78 Ways To Fix The Way We Do Politics

iPolitics.ca: Canada’s go-to political website

Canadian Mining.

The world’s secret ingredient.

2011

22.11

Cdn Canada Our latest results are in.

In 2010, Canada’s economy was stronger than that of many parts of the world. Mining is a bright spot for Canada today, and an even brighter future lies ahead.

Thanks to the hard work of more than 300,000 people, the value of Canadian mineral production climbed 31%. Of every dollar of export income earned by Canada, 21 cents came from sales of mineral products, more than $80 billion in all.

Great public policy can help write an even better story in the future. We need rigorous, efficient regulation. Support for infrastructure that will help spur work in remote areas. And getting the word out to the 100,000 people we will need to hire over the next ten years.

What will we find next?

On the cover:

16

6

18

SCOTT VROOMAN of the sketch comedy MICHAEL CHONG troupe Picnicface. Find his fix on page 52.

‘Fix politics by restoring Parliament.’

RICK ANDERSON ‘How did we get here, and more importantly, how do we get back on track?’

10

38

DON NEWMAN ‘It is time to fix the roof.’

40

MARK JARVIS ‘A return to some golden age is out of the question. It didn’t exist.’

CHARMAINE BORG ‘Surely there’s a better way to study legislation.’

ALISON LOAT ‘We need Canadians who truly understand how to be leaders.’

KEVIN PAGE ‘We need political leaders to think like statesmen.’

20

44

12

26

50

13

27

53

35

54

WAYNE CHU ‘To engage the disengaged, we must make politics relevant.’

ISABEL BASSETT ‘Canada needs more women leaders.’

14

DON LENIHAN ‘Collaboration divides people. I know where I stand. Do you?’

PAUL HOWE ‘Serious consideration should be given to reducing the voting age.’

IMMACULATA HIGH SCHOOL ‘If things aren’t working out, go out and change them.’

GOLDY HYDER ‘Free MPs to represent their constituents.’

BRIGETTE DEPAPE ‘Our responsibility goes beyond voting every four years.’

SUZANNE LEGAULT ‘Governments must share public-sector information.’

SARAH L. ‘Wazzup voters! Please retweet everything I say!’

INDEX 78 Ways to Fix the Way We Do Politics

Across Canada, participation in elections is declining. Dissatisfaction with politicians and our institutions is rising. Progress to reverse these trends has proven elusive.

James Baxter Editor and Publisher James Anderson Deputy Publisher

iPolitics offers this collection of provocative proposals to improve our political system and strengthen our democracy with the aim of reviving the debate and re-igniting the movement for democratic reform. iPolitics was launched in the late fall of 2010 as an independent source of political news, information and analysis — a truly independent voice amid the horserace mentality, polarization and superficiality that has come to characterize political coverage in Canada in recent years.

We publish online, around the clock, with a focus on reporting the news and chronicling the business of government. Each weekday morning, we set the agenda with our must-read Morning Brief, which we send out by email to an audience of politicians, political staffers and public servants at all levels of government, leaders in the worlds of business and academia, students, and activists.

Our growing team of reporters and columnists features an impressive collection of veteran members of the parliamentary press gallery and a stellar team of younger reporters who have immersed themselves in the daily activities of government. Their insightful and engaging reporting is supplemented by columns, analyses, commentaries and op-eds contributed from our readers. If you would like to contribute, email jamesanderson@ipolitics.ca.

With this publication, iPolitics hopes to revive the debate about what it will take to improve the way we practise politics and strengthen our system of government. We welcome your feedback and proposals for reform. Please send proposals to demref@ipolitics.ca, and stay tuned to our website for more ideas and commentary on the subject.

James Anderson, Deputy Publisher Susan Allan, Executive Editor

Susan Allan Executive Editor Ian Shelton Emily Senger Web Editors Jessie Willms Graphic Designer Kyle Hamilton Photographer Sonya Bell, Eric Beauchesne, Kathleen Harris, Colin Horgan, BJ Siekierski, Elizabeth Thompson Reporters Robert Asselin, Fen Hampson, Michael Harris, Dylan Marando, Lawrence Martin, Don Newman, Bob Plamondon, Alex Wood Columnists Adam Miron, Jean-Benoit Lesage Web team David Evershed Advertising Sales John Butterfield Chief Operating Officer Head Office: World Exchange Plaza, 45 O’Connor St, Suite 530 Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1A4, Canada Phone: 613-216-9638 Mission: iPolitics is independent, nonpartisan and committed to providing timely, relevant, insightful news coverage to those whose professional or personal interests require that they stay on top of political developments in Ottawa and the provinces.

RICK ANDERSON

SU R E LY T H IS WA SN ’ T T H E WAY Parliament was meant to evolve.

In Canada, the debate over possible reforms to our democratic institutions is frequently derailed by the claim that x or y would be inconsistent with the British parliamentary traditions on which our governance is based.

For the most part, such claims seem made with little understanding of the dynamic history of those still-evolving traditions, or the basic precepts upon which they are founded.

Through centuries of evolution, the central notion of British parliamentary governance has involved empowering a group of citizens with the authority to limit the powers of the Crown, to control the purse strings and to shape the laws of the land.

A brief recap of the rich history of English democratic reform may be useful: 1066: William the Conqueror introduced the feudal system to England, subjecting the Crown’s proposed laws to consideration by a council of nobles and bishops.

1100: Henry I proclaimed the English Charter of Liberties, formally outlining limits on the Crown’s powers.

1215: King John agreed to the original Magna Carta, subjecting the Crown’s powers to the rule of law — and specifically agreeing no taxes would be levied except by consent of the Great Council. The council evolved into early “parlements.” The 13th century reigns of Henry III and Edward I saw the Magna Carta modified numerous times, forming the foundations of English constitutional law.

1258: The Oxford Parliament, led by Speaker Simon de Montfort, produced the Provisions of Oxford, which established a privy council jointly chosen by the King and the barons.

Parliaments would meet three times each year to review activities.

1295: Edward I summoned the Model Parliament, made up of 49 lords and 292 “commoners” elected to represent counties and boroughs across England. The commoners began to demand the Crown redress grievances in return for approving proposed taxes.

MPs must regain the independent authority to determine Parliament’s business.

1326: Parliament forced Edward II to abdicate.

1341: Lords and commoners met separately for the first time, creating today’s bicameral Houses of Parliament.

1376: With Parliament, and particularly the Commons, gaining influence throughout the tax-hungry reign of Edward III, the Good Parliament challenged corruption in the Royal Council. This prompted the earliest known Parliamentary impeachment of a minister of the Crown.

1628: Following disputes between Parliament and Charles I over war costs and taxes, Parliament demanded Charles I accept the Petition of Right, restricting taxation not approved by Parliament and imposing other limits on Crown authority.

16 4 2 : T h e E n g l i s h C i v i l Wa r p i t parliamentarians against Royalists over the supremacy of Parliament or the Crown.

Charles I lost his throne (and his head), Charles II was exiled, the principle of parliamentary supremacy was established, the constitutional requirement for the

Crown to obtain parliamentary consent was solidified, and future sovereigns were restricted to a constitutional monarchy with limited executive authority.

1649: The Rump Parliament’s House of Commons passed laws abolishing the monarchy and the House of Lords (citing the latter as “useless and dangerous to the people of England”).

1657: Parliament presented the Humble Petition and Advice to Oliver Cromwell, asser t ing parlia mentar y control over taxes, establishing an independent council to advise the Crown and recreating the second chamber — thereby establishing the modern structure of contemporary English parliamentary government.

1660: The Restoration-era Convention Parliament restored the monarchy and the House of Lords, and established the tradition that governments depend upon Parliament for legitimacy.

1689: Parliament adopted the Bill of Rights.

1701: Parliament passed the Act of Settlement governing the order of succession of the Crown.

170 8 : Roy a l A s s ent w a s ref u s e d on Parliament’s Scottish Militia Bill, marking the last time in history the Crown refused to assent to a bill adopted by the British House of Commons and House of Lords.

What does this history have to do with 21st century democratic reform in Canada?

It provides some clues — if we are looking for t hem — concerning t he origina l, central theories that shaped our system of parliamentary governance, which have fallen into disregard. These revolve around Parliament’s overriding authority to decide taxing and spending, to create law and to

restrain the power of the Crown.

The central premises are as straightforward as they are fundamental. First, no one person, not even one advised by wise ministers, can decide these things alone. Second, the elected legislature is supreme. Third, as was understood early on, democratic governance requires both a separation of powers and meaningful checks and balances.

These theories of parliamentary supremacy, power separation, and checks and balances have largely gone missing in Canada’s modern democratic institutions. Just as sadly, they are largely absent from the debate about how to revitalize these institutions.

How has Canada strayed from the British parliamentary system?

In the British parliamentary system, the ministry — or cabinet (including the prime minister) — evolved as an interface between Parliament and the Crown.

The ministry’s authority to advise the Crown derived from Parliament.

Both the Crown and the ministry required parliamentary approval to enact laws, raise taxes or spend money.

