liberal Party rejected the budget stating that the budget failed to reflect the priorities of Canadians. The Bloc Quebecois also rejected the budget claiming that it did not deliver on the Bloc’s expectations and Conservative promises. The New Democratic Party rejected the budget, but Jack Layton seems to have left an open door for possible amendments to the budget. And after everything has been said and done, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty states that the budget is not up for negotiation. What is wrong with this picture?

Yesterday’s political discussion as played out in the House of Commons and in the Canadian media, seemed to utilize a form communication that doesn’t involve actual dialogue. The issues that matter to all Canadians aren’t engaged in a meaningful way and partisanship is placed above the issues. When the main focus of any discussion is reduced to winning or losing, the political parties lose and more generally, Canadians lose.

There are any number of issues on which Canada’s political parties could find agreement. However, these issues, rather than becoming arenas for dialogue and communication, have become boundaries and structures for isolation and tools for undemocratic monologues.

Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975), argued that a monologic or one-voice discourse tends to recognize only itself and fails to recognize alternative points of view. Partisanship is so deeply embedded within the political discourse in Canada that meaningful understanding becomes rare. At the federal level, there are four major partisan voices that dominate the political sphere. For each voice there is only one perspective, one ideology, one meaning.

While Bakhtin identifies that flaws of monologic discourse, he also suggest an alternative: dialogic discourse. This is the process through which one tests one’s own ideas and perspectives through the active engagement in dialogue with another. This is an ongoing process of understanding from which one’s perspective will never remain the same but rather is constantly transformed through communication, negotiation, and active attempt to understanding.

So in a word, dialogue.

In the political sphere, rhetoric such as “not open for negotiation” reflects a particular ideology. A true democratic society begins with leaders who apply democratic processes within their own acts of communication.

Throughout the discourse, we hear the standard keywords: healthcare, employment, economy. While each of the major political parties have allocated resources to these issues, the disconnect comes from a failure to truly engage the issues themselves. It’s not about the specific dollar investments, but rather about sitting down and coming up with workable solutions for issues that impact Canadians. How can we agree on a budget where the issues have never been discussed in a meaningful dialogue?

© Min Reyes for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Budget 2011, Canadian politics, Conservative Party, Featured, Liberal Party, Mikhail Bakhtin, NDP, ottawa

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The CTF was founded in Saskatchewan in 1990 when the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers and the Resolution One Association of Alberta joined forces to create a national taxpayers organization. Today, the CTF has over 70,000 supporters nation-wide.

© admin for BC Vote, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Canadian Debt, Canadian politics, Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Federal Deficit

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh