2008 Canadian Federal Election Thread

[Robbie]

How about a different kind of serious topic.

Despite the fact that all the political media is on the upcoming American Presidential election about Obama vs. McCain along with their respective running mates Biden vs. Palin, let's not forget that Canadians have their own federal election in a month from now on October 14, 2008.

What do you think about the issues, and which party are you planning to vote for a why?

As a side note, I feel that talking about Canadian politics vs. America politics is sort of like talking about Canadian college football vs. American college football. I feel it's a great analogy since Americans couldn't care less about their Canadian federal election or their college football, but Canadians still pay a lot of attention on the U.S. Presidential election as well as their U.S. college football.

[LFITQ]

As we have the Parliamentary system here in Canada and MANY (too many) Canadians have forgotten about it; but unless you actually live in the Electoral District of any of those individuals, you cannot and do not vote for any in the poll. This isn't the US where you vote for the President and you vote for your Representative in government.

Here in Canada we only get to vote for a representative. A Member of Parliament.

If more people understood this and got out to know their own individual candidates in their Electoral District I don't think we would have the apathy we have today.

As such Robbie, as I do not live in any of those ED's, and I strongly believe in what I say, I cannot cast a vote in your poll.

[Solar Max]

I don't live in any of those Ridings either, so can't cast a vote in this poll.

I don't vote in our Riding along strict party lines anyway, so it would be a pointless poll vote.

[bclions16]

As we have the Parliamentary system here in Canada and MANY (too many) Canadians have forgotten about it; but unless you actually live in the Electoral District of any of those individuals, you cannot and do not vote for any in the poll. This isn't the US where you vote for the President and you vote for your Representative in government.

Here in Canada we only get to vote for a representative. A Member of Parliament.

If more people understood this and got out to know their own individual candidates in their Electoral District I don't think we would have the apathy we have today.

As such Robbie, as I do not live in any of those ED's, and I strongly believe in what I say, I cannot cast a vote in your poll.

I understand your point, but we have a democracy where it can be argued that more power is concentrated at the executive level than in the US. MPs do exactly what they are told by the party leader. Government MPs vote along party lines 99.9% of the time, and 100% for budgets etc. The PM and PM alone runs cabinet and the caucus. In the past, the PM has to be accountable to the MPs, that's no longer the case.

While the name of a local is on the ballot, make no mistake, that candidate is rarely more than a trained seal. In Canada, when you vote, it's for the party and leader.

[LFITQ]

As we have the Parliamentary system here in Canada and MANY (too many) Canadians have forgotten about it; but unless you actually live in the Electoral District of any of those individuals, you cannot and do not vote for any in the poll. This isn't the US where you vote for the President and you vote for your Representative in government.

Here in Canada we only get to vote for a representative. A Member of Parliament.

If more people understood this and got out to know their own individual candidates in their Electoral District I don't think we would have the apathy we have today.

As such Robbie, as I do not live in any of those ED's, and I strongly believe in what I say, I cannot cast a vote in your poll.

I understand your point, but we have a democracy where it can be argued that more power is concentrated at the executive level than in the US. MPs do exactly what they are told by the party leader. Government MPs vote along party lines 99.9% of the time, and 100% for budgets etc. The PM and PM alone runs cabinet and the caucus. In the past, the PM has to be accountable to the MPs, that's no longer the case.

While the name of a local is on the ballot, make no mistake, that candidate is rarely more than a trained seal. In Canada, when you vote, it's for the party and leader.

And my argument is that if people really get to learn about their candidates then they can vote for the lemming or the person who will represent them regardless of political party. Remember in most Electoral Districts the person who's name is on the ballot is generally elected by the members of that EDA (unless appointed and if that were the case in my ED, I wouldn't want the placed puppet and would vote otherwise). So if you have gotten involved with the EDA, you get the person you want to represent you in the Party you want to be a part of.

The problem with the power shift as you note it (and I'm not denying it) is because Canadians have given it the ability to occur by not getting involved at the grass roots level and by not taking the local race seriously.

Really want to shake up government? Get a majority of independents elected to Parliament. That would send a huge message to the political parties. But unfortunately Canadians would much rather hide their heads in the sands than actually have to do something.