When parliamentarians become sufficiently dissatisfied with the advice and proposals of the ministry, Parliament has the authority to fire the ministry by voting nonconfidence, and to form a successor government through parliamentary realignment.

Throughout the 20th century, Canadian democratic institutions have wandered further and further from these core principles.

In modern Canadian politics, some of these relationships have been turned on their head.

Start with the Crown. In almost all circumstances, the Crown remains a power player in name only. For 99.9 per cent of what transpires in Canadian governance, the Crown and ministry have effectively merged into a single entity. On paper, the ministry still advises the Crown. In reality, the advisee has nothing much to do with that advice except to say, “sure, thanks.”

It used to be that Parliament provided a check on the power of the Crown. In today’s evolved context that means Parliament’s important role is to provide a check on the power of the merged Crown/ministry.

Unfortunately, our Parliament no longer accomplishes that in much more than a proforma fashion. And, it has not done so for decades.

Today, instead of the ministry being the agents of Parliament in advising the Crown, dismissible by Parliament when judged necessary, it is pretty much the other way

around. It is Parliament that may be dismissed when convenient to the ministry.

Instead of the confidence convention being a power tool used by Parliament to control the Crown/ministry, it has become the hammer by which the ministry’s whips command subservience.

Instead of Parliament governing the purse strings — that most basic and hard-won parliamentary authority — the ministry controls taxing and spending, and demands ratification by Parliament. Yes, of course, Parliament must approve them, but the Crown’s budget bills may not be defeated by Parliament —nor even amended — without triggering the probable dissolution of Parliament. Wars were fought and blood was shed in order that the people’s elected Parliament gain this central power. It has been whittled away, quietly surrendered with barely a murmur.

Inexplicably, legions of political scientists stand ready to proclaim this parliamentary emasculation as our tradition.

leads us to misunderstand our traditions and to fail to recognize when they are being usurped.

Several modern-day factors propel us down the road we are on: the leader-centric tendencies of the modern media era; any power structure’s inherent instinct for selfaggrandizement; inexplicably compliant parliamentarians; successive waves of legislative “reforms” that have provided party leaders with excessive powers over party finances, over parliamentary business and even over the appointment or disallowance of candidates for Parliament.

Add to these the absence of coherent made-in-Canada articulations of essential governance theories of checks, balances and the separation of powers. Too often, these are simply dismissed as U.S.-style notions.

And, finally, why are Canadians such suckers for efficiency in governance? Yes, democracy is messy, it takes time, it can be unpredictable. But as Churchill observed, it beats the alternatives. We need it, and we need to do it properly.

How can this be turned around?

How did we get here? And, more importantly, how do we get back on track?

We got here in part because, as with so many other areas, we are victims of poor knowledge of our own history. We think of bloody revolutions and legislative supremacy and separation of powers as more American or French than British or Canadian. We are wrong. The French learned from English ideas, the English learned from French ideas.

And, they both beheaded kings over these matters.

Go back and read your 17th century history of England’s Charles I, of divinely ordained royal prerogative, of usurious taxes prompting popular rebellion, of a decade of bloody civil war between Parliamentarians and Royalists, culminating in a royal beheading, abolition of the monarchy and declaration of republic. These events played out a century before the French and American revolutions.

The fact that we do not know our history

The good news is that it doesn’t require another Glorious Revolution — indeed no revolution of any kind.

The most basic, most important, thing is to start transferring powers absorbed by leaders back to Parliament and parliamentarians.

Start with who gets to fire whom. The prime minister should not decide when to dissolve Parliament; this must be Parliament’s decision. Better yet, Parliament should fix elections at four-year intervals, save for rare declarations of non-confidence.

The prime minister’s ability to declare a vote on X or Y to be a “confidence measure” (for example, you’re all fired if you vote against me) must end. Parliament can declare non-confidence as it sees fit; meanwhile votes and amendments on bills, including budget bills, should proceed on the merits of their content.

In recent decades, parties have awarded their leaders the power to appoint, or reject, candidates for Parliament. This is a democratic abomination. Parliament is supposed to be a check on the ministry; the ministry cannot be appointing parliamentarians. No one should get to Parliament by appointment; this is basic. The prime duties of parliamentarians must be to the country as a whole and to their own electors in particular, not to their party or leader.

For the same reasons, the Senate must be democratized. Or abolished. Pick one. The

status quo of an appointed legislative body is not a democratic option.

Parliamentarians must regain the independent authority to determine Parliament’s business, and to determine the membership and leadership of parliamentary committees.

Change the language; change the culture.

When MPs dare speak out on some matter contrary to the dictates of their leaders and whips, why do we term them “dissidents” as opposed to, say, “representatives” or “democrats?” Why are they shunned by parliamentary colleagues and treated as flakes in media reporting, rather than celebrated for providing evidence of Canada’s rich mosaic of perspectives? Why are they not congratulated for the courage of their convictions?

The truth is there is a healthier diversity of opinion across Canada, and within each party, than one could ever glean from the outside. That may be an inconvenient truth for leaders who would prefer a set-up in which everyone pretends to have the same view as the leader — but for the rest of us it is a happy truth.

Reduce partisanship.

No party is always right, none is always wrong. Stop pretending otherwise.

Throw away talking points.

positive reform as well.

The foregoing is not intended as an exhaustive list. There are other good ideas around. Nor is it meant as a partisan critique of Liberals or Conservatives or New Democrats. Each, in opposition, promises democratic reforms. Each, in power, instead concentrates power in the hands of the ministry, and particularly in the hands of the prime minister. That was not the idea; in fact, it was basically the opposite of the idea.

This is more than a problem of the left or the right. It is ingrained in our power psychology. It is cultural. It is institutional.

We pretty much know how to improve things. It’s time to do that.

In the pages of this magazine, readers will find an assortment of thoughtful, provocative ideas and proposals for strengthening our democracy and improving the way we do politics. Many of them expand on these notions. While I may not agree with every proposal, there is one thing of which I am certain: they are all worthy of consideration, and we will already be strengthening our democracy if we begin the discussion.

Along the same lines: partisanship. Reduce it. No party is always right, none always wrong. Stop pretending otherwise. Throw away talking points. Journalists should stop crowding around MPs in parliamentary scrums. Seek out the folks with something useful to say, something thoughtful, original, constructive and less partisan.

Make elections matter. Not coincidentally, many of the foregoing changes would revitalize the role of local MPs, drawing upon their talents in a more profound way than as robotic agents for their leaders.

Make the nomination and election of candidates for Parliament important in its own right, not just for tallying up which of their leaders gets to exercise more or less unSuch conformity of thought would be sad checked power for the next few years. Elec- Rick Anderson is president and CEO of ASCI were it true; why on earth do we pretend it toral reform to make every vote count, and Anderson Strategic Consulting Inc. and a to be so? to improve representativeness, would be a former political strategist.

THE SKY IS NOT THE LIMIT FOR THE CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY Products such as aerospace technology, bulletproof vests and probiotic medicines don’t come to mind when you think of a tree. But “pseudoplastics” derived from wood products have the potential to make products such as those used in aerospace cheaper, lighter and more environmentally friendly. They’re just part of the existing and future products that could make up the new and dynamic face of forestry in Canada.

To learn more visit www.fpac.ca/bio-pathways and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn:

MD

www.fpinnovations.ca

Forest Products Association of Canada fpac.ca/bio-pathways

You

@FPAC_APFC Tube

fpac-space-ipolitics-halfpage-h-en.indd 1 You Tube

You

You

@BioPathPartner Tube Tube

You

Tube

You

Tube

Bio-Pathways Partnership Network

15-11-11 3:00 PM

For the record

“When they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer honourable members, they are just nobodies.”

– Pierre Trudeau, 1969

“This is a f--king disgrace ... closure again.”

– Pat Martin, 2011 “Parliament has become acrimonious and the debate has become far too personal. It has definitely gone downhill.”

– Ed Broadbent, 2005

Time for a change (When is it not, really?)

W h at t h i ngs h ave b e en done to Parliament in recent years?

How many of you have sat in the Gallery of the House of Commons? If you have been there, you will have seen that great institution treated with shocking contempt, sorely wounded, robbed of its rights, its independence gone, usurped by a few ministers who treat the rest of the cabinet as juniors. . . .

I have seen the progressive restriction of the supremacy of Parliament in the last 10 years. I have seen Parliament bludgeoned, and I say that is no pipedream. Bludgeoned by a majority. I have seen the hands of the Cabinet directing members and disciplining them into an abject servility. . . .

The prime minister and members of his cabinet have repeatedly looked at themselves and spoken of themselves as the sole interpreter of the will of the nation. It is the will of Parliament, not that of a government, that is the will of the nation.

I witnessed scenes — my colleagues here witnessed scenes — and deny anything like it ever having taken place in the history of a democracy. We say we will restore Parliament. Closure has its use. We have now [under the Liberal government of the time] found what its abuse means.

We shall abolish closure to guard against its abuse in the days ahead. . . .

Excerpt from a campaign speech delivered

by John Diefenbaker, at Massey Hall in Toronto. . . in 1957.

Question period has become “a barracking free-for-all of “I should have hired a soap opera director to be our director of immaturity.” question period, because that’s what it is.”