[Toppy Vann]

Yes, the average MP or MLA is not influential usually and not in a way that is very public. In Ottawa, which is bigger there can be at times some very good work done by Committees (depends on the Parliament - minority, majority and people). In BC, the committees are mostly dead either due to lack of interest, ideas or the reality that they will be used just to attack the sitting government versus improve public policy. We have over the years in Canada seen a falling level of quality in our elected candidates and right now the best the Tories have in Cabinet is/was David Emerson - a former Liberal. They are not all bad in any party.

However, I think over the years the good people have been less and less attracted to it as politics has become a blood sport as Mike Harcourt used to say. I used to tell people that all politicians weren't bad as far back as the 1970s when I ran - they weren't. I also feared that by people not looking at all our politicians to find the good ones - in ALL parties- we'll end up with just bad people running. I am not sure that scenario isn't playing out right now across the country.

There is so much vitriol, nastiness and outright hatred that it is sad. In the 60s and 70s there used to much more camaraderie in Ottawa and here in BC among politicians of all stripes. Sadly that day is no more. I ran federally for the Liberals and when I met the NDP MP who won, he invited me to have a drink that night with the NDP MPs. I joined them and they were all friendly.

I worked for the Attorney General's Ministry for 2.5 years during the NDP years back in the 70s. I was in the Deputy Attorney General's office when someone came in looking for Alec MacDonald, the NDP Attorney General. The Deputy said he was playing tennis with Bill Bennett (then Socred leader and future Premier). In the last NDP government while I was a Crown Corp exec, I was in a Minister's office when Jack Weisgerber popped in to speak to the Minister. Later the assistant told me that there was an open door for that guy in their office and he was in and out all the time. I think we see this less and less these days. I hope I am wrong.

It is a bit like Bill Clinton feared in a speech not long ago. Everyone just wants to be with the group they agree with rather than be open to other ideas. He sees that as divisive as do I.

We don't have a purrfect system but it is better than the US system where the President of the most powerful military force in the world has very limited influence over the Congress even if his party is in power in both houses! Their system was designed by the framers of their constitution to limit power in the Executive branch and that is why there is no national election for President there either, just state elections which then influence the Electoral College voters who actually will elect their President. The Electoral College votes for each state differ but there each state has 2 United States Senators.

One of the benefits of the Parliamentary system is that individual members are not like US Senators or Congressmen susceptible to money and lobbyists. In the USA, the moment a Senator is elected to a 6 year term, they must start fund raising or they will be a one term Senator. The party in the US situation is important but they do not have party discipline like MPs in Parliamentary systems must comply with. Thus Parliamentary systems lend themselves to less corruption.

One of the best portrayals of their system was "The Distinguished Gentleman" with Eddy Murphy who is a small time con man who runs for Congress to replace a corrupt congressman who just died. At one point he is told he has to get money together and he is told about some lobbyists he can meet.

Murphy:"Tell me something, with all this money floatin' around how does anything ever done?" "
Answer: That's the beauty of the system, it doesn't."

The other quote I can't find but it is like this. Murphy is elected and is told he now needs to get some money. I think the guy referenced meetings with gun lobby but Murphy says 'I haven't made up mind yet which side I am on.' The answer: 'it doesn't matter what side...you get money no matter what side of the issue you are on.

Chicago Sun-Times 5 of 10
I would be tempted to say The Distinguished Gentleman paints a jaundiced view of lobbyists and bribery in Washington, if the latest headlines didn't make the movie seem almost soft on payola. The story involves a Florida con man (Eddie Murphy) who finds a way to get elected to Congress, and speeds off to the nation's capital to get rich quick. He finds that an easy thing to do.... And Congress, too, is fair game for a movie comedy, with senators trying to keep a straight face while claiming they thought their summer home cost what no summer home in recent history has ever been built for. - Roger Ebert

[bclions16]

I don't live in any of those Ridings either, so can't cast a vote in this poll.

I don't vote in our Riding along strict party lines anyway, so it would be a pointless poll vote.

Your vote for local MP associated with a major party is the equivalent of voting directly for Prime Minister, and I think we all understand that's what this poll is for.

Sorry to go on, but your local candidates are just trying to be paid yes-men and ribbon cutters. Thats reality in Canada today.

From other posts, I gather you are in Keith Martin's riding. He's perhaps one of the most outspoken and proactive MPs, but he has said he'll likely not run after this election because of his frustration over the pathetic little role MPs have today. Even with Martin's hard work, he can't really do too much. His role is that of a self-appointed watchdog or agitator - the government or his party is going to do what it's going to do regardless of MPs like him. MP's vote as they are told, and have no or little actual defined responsibilities beyond that. Any responsibility they do have are assigned to them by the party leader, who they want to impress so they might get into cabinet one day. Cabinet is of course where some selected MPs actually have some responsibilities.

So vote for an MP locally if you want, but do so understanding that the party name is what you are really voting for.

[bclions16]

We don't have a purrfect system but it is better than the US system where the President of the most powerful military force in the world has very limited influence over the Congress even if his party is in power in both houses! Their system was designed by the framers of their constitution to limit power in the Executive branch and that is why there is no national election for President there either, just state elections which then influence the Electoral College voters who actually will elect their President. The Electoral College votes for each state differ but there each state has 2 United States Senators.

One of the benefits of the Parliamentary system is that individual members are not like US Senators or Congressmen susceptible to money and lobbyists. In the USA, the moment a Senator is elected to a 6 year term, they must start fund raising or they will be a one term Senator. The party in the US situation is important but they do not have party discipline like MPs in Parliamentary systems must comply with. Thus Parliamentary systems lend themselves to less corruption.

I certainly wouldn't say our system is better, because we could basically eliminate all the MP's and nothing would change. At least in the states there is regional representation. MP's in Canada vote as they are told to.

Our system of electing a PM is quite similar to the US electoral college: NEITHER system is a popular vote! Votes for the party are taken at the regional level, then those totals are added up to elect a PM / President.

To fix our system we need to do one of two things:
- Separate the PM and Privy Council from parliament, or;
- Find a way to TRULY make the PM and party leaders accountable to MPs, and not the other way around.

[bclions16]

And my argument is that if people really get to learn about their candidates then they can vote for the lemming or the person who will represent them regardless of political party. Remember in most Electoral Districts the person who's name is on the ballot is generally elected by the members of that EDA (unless appointed and if that were the case in my ED, I wouldn't want the placed puppet and would vote otherwise). So if you have gotten involved with the EDA, you get the person you want to represent you in the Party you want to be a part of.

The problem with the power shift as you note it (and I'm not denying it) is because Canadians have given it the ability to occur by not getting involved at the grass roots level and by not taking the local race seriously.

Really want to shake up government? Get a majority of independents elected to Parliament. That would send a huge message to the political parties. But unfortunately Canadians would much rather hide their heads in the sands than actually have to do something.

The problem with the party nomination process is that there is still significant influence by the party leaders in every riding! A party will make it known to the constituency that certain candidates are potential cabinet members, or doomed to be outsiders for ever (backbenchers). The party will make sure the preferred candidate has a professional campaign staff and organization behind them - they don't want anyone rocking the boat! The process is most often a pre-determined charade. Usually the only exceptions are when a candidate gets thousands of new members signed up to vote, and those situations have often been a little fishy.

And ultimately, the party leader has to sign the nomination papers.

[Lionsfan1976]

Wild applause and high fives to all of you for your well thought out positions on the matter.

[Wakesbetterthanyou]

Since the 9/11 fiasco i have absolutly no faith in any form of government.

[Toppy Vann]

Two issues BC Lions16 raised that merit further discussion.


[b][b]BCLions16 - To fix our system we need to do one of two things:
- Separate the PM and Privy Council from parliament, or;
- Find a way to TRULY make the PM and party leaders accountable to MPs, and not the other way around.[/b][/b]

You don't want the first choice or you will create a US style system and nothing will ever get done.

The second idea is one that I personally favour but the idea that a sitting PM and Cabinet will ever agree to this is the tough issue as these guys don't want to give up their power. In one sense they are accountable as Paul Martin's forces proved in ousting Prime Minister Jean Chretien as he wanted to stay on longer and the Martin forces who controlled the party made it clear he'd lose the leadership review badly so he'd best go.

The British make their leaders accountable to the elected MPs as it is they who elect their leader who becomes Prime Minister.
In Canada, it is the party members who vote in the leader and then most parties do some sort of leadership review vote from time to time to make them accountable.