– Speaker John Fraser, 1986 – Preston Manning, 2009

With voter turnout in a nosedive for the past few decades, some brave souls have taken it upon themselves to push back and find new ways to restart our citizenry. One of those people is Alison Loat, who — along with the small team at Samara — looks for new ways to examine our democracy in the hopes of making it better. With things like MP exit interviews, Samara lets us gain perspective on how our system might be broken, and how we can all work to encourage our leaders to fix it. All of that depends on a certain level of engagement. And that begins with voting. She definitely wants us to vote.

ALISON LOAT

Canada needs to cultivate more political citizens.

It is through politics that Canadians make decisions about how we want to live together.

Yet we are growing increasingly ambivalent about that process, and it worries me.

Simple solutions to complex problems are rare, yet here’s what Canadian policymakers could do to influence electoral engagement

At the end of last year, the pollster Nik Nanos described how Canadians view their democracy. He said, “there’s a fundamental disconnect between the everyday lives of Canadians and democracy. They look at what happens in the House [of Commons] and they don’t see themselves.”

There are a great number of public problems we face today: economic uncertainty, environmental degradation, increasing rates of poverty, ensuring quality education and access to affordable healthcare, to name a few.

Ultimately the public policy response — or lack of it — in these areas is the result of the decisions our governments and politicians make. While good public policy requires the contributions of many, it is ultimately governments that spend the vast majority of the dollars, to say nothing of the influence of their regulatory or agenda-setting powers, on these public problems.

Getting these decisions right is critical to

ensuring we continue to provide a good quality of life here in Canada. It matters to all of us, whether we were born here or moved here from another country.

Because let’s face it: at the end of the day, no non-governmental organization, charity or private corporation is coming to the rescue. Solving Canada’s public problems will always be the business of citizens, and those we choose to lead us.

This is not about making politics sexy, because frankly, most of the time it isn’t. But it is about cultivating public leaders and mak-

ing our political culture one in which people can flourish.

It’s also about redefining what it means to be a participant in this democracy. I fear there’s increasingly a sense that to be effective, you have to work outside government.

While great change does happen there, it’s equally true that change can come from the inside.

Part of that means that young people need to know that a career in politics or public service is a possibility and a worthy and credible way to spend time. But regardless of whether one goes into politics or government or not, we need people who are willing to connect to the political system and use the democratic mechanisms we have available to seek change from within.

We need Canadians who truly understand how to be leaders in our political system so, at the end of the day, we can deliver on the policies that will ensure Canada remains a place we are proud to call home.

Bring in the outsiders To engage the disengaged, we must make politics relevant

WAYNE CHU

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM HOLDS that people choose not to participate in politics because they are apathetic, uninterested and ignorant. The politically disengaged are often portrayed as negligent in their civic duty and commitment to society.

But conventional wisdom might actually be wrong. In fact, recent research suggests people may be more aware, interested and knowledgeable of politics than we think.

Samara, a research organization where I work, recently spoke directly to the politically disengaged in a series of focus groups across the country. We sought out those who are aware of issues in their communities, but did not vote. People, in other words, who are at the tipping point between dropping in and dropping out of politics.

What we found was that their disengagement was not innate, but rather something learned through failed attempts to engage with government. This has led to a vicious circle in which the disengaged wait for a sign that political parties and government institutions care about their concerns. In return, parties and government fail to make efforts to reach out to the disengaged, seeing the effort as a waste of time.

Indeed, participants were quick to offer personal stories about how they attempted to contribute or engage, but soon became frustrated with government and elected officials. Whether they were trying to get a speed

bump installed on their street, get their kids in daycare, or even deal with a coyote in their neighbourhood, dealing with the political system left people disappointed in the experience.

In our discussions, participants described politicians as “greedy” and “corrupt,” and found politics “boring.” They felt that what happens in the political arena is largely irrelevant to their daily lives. They told us they felt bad for not participating, but that they saw little reason to do so.

One man in rural Ottawa summed up his experience with government by telling us how, “We have tried to do certain things. We asked town hall for certain small thing. . . .

It’s not happening. Even [something] as little as small roads being fixed. It won’t happen.”

Another woman in our francophone focus group explained how she sought help from Employment Quebec to deal with a problem in her culinary education program. But she felt administrators “complicated the entire situation to see if I would drop out, and I did. . . I was very discouraged and disappointed.”

In the urban aboriginal group, a grandmother described attempts to find a daycare spot for her grandchild. She tried to reach

numerous politicians for help, but received only form letters. She ended up putting her grandchild in a Catholic daycare, even though they were not Catholic.

And in the new Canadian group, we heard numerous stories of how governments and politicians had no ability to resolve attempts to get educational credentials recognized.

The new Canadians ended up going around politicians to private consultants.

These and other stories point to the same conclusion: people no longer participate in politics because they feel the political system does not respond to their needs and ignores their voices. And they were very clear: whether we are talking about government or politics does not matter. The disengaged feel like outsiders from a system that is supposed to belong to them.

What they did not say is that they are apathetic about what happens in politics, or that they do not understand what is going on.

In fact, those who felt that the system is too complicated to navigate placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of those walking the halls of power. They felt the system is intentionally convoluted, designed to keep them out.

So, engaging the disengaged is about more than simply making politics entertaining or educating an ignorant public. It is about making politics relevant to people’s lives.

Canadians are not asking for much. The people we spoke to did not expect politicians to promise and deliver the moon. But at a minimum, they expect responsive service to their everyday concerns should be a priority for all government officials, whether elected or serving in the bureaucracy.

This is just the first step. Citizens, the media and political parties all have a role to play in reinvigorating our political system.

But whatever the solution is to what ails our democracy, it is clear we must address the growing problem of our democracy excluding those who should be inside.

Wayne Chu is the research manager at Samara.

He is a co-author of Samara’s newest report, The Real Outsiders: Politically Disengaged Views on Politics and Democracy, available at SamaraCanada.com.

ISABEL BASSETT

A LT HOUG H ON E OF T H E MO S T urgent priorities facing Canada is the need to attract and foster leaders with the skills and creativity to meet the challenges of our increasingly complex world, we continue to overlook a qualified but untapped talent pool of women — to our own detriment.

Women make up 52 per cent of the population but, as of the May 2011 election, make up only 25 per cent of our federally elected representatives. Recently, only 17 per cent of those elected in the Saskatchewan provincial election were women (falling from 22 per cent, far below the 25 per cent provincial average). And only 16 per cent of those appointed to the federal judiciary this year were women (eight women and 41 men).

Although I am frequently vocal about this state of unequal representation, I am increasingly concerned Canada is missing out on the real benefits of gender parity in leadership.

Why do we need more women leaders?

The first reason is equality. Would you allow your input to count for only 25 per cent of the decision-making with a partner? No way, because it wouldn’t be fair. Men and women tend to have, and are seen to have, different priorities — especially on those so-called “women’s issues.” Having priorities equally represented is necessary to the health of a democracy.

The second reason is that government may actually be hindered by the lack of women. A series of reports from McKinsey & Company entitled Women Matter demonstrate how organizations with more women in senior leadership have a competitive advantage, resulting in happier employees, customers and stakeholders — more of whom these days are women themselves. There are countless, subtle, reasons for this, but women generally bring a more collaborative leadership and management style, which complements the more autocratic, competitive and aggressive style of men — and they keep each other in check.

Such a collaborative style is sorely missing from Parliament. Samara — a charity that studies the health of Canadian democracy — released a revealing report based on exit interviews with outgoing MPs. They all called Parliament “dysfunctional” and “more like an unsupervised schoolyard than a forum for public debate.”

It stands to reason that more women leaders in government would restore some posi- What can we do? tive balance to Parliament and engage more As election results over the past two decades people in the democratic process. show, progress toward gender parity in leadership has stalled, and sometimes rolls Why aren’t more women in office? backward: qualified women tend to shy American professor and author Jennifer away from leadership positions because Lawless, after studying several thousand they feel they don’t “fit” with the culture. candidates, found that women are socialized But the culture won’t adapt until enough to hold back. Many don’t want to work in a women are in leadership to change it (30 per culture of confrontation, don’t want their cent minimum, according to the UN). private lives to be made public and worry The solution may sound stern, but is about work-life balance. They assume relatively simple: responsibility. Accordresponsibility for family duties and, among ing to the United Nations, “Equality beother things, have lower levels of self- tween women and men refers to the equal confidence and political ambition than men. rights, opportunities and responsibilities Not surprisingly, many ambitious, tal- of women and men.” Today, thanks to all ented women shun running for political the women — and some enlightened men office, drop out of high-powered firms, and — who fought for suffrage, we all share the gravitate to not-for-profits, smaller firms or rights and the opportunities. Women, and their own businesses — places where they leaders, both need to take more responsibilfeel they can make a difference, that fit bet- ity for change. ter with their personal values and that have Government and business must adapt their cultures more accommodating to a work- work cultures to accommodate the work-life life balance. needs of a broader range of qualified people, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, economist and found- across age, culture and gender. Women must ing president of the Center for Work-Life also recognize that they can and do make a Policy in the U.S., clearly articulates why pro- difference, and collect the confidence to seek gress has stalled: “The reasoning was that if leadership positions and serve as role models you created a level playing field giving equal — this virtuous circle requires us all to get it access to employment opportunities for men moving forward again. and women, women would come and the It is worth remembering that the word pipeline to advancement would fill up. But it democracy comes from the Greek demos hasn’t happened. . . . It relies on shoe-horning (people) and kratos (power). For Canada to women into the male competitive model and make the most of its future, we will need to most of them don’t fit.” draw upon the abilities of all of our people, Hewlett says, “What we need now is the not just half of them. development of a second generation of policy that provides pathways to power for Isabel Bassett is an advocate for women’s women with non-linear work lives.” issues and a former Ontario MPP.

DON LENIHAN

CONSIDER THE WORD COLLABORATION. It may be to the politics of the 21st century what left-versus-right was to the 20th. Collaboration divides people into two camps, based on their views about the role of government. I know where I stand. Do you?

During the past two decades, globalization, the internet, population growth and immigration have transformed our society.

At the same time, an explosion of NGOs, lobbyists, advocacy groups and professional associations have redefined the policy process.

The overall result is a policy environment that is vastly more complex, interdependent and fast-moving than only a generation ago.

For policy-makers, this is a game changer.

It means governments are no longer able to tackle many issues on their own. Consider the federal Conservative Party’s 2005-2006 election promise to reduce wait times in hospital emergency wards. Stephen Harper said that, if his party won, he would make good on this promise.

Once in power, however, the new government quickly realized that to reduce wait times it needed the support not only of provincial governments but also doctors, professional associations and hospitals, to name just a few.

These parties turned out to have strong views of their own on how to achieve the goal.

The government discovered it had neither the authority to compel stakeholders to change their views, nor an effective plan to persuade them to do so. As a result, after a series of disappointing starts, the issue was dropped quietly from the government’s agenda.

In my view, the lesson is that governments can no longer govern in splendid isolation.

We now live in a multi-stakeholder world where real progress on, say, health-care reform, climate change or innovation requires collaboration across organizational boundaries. The challenge for governments is to learn to engage stakeholders and citizens as real partners in governance. Let’s call this the collaborative approach.

Not everyone agrees with this. Collabora-

tion, some say, is very risky and takes a lot of work. It is much easier for a political party or government to offer smaller, more easily delivered benefits, such as special tax breaks or regulatory changes, to targeted groups in exchange for their support. The communications, marketing and public opinion research tools now exist to slice and dice the population quite effectively. We can call this the consumer approach.

Further, in this approach, micro-policies are sometimes clustered around broad, market-tested themes, such as cracking down on crime, managing the economy, promoting national security or rolling back big government. This gives a government agenda the look and feel of something weighty and ambitious, even though it may be little more than a collection of odds and ends.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with targeting groups in order to win elections. But if this becomes the driving force behind policy-making, serious consequences will follow. Big issues, like climate change or reforming health care, will start falling by the wayside because they are too complex and too risky, by comparison.

The more complex issues become — and complexity is increasing — the less willing governments will be to deal with them and the more they will rely on the consumer approach. The result will be policies that are increasingly shallow, ineffective and devoid of a real public purpose, and a government that has no real capacity to deal with big issues.

So here’s the choice that lies ahead: Either we demand that our governments learn to collaborate or we abandon our belief that

they can provide real leadership on big issues. This, I submit, is poised to become a new political dividing line in democratic politics.

For those, like me, who view the latter option as a historic disaster, the only real choice is to go forward. It’s time to get down to work. The first step is for governments and political parties to learn how to develop what I call an engagement plan. This is basically a strategy to make collaboration work on a particular issue.

Such a plan starts with clear goals and a list of the key people and organizations government must work with to achieve the goals. Next, the plan must propose a credible dialogue process for reaching agreement on a shared action plan. Designing this process is the real challenge.

On one hand, the dialogue must be structured enough to lead the stakeholders toward an agreement. On the other hand, it must be open-ended enough that the stakeholders feel they have a real say in developing the solutions, or they will not sign on to the action plan.

In brief, the dialogue process must be based on reliable evidence, a realistic assessment of interests and needs, and an informed understanding of stakeholders’ starting points, priorities and concerns.

Finally, the process must be fully transparent. All the stakeholders must understand where government is trying to lead them and approve of the strategy to get there. Efforts to bend or obscure the truth for partisan purposes will carry a high price.

Suppose, for example, a party includes in its campaign platform a plan to engage stakeholders around a major energy project in a certain region of the country; suppose further that the plan rests on the assumption that the project will not lead to serious environmental damage, even though there is strong evidence that it will.

Party strategists might think that, if they win the election, they can wiggle their way through this with a combination of spin and message control. In traditional policy-making, this might work because

government exercises almost total control over the process. Thus, it can suppress evidence and dissent, say, by denying critics a real chance to make their case, while stacking the process with friendly experts.

This tactic won’t work in a collaborative approach. Half-truths and misinformation will be exposed because collaboration requires genuine dialogue and deliberation.

If government tries to control the process, it will break down.

Stakeholders who find themselves on the wrong side of a covert government agenda will simply get up and leave, giving the process a thumbs-down as they pass the TV cameras. But given that government needs their participation to deliver the solution, their exodus will be a clear sign that the government’s leadership has failed.

In short, a political party or government that thinks it can use collaboration for partisan purposes is likely to be sorry. Collaborative processes are based on mutual interest.

They work because all the parties need each other to solve a common problem. But they also require trust, and trust is established through openness, transparency and fairness.

A political party or government that wishes to reinvent itself around a collaborative approach, therefore, must be willing to make a fundamental commitment to preserving the integrity of the process, whatever its own policy preferences. It must base its engagement plan on facts, reasonable assumptions, trust and goodwill.

In sum, collaboration is much more than a willingness to work together. It is about a political choice between two visions of government. I believe modern democratic societies like Canada are coming to a fork in the road, and each of us will have to decide which way we want to go.

Which path will you choose?

Don Lenihan is vice-president of engagement at Public Policy Forum.

NINO RICCI Award-winning author “I’d like to see more consensus, more civility and substance in politics.”

HAYLEY WICKENHEISER Hockey player and three-time Olympic gold medalist “From an outsider looking in, it seems like there’s an awful lot of red-tape. Streamline the process of government.”

GWYN MORGAN Founding CEO of Encana “I think what it really comes down to in all walks of life is for people to respect each other even though their views are different.”

DAVID SHANNON

Disabled rights advocate “Whilst Elections Ontario and Elections Canada are now making many strides towards greater accessibility . . . we see proportionally people with disabilities grossly under-represented in the political process in Canada.”

MPs must have the right to represent their constituents by asking questions of the government

It’s not easy changing an institution like the House of Commons, but Conservatie MP Michael Chong gave it a try. As members of the 41st Parliament read more and more directly from prepared talking points, Chong’s proposals to change question period appeared more and more astute. Chong also stood up to his party, on principle, over declaring Quebec a nation within Canada, and has recently joined the as-yet-small all-party climate caucus. While we get used to MPs following party-designated paths, Chong remains an example of how it can be done differently.

MICHAEL CHONG

Canadians are increasingly disappointed in and disconnected from Parliament.

Declining voter turnout — 61 per cent in the last federal election and 49 per cent in the recent Ontario election — points to a growing disconnect between Canadians and their democratic institutions. A recent study by Statistics Canada found that more than one-quarter of the 7.5 million eligible voters who refused to vote stated they were not interested in voting or they felt that their vote would not make a difference anyway.

Over the years, Canadians’ view of debate in Parliament — and question period, in particular — has eroded. A Nanos-Policy Options poll conducted last year showed that Canadians are more likely to be dissatisfied than satisfied with the effectiveness of the House of Commons. As a result, there is a growing divide between Canadians who are turning away from politics and a Parliament that is more and more irrelevant. We

need to bridge that gap by reforming Parliament and re-earning the trust of Canadians.

Last year, I put forward six proposals to reform question period. At the heart of these proposals was a plan to restore the right of Members of Parliament to represent their constituents by asking questions of the government. That right was taken away some 30 years ago, and today, a Member of Parliament can only ask questions if given permission by the caucus leadership.

Unfortunately, these proposals died in committee with last May’s federal election. However, had they been adopted, they would have been only a small step toward much greater, and necessary, parliamentary reform.

At minimum, caucus should have the power to conduct a leadership review vote, like other Westminster democracies. Caucus membership should be the decision of the caucus as a whole, not the leader. Finally, local electoral district associations should be the only and final authority over the nomination of election candidates. These changes should be implemented through amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act and the Elections Canada Act, preventing any political party or leader from circumventing these proposed reforms. These proposed reforms are not new. They are a restoration of the way Parliament used to work.

Canadians want their democratic institutions fixed. The restoration of Parliament can reconnect Canadians who feel disengaged from the democratic process. I am optimistic we can restore Parliament and make it relevant once again.

MARK JARVIS

THE CONSTITUTION IS FAILING. The constitutional conventions meant to govern the most essential aspects of the functioning of the Canadian parliamentary system — summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament, forming governments between and after elections and withdrawing confidence — have eroded. Over time, they’ve become virtually meaningless, creating an enormous power vacuum.