I propose two changes to our Parliament would make the government (Cabinet) accountable to the MPs and make the MPs more accountable to their constituents:
1. Make every vote a free vote requiring members to vote their conscience or their constituent views or use a ouija board - I don't care how the MPs make their decision but make this change. This means that votes like this cannot be confidence votes in the government as they are now.
2. If the government is defeated in the House of Commons on a vote, implement a procedure that automatically gives the right to the Opposition to move non-confidence in the government and then let everyone vote on party lines as they do now.

By separating confidence votes from routine votes on legislation, individual members who don't like what their party is doing don't have to call in sick or hide in their constituencies or get paired off with other party members (wink wink). When they go home to their constituents, they will have to explain why they voted as they did. Right now free votes in Canada have gone to social issues like gay marriage or capital punishment. Change the rules and make all votes free.

The only downside is that this makes MPs a bit more susceptible to lobbying but the checks and balance to this is that they can still be denied their perks if they rock the boat too much or find that ticket to more $$$ via Parliamentary Secretaryships or Cabinet has been voided.

=======================
BC Lions 16: "The problem with the party nomination process is that there is still significant influence by the party leaders in every riding! A party will make it known to the constituency that certain candidates are potential cabinet members, or doomed to be outsiders for ever (backbenchers). The party will make sure the preferred candidate has a professional campaign staff and organization behind them - they don't want anyone rocking the boat! The process is most often a pre-determined charade. Usually the only exceptions are when a candidate gets thousands of new members signed up to vote, and those situations have often been a little fishy.

And ultimately, the party leader has to sign the nomination papers."

This is right on and this change in our federal parties and provincial I assume has been a change for the worse. Parachuting in star candidates (Paul Martin) is wrong. Refusing to sign nomination papers when the local members approved their candidate is wrong.

There needs to be some fall back of course if the candidate turns out to be a felon (tory candidate in 2008) or has some serious financial issues (Liberal now Green in West Van) but short of that, the local ridings should be free.

My only issue lately is the ethnic politics where ethnic groups are recruited to nominate their guy. There is some danger in that as Canadians don't join political parties sadly.

My fix for this is to get youth voting at 16 and establish a culture of voting as the polls can be right in the high schools. Their classes regularly bring in candidates and what better way to get adults voting than by having youth vote.

[crburrows]

If any of you are obsessively keen on this, I recommend the Hill & Knowlton Election Predictor.

Not an exact science, but you can adjust the overall voter intentions from the last election to see how many seats each party will win.

http://predictor.hillandknowlton.ca/predictor/
http://predictor.hillandknowlton.ca/predictor/


I ran the percentages in the left column, and it gave me the seat totals in the right column.

Conservative 38.0% 144 seats
Liberal 27.0 85
NDP 17.5 33
Green 8.4 0
Bloc 8.0 45
Other 1.1 1

http://predictor.hillandknowlton.ca/pre ... 2E0107&r=0


It admittedly does not account for all possibilities (strong candidate, etc.); however, it is a pretty neat tool.

[bclions16]

I've been too busy to post much recently, but this discussion deserves making the time!

Two issues BC Lions16 raised that merit further discussion.
[b][b]BCLions16 - To fix our system we need to do one of two things:
- Separate the PM and Privy Council from parliament, or;
- Find a way to TRULY make the PM and party leaders accountable to MPs, and not the other way around.[/b][/b]

You don't want the first choice or you will create a US style system and nothing will ever get done.

I think lots gets done by US lawmakers, now you may not agree with what's getting done, or you may not see thing things you want getting done, but that's a reflection of US priorities and not of the mechanics of government.

The second idea is one that I personally favour but the idea that a sitting PM and Cabinet will ever agree to this is the tough issue as these guys don't want to give up their power. In one sense they are accountable as Paul Martin's forces proved in ousting Prime Minister Jean Chretien as he wanted to stay on longer and the Martin forces who controlled the party made it clear he'd lose the leadership review badly so he'd best go.

Yes, this is my preference too. However, MPs didn't drive out Chretien, the back room boys did. And this only reinforces the current problem: MPs have no power!