Whatever our success at convincing ourselves that past abuses of the House of Commons by Canadian prime ministers were aberrations, we need to stop. It misses the point to vilify particular prime ministers and suggest that if we simply had a leader willing to act in good faith, the problem would vanish. Numerous leaders at different points in history have abused power in these areas. A return to some golden age is out of the question. It didn’t exist.

It is beyond time we grasped the situation fully.

In our recently published book Democratizing the Constitution, the late, eminent Canadian scholar Peter Aucoin, Lori Turnbull and I document how this vacuum has developed and how prime ministers have filled it.

Instead of having a firm, shared understanding of what is and is not allowed in each of these areas, under what circumstances and who gets to decide, prime ministers have been allowed to simply declare, and act on, their preferences, protecting or advancing the partisan-political interests of the governing party. Satisfying some democratic principle or greater good is not necessary.

The concentration of these powers in a single individual is antithetical to the very idea of a robust democracy.

Combined with a lack of effective constraints by either the rules of the House of Commons or by political parties, the absence of a small number of clear, basic rules to govern these practices has allowed prime ministers to unilaterally disrupt the House’s

capacity to fulfill its fundamental roles: • to review and approve or reject the government’s proposed legislation; • to scrutinize the government’s decisionmaking and administration of public affairs and hold the prime minister and other ministers to account for their performance (collectively and individually); • to withdraw confidence in the government, as deemed necessary.

This has undermined the principles and integrity of the people’s House as the preeminent institution of our parliamentary democracy.

templated to address this situation should be established. First, any reform should have a clearly stated, unambiguous objective aimed at enhancing robust democracy under our parliamentary system. Second, any reform should have an explicit mechanism of enforcement controlled by the House of Commons. Third, loopholes that rely on prime ministers to act in good faith or on public opinion should not be tolerated. Fourth, a reform should prevent the abuse of power in both majority and minority government circumstances. All four of these principles are essential to entrenching power in the House.

With these principles in mind, we have proposed four primary reforms that we believe meet these standards: • Establish a deadline requiring the House of Commons to be summoned within 30 days after a general election; • Establish fixed election dates every four years on a specific date, binding both the prime minister and the governor general, unless a two-thirds majority of MPs approve a motion to dissolve the House for an early election; • Adopt the “constructive non-confidence” procedure; and • Require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons in order to prorogue Parliament.

Two things should be made clear here.

First, it isn’t possible to proscribe rules for every situation. Second, it isn’t desirable. The point is not to turn the Canadian parliamentary system into a rigid, inflexible structure incapable of further change; rather, it is to protect the integrity of Canadian parliamentary democracy by ensuring that the House can fulfill its responsibilities.

While there is no panacea capable of preventing all abuses, these reforms will ensure parliamentary proceedings matter in a way that they scarcely have for far too long.

Democratizing the Constitution not only documents these abuses and their implications, but also situates them in historical and comparative context. Perhaps more importantly, we argue for formal reforms that address the failings of the eroding Canadian Constitution.

So how should we address this challenge?

Not by simply illuminating now confused conventions. While writing down the meaning and requirements of the constitutional conventions in a document similar to New Zealand and the United Kingdom’s respective cabinet manuals is likely to be a helpful first step, this is insufficient. We need a new chapter in our country’s ongoing democratic evolution to correct the institutional imbalance in power that exists between prime ministers and Parliament in Canada.

We argue that constitutional changes are required to correct the situation. Despite Canadians’ assumed collective fear of “opening the Constitution,” which has become an impediment to democratic reform, the status Mark Jarvis is a doctoral candidate and coquo is no longer tolerable. author of Democratizing the Constitution: Some basic principles for any reforms con- Reforming Responsible Government.

TIM UPPAL

A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY is based on the premise that the citizen’s voice must be heard. The primary objective of our political institutions is to give effect to the voice of citizens, which is supreme in all democracies.

While our government’s first focus is the economy, strengthening and enhancing Canada’s democratic institutions is a long-standing commitment of the government and of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Prime Minister Harper is an unwavering advocate of strengthening Canada’s democratic institutions, championing stronger accountability, transparency and representation.

Since 2006, we’ve pursued a principled, reasonable and achievable agenda of democratic reform. In our flagship accountability measure — the Federal Accountability Act — our government took big money out of the political contributions process by eliminating

donations from corporations, unions and associations. By limiting the potential for undue influence by corporate and big labour interests, these reforms help to ensure our democratic institutions represent the voice of all Canadians.

We also strengthened electoral-process integrity by reducing the possibility for fraud at the polls by passing voter-identification measures. These measures strengthen our ability to identify voters and make the regulations around the voter identification more robust.

And, we’ve also acted to reform the way elections are called in this country by passing fixed dates for federal elections. Fixed election dates provide greater fairness and predictability in the calling of elections during stable, majority governments.

Despite these accomplishments, our work is not done.

As it stands, Senators hold no democratic mandate from Canadians and can serve terms as long as 45 years. Canadians living in fast-

growing provinces are significantly and increasingly under-represented in the House of Commons. And, political financing loopholes allow for possible undue influence by wealthy interests through the political loans regime. This status quo is unacceptable.

That is why as we are moving forward with principled, reasonable and achievable reforms seeking to give Canadians real input into their Senate representatives, fairness in their House of Commons representation, and confidence in their political-financing regime through transparency and accountability.

The path towards improvement is not easy, but we should never become complacent. We should never forget the trust and the integrity on which our democracy relies. We must continue to strengthen and enhance our voice as citizens.

Tim Uppal is the minister of state for democratic reform. The Conservative MP represents the riding of Edmonton-Sherwood Park.

Working together to build strong cities, strong communities and a strong

Canada www.fcm.ca

We need leaders to think like statesmen Whether you agree with Kevin Page’s frequent projections on government spending and fiscal frameworks, it’s difficult to argue that he’s not setting a precedent. Page has taken on his role as the government’s chief bean-counter with due seriousness, but has never shied away from calling the feds to account at every turn: exactly what he was put in place to do. The Conservatives have recently taken to telling Canadians that Page is wrong more often than he’s right, but his record of cautious projections and vocal questioning of the government has set high expectations for whoever might follow him.

What is the greatest strength of Canada’s system of government?

I think it’s the fundamental principles underlying responsible parliamentary government. These principles have remained constant in Canada while the nature of government has evolved. As a legislative budget officer, one of the key principles to me is that the House of Commons holds the power of the purse. The House must be able to satisfy itself, as the confidence chamber, that all spending and taxation is consistent with legislation, Parliament’s intentions and the principles of parliamentary control. When this is accomplished, Parliament is serving Canadians.

What feature from another country’s system would you most like to import to Canada?

The time has come for Canada to revisit its supply and estimates process. We need to reexamine the process, the structure and how we support this essential function.

In Sweden, government budgets are accompanied by performance frameworks for new programs, and standing legislative committees openly debate the performance criteria for accountability. Could this practice not enrich the debate currently taking place in Canada’s Parliament on the government’s Tough on Crime Agenda? In New Zealand, there is the practice of proactive disclosures of Cabinet briefing materials. The secretary of the Treasury, a public servant, signs off on the provision of forecasts used as planning frameworks by the executive branch. Could these practices help to reinforce the perception of non-partisan public service and the

use of evidence-based decision making by government in Canada?

What can be done to increase political engagement in Canada?

We need a policy agenda that inspires my generation to make commitments and sacrifices for younger and future Canadians.

James Freeman Clarke said, “A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” We need political leaders to think like statesman. We need a vision and policy agenda that stretches across innovation, education, health, infrastructure, environment, income disparities, trade, foreign relations and aid that will address these opportunities.

Parliament needs to be an open place.

Without changing our principles of responsible parliamentary government, it is an institution that needs to be re-contextualized in a 21st century world. All political leaders over 50 should be required to watch the movie The Social Network. There is strength and leverage in connectivity. Parliament needs to be reconnected with Canadians.

Finally, there’s a debate heating up about Canada’s national symbol. Are you probeaver or pro-polar bear?

With respect to all Canadian animals, I am pro-polar bear. There is something very romantic about our Far North that our Aboriginal peoples and Canadian writers like Farley Mowat have a far better understanding of than I. Maybe the time has come to give the polar bear its place as a national symbol.

What would happen if we got what we voted for? Shared power, collaboration, governments that look more like the rest of us JUNE MACDONALD

MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO, BEFORE I became an advocate for voting system reform, if anyone had suggested there was a different way to vote than what we do in Canada, I would have been shocked — isn’t our way natural? We divide the country into ridings, and people and parties compete for a seat. What could be simpler and more transparent? Doesn’t everyone do it that way, I asked my pre-Fair Vote self.

Perhaps having just one neighbouring country that also votes more or less as we do has limited our exposure to other options.

What little we do know of proportional representation (PR) we tend to label as f laky politics: unstable, too many parties, always getting minorities, lists (just weird) and of course the dreaded word — coalitions.

Yes, we know women get more seats under PR, but of course, it is by quotas, so they are just figureheads. They also have multimember districts, so no one is accountable to the citizens. Just not democratic, is the conclusion of many Canadians.

After several referendum debates, these descriptors are very familiar to most of us slogging our way through the electoral reform trenches. I would say to people on the street that the majority of the world’s democracies use proportional representation, so how can we assume that their way of voting is less democratic than ours?

People in PR countries are aghast to learn that a party with 38 per cent of the popular vote, such as the Liberals got in 1997, could have a majority of seats and essentially run everything connected with governing. They

would be astonished that the voting intentions of citizens are skewed by our ancient first-past-the-post system into something quite unrecognizable. They would think: “No wonder turnout is dropping like a stone in first-past-the-post countries such as Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. (Sure, turnout is dropping all over the world, but dropping from the 70 to 80 per cent area is not as hair-raising as dropping from our 60 per cent or less.) Many European countries have been using PR for the better part of a century. They look at us as some sort of democratic neanderthals.

As for women: does it really matter if they are represented by a body made up of 75 to 80 per cent men? Many men may say they would not mind legislation made on their behalf by a parliament or legislature composed of 75 to 80 per cent women, so why should women mind? The thing is, many women would not think that fair, and some men would not either.

If we agree our country is richer for our diversity, then we need to see this diversity reflected in the legislation crafted on our behalf. When New Zealand switched to PR, the numbers of women elected jumped 10 per cent without quotas. If a country wants to elect more women, PR systems can help make that happen.

It is not easy to change a voting system.

Political players and the media that support them have vested interests in a system that has given them success. And winners almost always get an electoral bonus — they get more seats than the people intended they should and they don’t have to share power with other parties. A seductive mix.

However, Canadians are basically fair,

and the present way of doing politics strikes them as inherently unfair. So the issue will not go away. The Law Commission of Canada and several citizens’ assemblies in the past decade have recommended forms of proportional voting that would likely appeal to most Canadians. Electoral reformers have twigged to the idea that referenda can be set up to get a desired result. Now it is time for some political leader to do the right thing and champion a fair system for Canadians.

Most of us working to change our system are careful not to say that changing to PR is a fix for all our problems. We know it is not, but most of us have the same gut feeling as one member of the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly who said: “It changes everything.”

What would happen if we got what we voted for? We would have parties that would have to share power, a prime minister who would have to collaborate, a Parliament and legislatures that looked more like the rest of us and, best of all, legislation more in tune with what we voted for. Maybe the results will not be dramatic, but they would reflect our lack of drama and be more like us. That perhaps changes everything.

June Macdonald has been advocating for voting system reform for over 10 years. She is a member of the Fair Vote Canada national council.

ADIL SAYEED

“DEMOCR ACY AS A DESCR IPTIVE term is synonymous with majority rule,” write Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan in their Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics.

Canada uses the first-past-the-post voting system inherited from Britain, wherein the local candidate with a plurality (that is, the most votes) is elected Member of Parliament. As a result, we cannot always be sure our MPs, or our prime minister, enjoy majority support.

The recent federal election — in which the Conservatives won 54 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, with less than 40 per cent of the overall vote — was not unusual. In fact, Canada’s multiparty era, which began in 1921, has seen majority governments elected in 18 of 28 elections, though only three of those governments earned more than 50 per cent of total votes.

A simple voting system may suffice for electing symbolic leaders like class president.

But is the first-past-the-post the best way to elect a national government?

In 1997, as a Reform MP, Stephen Harper called for electoral reform, warning that “Canada’s problems stem from a winnertake-all style of politics.” Harper and coauthor Tom Flanagan favoured the proportional representation system used in Germany and other countries. Since then, while surveys have indicated a public desire for an improved system, proportional representation proposals were rejected decisively in Prince Edward Island (2005) and Ontario (2007) referendums.

Preferential voting is another option that has the potential to earn broader acceptance.

Under preferential voting, a voter has the option to mark the ballot for just one candidate or rank candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate wins 50 per cent of firstchoice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is dropped. Those ballots are recounted based on second choices. The

process continues until a candidate wins 50 per cent of valid ballots.

What would the House of Commons look like under preferential voting? No one can predict precisely the result. For one thing, parties would campaign differently when second choices matter. However, with this warning in mind, consider the following simulation of the 2011 election based on a national poll showing second choices.

Actual Result Cons.

NDP Lib. BQ Greens

Party 166 103 34 4 1

Preferential Difference Voting 146 114 46 1 1

20 +11 +12 –3 0

Preferential voting is more consistent with the concept of majority rules than our current system because it ensures the winning candidate had the broadest support among those on the ballot. It would allow Canadians to vote strategically while sticking to their principles. On a preferential ballot, environmentalists could mark Green as a first choice, while still participating in the contest by indicating their second and third preferences, rather than the all-or-nothing vote they would cast in first-past-the-post.

Preferential voting has worked well in Australia since 1918 and has recently been adopted in San Francisco, Oakland and London, England. Few recall that British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta used preferential voting-type systems in their provincial elections during the first half of the last century.

Implementing preferential voting will be an uphill climb. The system is somewhat more complex than first-past-the-post voting. Voters would have to think about ranking candidates. British voters recently rejected preferential voting by more than two-to-one in a referendum in which the campaign was hobbled by the unpopularity of Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg, preferential voting’s principal proponent in Britain. Opponents also spooked voters with ads that highlighed the cost of installing electronic-voting machines to tabulate preferences.

Canadian reformers should learn lessons from abroad and act locally. Toronto activist Dave Meslin is leading the campaign in Canada for preferential voting municipal elections. If Canadians see preferential voting electing better mayors and councillors with majority support, perhaps provincial and federal voting reform will follow.

This cursory analysis shows the Conservatives would have earned another fairly strong minority government, but not a majority.

Similar analyses have not been undertaken on past elections, but some would argue Jean Chrétien’s three consecutive Liberal majorities — in which he faced two right-of-centre parties — might have unfolded differently if a preferential balloting system were in place at the time.

Allowing voters to rank their choices would help ensure the House of Commons more accurately ref lects the perspectives, values and priorities of the voters. If this results in more minority governments, so be it.

The need to govern with as broad a consensus as possible should be seen as a positive, rather than a negative.

But this voting reform would not always result in minorities. Leaders with strong convictions can prosper under preferential voting if their principles resonate across party lines. John Curtice’s British election simulations show that Margaret Thatcher’s landslide first-past-the-post wins in 1983 Adil Sayeed is a Toronto-based public policy and 1987 would have been very similar un- consultant. An earlier version of this article der preferential voting. appeared on www.straightgoods.ca.

BERRY VRBANOVIC

GOVER NMENTS WOR K ING together? Sharing responsibility? Talking to one another?

Sounds unlikely, I know, but if we’re looking for ways to strengthen our democracy and improve the way we do politics in Canada, this approach holds the key to the treasure chest.

Because teamwork and co-operation are just as important in government as they are every day in the playground or in the workplace.

And before you dismiss this as too simple or maybe naive, think about the cost of doing things twice, working at cross purposes, or paralysis.

It’s not like we can afford waste. And it’s not like we can afford to have one order of government creating costly problems for another, while leaving the real problems to fester.

Taxpayers are already incensed when they see their hard-earned tax dollars wasted. Imagine when they learn we could have been working together to get things done, but we didn’t because we have “jurisdictional issues.”

For most of Canada’s history, municipalities have been sidelined as “senior” governments — federal, provincial and territorial — made decisions that affected their communities.

The results were bad — for Canadians, for our communities, and for our economy — because if municipalities are not involved in decisions that affect them, there’s no one to flag the on-the-ground impact of the decisions.

No one’s there to say, “Wait, federal immigration policies will deliver a lot of new Canadians to our community, and they’re going to need support to get settled.”

No one’s there to say, “Wait, those new wa-

ter regulations? They’re great, but where does the money come from to upgrade water treatment?”

In the end, local taxpayers foot the bill for these decisions, but the local tax base cannot support new responsibilities with new costs and still deliver basic infrastructure and services.

What’s worse, other governments can’t meet many of their challenges — from fighting crime, climate change or traffic gridlock — without municipal partners to turn policies into effective front-line action. It doesn’t have to be this way. When governments co-operate, they get results.

When the global economic crisis loomed, all orders of government saw the need to cooperate to deliver stimulus to the economy and get people back to work. Working together, we moved at record-speed to create jobs repairing roads, bridges, water systems and community arenas. We pulled the country through the economic crisis and made investments in basic infrastructure that will benefit Canada for decades to come.

This kind of co-operation should continue, and we’re encouraged by some recent progress on important files. For example, the new federal wastewater regulations as first announced required frequent monitoring and reporting, no matter how a system performed or its size. They also made operators liable for any spill from combined sewer overflow points. This would require complete sewer separation and cost communities billions of dollars.

Fortunately, the past 14 months have seen direct federal consultation with local governments. For municipalities, the result will be regulations with a more reasonable reporting regime, sampling frequencies that recognize good system performance, and recognition that smaller communities cannot make the

same investments as large ones. Co-operation between governments produced a better policy.