The British make their leaders accountable to the elected MPs as it is they who elect their leader who becomes Prime Minister.
In Canada, it is the party members who vote in the leader and then most parties do some sort of leadership review vote from time to time to make them accountable.

On the surface of it, the Canadian system appears more democratic, but the British system ENABLES a more democratic parliament. The current Canadian system to elect leaders is all about optics, yet retains the power a very few hands at the top.

I propose two changes to our Parliament would make the government (Cabinet) accountable to the MPs and make the MPs more accountable to their constituents:
1. Make every vote a free vote requiring members to vote their conscience or their constituent views or use a ouija board - I don't care how the MPs make their decision but make this change. This means that votes like this cannot be confidence votes in the government as they are now.
2. If the government is defeated in the House of Commons on a vote, implement a procedure that automatically gives the right to the Opposition to move non-confidence in the government and then let everyone vote on party lines as they do now.

By separating confidence votes from routine votes on legislation, individual members who don't like what their party is doing don't have to call in sick or hide in their constituencies or get paired off with other party members (wink wink). When they go home to their constituents, they will have to explain why they voted as they did. Right now free votes in Canada have gone to social issues like gay marriage or capital punishment. Change the rules and make all votes free.

The only downside is that this makes MPs a bit more susceptible to lobbying but the checks and balance to this is that they can still be denied their perks if they rock the boat too much or find that ticket to more $$$ via Parliamentary Secretaryships or Cabinet has been voided.

I understand where you are coming from, but sadly don't think either 1 or 2 could be effective. The heart of the problem is that MPs are like Labrador Retrievers: loyal, need affection, and want to please their master. Seriously! As you alluded to, a typical MP wants several things: a cabinet position (or shadow cabinet), a parliamentary leadership role (whip, house leader etc), committee postings, and "special assignments" which often included foreign travel and prestige (these all come with increased salary and/or expenses). Free votes don't work because the dog knows the master is watching! Vote against the leader on anything but something like the two contentious issues you mentioned and kiss cabinet or plum roles goodbye. {By the way, the gay marriage free vote Harper allowed was brilliant theater using parliament to fool Canadians. Being a minority gov, he knew gay marriage would stand in a free vote, but he pleased many in his party base by Conservatives voting against it in a "free vote". Of course most Canadians supported gay marriage, so Harper was seen as a good guy for allowing the free vote, pleased his socially conservative supporters, all the while avoiding the uproar of banning gay marriages, and putting the issue to rest! Abracadabra! Nothing against Harper in particular in this statement, my problem is that successive governments have reduced parliament to simple theater.}

Your point #2 will create the deadlock you fear would happen if the Privy Council was separated from Parliament. So a bill fails (still rarely in your scenario), but the government stands. Then the whips coerce MPs with carrots and sticks to vote with the government. So in the end the bill passes, but it just took longer.

A little bit of lobbying isn't always a bad thing. It actually indicates that a legislator can make up his or her own mind, rather than just doing what the boss tells them to. The money around lobbying is what has to be controlled, but lobbyists could be people representing any advocacy; unions, taxpayers groups, environmentalists, industries, charities, seniors etc etc.

My fix for this is to get youth voting at 16 and establish a culture of voting as the polls can be right in the high schools. Their classes regularly bring in candidates and what better way to get adults voting than by having youth vote.

Have to disagree with you here. I like the idea of getting young people involved or thinking about how their country is run, but 16 year olds are still just 16 year olds. Do you remember how they voted for student's council? It was just a popularity contest/bribe-fest!. If you added this voting block of kids, they would hold the balance of power! Then the politicians who gave then some gimmick perk (increased min wage, HS grad bonus etc) or staged free concerts would get their votes.


TV: I love this discussion! You and I probably disagree more often than not from what I read on this site, but it's so refreshing to discuss democracy from a non-partisan perspective! I bet we're voting differently in this election, but we both want a stronger democracy for Canada rather than most politicians that just want the system to favour their political agenda (I believe ALL parties are guilty of this).

While there is no purrfect answer or system, I believe every suggestion you and I have discussed is an improvement! Canada is the finest country on earth, but that shouldn't stop us from bringing our democracy up to that level!

[MacNews]

I see the Bloq and Liberals losing seats, and the NDP and Conservatives gaining seats. If the Conservatives can expand in Quebec, I think that's your majority right there.