And while a good partnership goes beyond money, it also guarantees that everyone does their part and pays their share. The federal government should be commended for following through on its Budget 2011 commitment to develop a new, long-term infrastructure plan. When the plan takes effect in 2014, it must build on what we have achieved by putting core federal investments — like the gas tax transfer and the Building Canada Fund — on a solid financial footing for the next 10 to 20 years.

In addition to infrastructure, Canada’s governments must also co-operate across the full range of issues where their jurisdictions overlap. And they must focus on national issues that cry out for co-operation, including: • improving public transit and cutting traffic gridlock; • fighting crime and policing our streets; • helping new Canadians establish themselves in our communities; • conserving energy and protecting our environment; and • working with the private sector to create more affordable rental housing.

The winners and losers of the 21st century are being decided today.

The most successful countries will be those that avoid jurisdictional squabbles and find practical ways for different levels of government to pool resources, co-ordinate activities, and deliver value for taxpayers. The recent infrastructure stimulus plan is ending, but its underlying spirit of shared commitment, teamwork and co-operation must go on.

Berry Vrbanovic is president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Make voter registration an obligatory act, then let those who are engaged vote at 16 PAUL HOWE

VOTER TURNOUT HAS CONTINUED to slide in provincial elections held across the country in the fall of 2011. In October elections, Prince Edward Island, previously immune to the trend, saw turnout drop about 8 per cent, while voter participation in Ontario dipped below the 50 per cent threshold. Lower turnout means weaker mandates for governments — 40 per cent of the vote can represent less than 20 per cent of eligible voters, a tepid endorsement at best. It also is associated with reduced influence on democratic decision-making for groups that participate at lower levels.

Among those conspicuously absent from polling booths across the country are young Canadians, whose participation rates in recent elections have fallen to historic lows. A key priority for Canadian democracy must be to ensure that more young people take up the voting habit as they become eligible voters.

Ambitious solutions to the problem have been proposed, from more robust civics education programs to electoral reform to rekindling dormant notions of civic duty. Whatever their merits, none of these measures has proven easy to implement. We should start with more achievable changes that might have an appreciable effect in themselves, as well as potentially serving as catalysts to further reform.

One positive development in the past 10 years has been the organization of mock elections in schools across the country in conjunction with a certain number of federal and provincial elections. Co-ordinated by the non-profit Student Vote organization, these events offer young people early exposure to the voting process as well as additional civic learning opportunities. Ensuring the program is available for all elections, which is both a funding and co-ordination issue, should be a priority for elections agencies across the country.

A further step in the right direction would be to allow online voter registration. Only

British Columbia has such a system in place.

It is certainly not a panacea ­— only 27 per cent of those under age 25 voted in the last provincial election in 2009 according to Elections BC — but it is one of the necessary building blocks to help guide young Canadians back into electoral politics.

A complementary reform would be to allow people to register before they are eligible to vote, at age 16 for example. This simple expedient is the current practice in the United Kingdom and Australia. It provides extra breathing room for election agencies to ensure newly eligible voters can be added to the voters list before the next election comes around.

With online registration in place, it would be relatively straightforward to co-ordinate an annual “registration drive” through the school system. Once a year, time could be made in the school day to allow newly eligible 16 year olds to take a few minutes at the computer to get their names added to the voters list.

While we’re at it, we might consider making voter registration at age 16 a mandatory requirement. Canadians tend to bridle at obligatory acts of citizenship (mandatory voting, for example, is not a popular idea) but we have fewer compunctions about imposing rules and regulations on those under the age of majority. The mandatory provision could be removed at age 18, allowing people to have their names removed from the voters list if they so wish. But first we should force everyone to opt in, to ensure no one slips through the cracks through mere indifference.

To go a step further, serious consideration should be given to reducing the voting age, though not across the board, as there are legitimate concerns about the capacity of many teenagers to cast an informed ballot. Instead, people could be allowed to vote at age 16 if they successfully pass a civic literacy test assessing their comprehension of political institutions, processes and issues. Tests could be developed by elections agencies with input from political parties to ensure balance, and again could be administered annually through the school system to all interested

students. Given that past surveys of the general population testing Canadians’ knowledge of politics indicate many older adults would struggle to pass such a test, it would be hard to argue against extending the vote to young people with demonstrated civic competence.

With these changes in place, other initiatives might follow as natural accompaniments. One would be to organize annual events in high schools following the annual registration drive of 16 year olds to acknowledge their electoral coming of age, with special recognition for those passing the civic literacy test. The local Member of Parliament might preside over the event, which could be seen as the youth equivalent of the citizenship ceremonies that formally usher new arrivals to Canada into the Canadian fold.

Mandatory voter registration and optional civic literacy tests would also provide a natural impetus to further civics instruction, whether formal or informal. Resistant students might question why they were being forced to register, while keener ones would likely seek assistance and resources to help them pass the civic literacy test. Both could lead to relevant discussion and tutelage in the classroom setting.

There has been a lot of hand-wringing in the past 10 years about low turnout among young Canadians, with precious little progress made.

If we start with a few basic measures, we can perhaps start moving forward on this front.

Paul Howe is a professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick. His 2010 book Citizens Adrift: The Democratic Disengagement of Young Canadians probes the sources of declining engagement levels in Canadian politics.

Micaela Pirani-Watson

Nicolas Sanchez

Shaughnessy Dow

Michaela Lukas

Emma Beattie

Caitlin Russell

Sandra Sanguli

Colleen Trang

WEBCASTING SOLUTIONS FROM FIVE TO FIFTY THOUSAND VIEWERS

150C TERENCE MATTHEWS CRESCENT OTTAWA, ON K2M 1X4 PHONE: +1 613.737.3378 FAX: +1 613.737.3725 TOLL FREE: +1 888.683.5727

CONTENT ANYTIME... ANYWHERE

WWW.ISIGLOBAL.CA

Celebrating 100 years as the voice of Canada’s universities Porte-parole des universités canadiennes depuis 100 ans

The most important email of the day.

Wake up to the Morning Brief.

DYLAN MARANDO

AS AN UNASHAMED ADVOCATE OF participatory politics, my natural impulse, when asked to contribute to a series on democratic reinvigoration, is to think big.

Notions of proportional representation, an abolished Senate and coalition government, for example, are all proposals that I very much support and that I think would do our democracy a great deal of good.

However, so as to avoid repeating some of my colleagues, and in an effort to offer an intensely practical proposal, I will limit myself to thinking rather small with respect to the issue of democratic reform.

Past efforts at lobbying for changes to our political system have made me all too familiar with the failures of attempted paradigm shifts. Though I continue to root for them, and believe they are closer than ever, I think the democratic reform movement would be well served if it did more to gradually grease the wheels of democratization by engaging in a tireless, incremental, yet ultimately more successful reinvention of Canadian democracy.

That is precisely why my remedy for an ailing democracy would be the relatively simple, but also very symbolic, measure of online voting.

This measure is the thin edge of the wedge that committed fellow democrats need to force into the cracks of our system of government. Online voting is not a magic bullet, and, by itself, it will never fix all that ails our democracy. It is, however, a reasonable and practical starting point

for change. It has the potential to modernize our institutions, engage the so-called apathetic and actually empower our political leaders.

Online voting, likely to the surprise of most Canadians, already exists in Canada at a relatively small-scale. Several municipalities have experimented with the innovation since as long ago as 2003. These municipalities have witnessed neither dramatic successes nor failures. For past users and providers of the service, the consensus seems to be that online voting is a convenient and costeffective complement to traditional methods. Online voting has been lauded as a tool that adapts to changing lifestyles and takes advantage of innovations in the way people organize and communicate.

No major and insurmountable privacy and functionality concerns have been voiced.

And as more jurisdictions test and invest in the service, it is likely reliability and security of online voting will only improve.

This is why, in part, even the generally static institution that is Elections Canada is now suggesting online voting is a good idea. Elections Canada’s chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand has expressed support for online voting and has encouraged MPs to amend the Elections Act to allow for its introduction into the system. The short-term and certainly not overly ambitious goal of Mayrand is to test internet voting in a byelection held after 2013. After that, Elections Canada will evaluate and, if the outcomes are positive, a more aggressive proposal is likely.

For reformers trying to move the immov-

able objects within our political institutions, the surprising announcement of Mayrand’s should be a call to action and a real rallying point.

Online voting, especially for the so-called disengaged iPhone-carrying and tweeting youth, will suggest that the system is finally listening and finally trying to meet and engage people where they feel most comfortable.

Online voting will signal that the system is at least trying to go where the action and innovation is, and not stubbornly standing still due to conventions that almost no one knows or cares about.

Online voting allows the system to enter a dynamic digital realm that can be leveraged in so many ways to make voting cool, convenient and maybe even more thoughtful.

Success with voting could then create a number of democratic and digital spinoff possibilities such as online participatory budgeting, digital quasi-referendums and rigorous but user-friendly performance monitoring of ministries and individual politicians. These additional secondary measures would begin to form a democratic snowball, and democrats would be armed with the momentum needed for change.

For reformers, online voting may not be sexy, but it’s about as sexy as it gets in Canadian politics. We need to start somewhere and we need to start soon, because our democracy is on the line.

Dylan Marando is a Toronto-based public policy consultant.

BOB RAE

selection of the leader of a federal party.

For the Liberal Party this may mean a primary system that travels across the country for debate and discussion with candidates, that is open and transparent, and that actively involves the average Canadian voter.

A primary tour across the country will allow Canadians who otherwise wouldn’t have involved themselves in the leadership process to be directly involved. Candidates will be engaged in debate that is both regional and national in scope. And of course there are obvious benefits to the party, for fundraising and increasing the size of our membership.

In short, the strength of our democracy as a country depends on the resilience and openness of our political parties.

THE WORD RENEWAL IS TAKING ON many different meanings as Liberals engage in a dialogue over what kind of party we want to be. What has emerged from this discussion is a truly national dialogue.

At our January biennial convention, these ideas will culminate and decisions will be made in accordance with our constitution to change the way we do things as a party.

What is particularly exciting are the proposals that do not simply seek to renew the Liberal Party, but also seek to reinvigorate the political landscape in Canada.

I believe the strength of our democracy depends on the resilience and openness of our political parties. Renewal must mean opening up the party to a wider base of Canadians and engaging average Canadian voters in a way that ensures Bob Rae is interim leader of the Liberal Party they feel that they have contributed to the and former premier of Ontario.

The most important email of the day.

Wake up to the Morning Brief.

GRAHAM FOX

IN THE PA ST SE V ER A L MONTHS, voters in Europe rose up against a fragile elite consensus on how best to bail out some of its troubled economies and save the euro. Across North America, thousands have occupied public squares to reclaim ownership of their economic space and take back their democracy. Here at home, in a string of provincial elections this fall, almost half the voters (more than half in Ontario) opted for “none of the above” by staying away from the ballot box. Clearly, citizens are deeply dissatisfied with their politics.

The issue is: what is to be done about it?

It would be easy, as some analysts have done in recent weeks, to dismiss the sentiment of alienation that is fuelling much of the discontent. Rather than occupy Wall Street, the disenfranchised should occupy the ballot box, be heard and shape the outcome. The simplicity of the argument is appealing, and there is some merit in it. After all, taking over Victoria Square in Montreal only allows you to make a point. If your goal is to make a difference, marking your ballot will get you there. How many close races since May 2 might have had a different outcome if more people had bothered to vote?

No question, non-voting citizens are partly responsible for their own alienation.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thus, if non-voting citizens were the only ones to feel alienated from power and the decision-making process, the above prescription might suffice. The trouble is, the disconnect is felt across the citizenry, by voters and non-voters alike. What is lacking is a genuine public debate on the issues we face, one that would give real meaning to the act of choosing and voting. Political parties and their leaders share at least some of the burden of this alienation, and indeed bear some significant responsibility to make politics meaningful again.

In contrast, the most recent elections have largely been exercises in consumer politics.

Eschewing broad debates on the big issues of our time, parties of all stripes focused instead on pre-tested “micro-policies” targeted

at specific subsets of voters in constituencies considered up for grabs. To be sure, from a tactical point of view, there is no denying the success of the micro-policy approach. During the past 15 years, party operatives have fine-tuned the art of tailoring messages and policies to specific demographic groups. Particularly in close-fought local races, such tactics may well be the difference between a victory and defeat. But what is the effect of treating voters strictly as consumers of campaign promises? And does it hinder our ability to tackle complex policy issues in the long term?

and leave the room, having had little or no interaction with all of the others who came to do the same thing. More than an “airing of views,” real public engagement requires of participants not just an expression of support for a policy proposal in isolation, but a commitment to making choices, identifying priorities and deciding not to do certain things.

From party strategists will come the usual objections that such proposals are unrealistic, unworkable and even undesirable.

But as Don Lenihan argues convincingly in a forthcoming book, there are a growing number of concrete examples in which governments at all levels invite citizens into the policy process to make difficult decisions on spending, program design, service delivery and policy priorities. The results are clear: when they are satisfied that the process is legitimate and the outcome will be considered seriously by government, citizens take their responsibilities equally seriously. They learn, they consider options, they make a choice — and then they become partners of government in defending that choice. Real public engagement does not just give citizens voice, it demands accountability in return once a choice has been made.

Of course, to be successful, engagement must be viewed as an ongoing conversation among governments, parties and citizens. These do not start at the dropping of the writ, and they do not wrap up on voting day. Real public engagement requires a longterm commitment to open dialogue and codecision. Without a genuine stake in the outcome, why would citizens make the effort?

If politics is about winning elections, the consumer approach should serve parties well for a time yet. But if politics is about solving policy problems and ensuring a strong enough social contract with voters to make the tough decisions, perhaps it is time we start asking ourselves whether there is a better way to do this. In NGOs, local organizations and business networks, citizens are already engaged in that discussion; all they need now is for political leaders to join them.

The principal merit of the consumer approach to politics is that, for each policy transaction, everyone’s obligations and benefits are clear: voters mark their ballots in a particular way in exchange for an anticipated benefit, should that party form a government. But the same approach that might ensure victory on election night may well create a problem for those who have to govern once the campaign signs have been taken down. Beyond that agreed-upon transaction, what reasonable expectations should governments have regarding the loyalty of the voter as consumer? How does a new government convince voters to stand by it through difficult times, or in the face of changing circumstances, if the campaign debate failed to warn voters about the choppy waters ahead and instead drew their attention toward shiny new policy trinkets?

The alternative is to view citizens as active owners of the political process, rather than passive consumers of its products; that is to say, to give citizens a more direct say in setting the agenda for public debate and sorting out its competing priorities. This is different from conventional “consultations” during which a steady stream of individuals Graham Fox is president and CEO of the and groups express their views on an issue Institute for Research on Public Policy.

ROBIN V. SEARS

IN EVERY DEMOCR ACY, CITIZENS pay taxes for things they detest — from jet fighters to clean needle clinics. We don’t “choose” to pay taxes, and we don’t check a list of items we are willing to pay for. Why would we let others choose the government making those decisions for us? We all pay taxes — even the poor pay sales taxes and fees. Why don’t we all vote?

What would happen if we elected a government with the votes of one in five Canadians, because half of us stayed home? In Ontario, this year, we came close. In many of our cities, we elect municipal governments on even smaller numbers. When does a democracy stop meriting the name, if the governed have opted out of choosing their governors?

In 1922 the turnout in an Australian national election dipped below 60 per cent for the first time in the country’s history. Horrified, the country adopted a mandatory voting policy that has become part of national culture. It has built a deep accountability between the governors and the governed, in this most individualistic of Anglosphere nations.

Australia is the only parliamentary democracy in the world where the governing party’s MPs, on any grumpy week, can demand a vote of confidence in the prime minister. They can, and do, regularly dump their party leader and head of government in one single democratic eruption. The current prime minister is a product of just such an insurrection — deliciously known as a “spill” in local democratic vernacular — as were several of her predecessors in the postwar era. Any Canadian political leader asked to subject themselves to such a populist referendum on any given Wednesday morning

would laugh at the absurdity.

For decades now, Australian families have gone out to vote together on a Saturday. You are registered at 17, and vote when you turn 18. Parents complain about the venality of their politicians — as voters do everywhere ­­— but also explain the miracle of ordinary citizens’ freedom to select their governing leader and party, and why you need to vote.

Now, Australian politics is a rougher trade than the versions on offer in more genteel places such as the Great White North. Australia has probably had more elected officials imprisoned for malfeasance than most other Commonwealth democracies combined. Accepted daily discourse in the Australian parliament would cause most Canadian Commons speakers to blush in horror. Australian politics is cleaved along class ­— and sometimes religious and racial — divides as bitter and intemperate as Canadian politics was in the 1940s.

So there is every reason for a moderate middle-class, mildly disengaged Australian voter to be as disenchanted by the choices on election day, as any dyspeptic Canadian voter. There is probably a deeper cynicism about the nature of attack politics in Sydney than in Saskatoon or Sudbury. But there is one essential difference between Canadians and Australians as citizens.

Canadians are free to sulk, to sit on the sofa and sneer at political choice, to let others choose their leaders for them. Australians must choose and then vote. They can spoil their ballots as a raised finger at the paucity of choice, but they must show up and mark their defiance. Interestingly, fewer than five per cent spoil their ballots.

In Ontario, for the first time, this year we slipped below a majority of citizens deciding in favour of the polling booth over the couch. Some cynical political observers say,

“So what, North Korea has great turnouts.

That doesn’t make them a democracy?!”

This misses the point of democratic selection entirely. Democracy requires legitimacy. A genuinely free citizenry choose their governors to make tough choices on their behalf. When indolence or deliberate vote suppression tactics mean that fewer than half of the electorate choose their government, we are at the edge of a slide toward illegitimacy. That path led to many of the horrors of the 20th century.

We are again likely to be facing years of tough fiscal constraint in Canada. There will be bitter losers of painful budget choices. Do we unite Canadians about the fairness and wisdom of those choices if our government is chosen by a majority of older, whiter, richer, more rural voters? Why don’t we learn from the experience of our Aussie cousins?

Why don’t we try Saturday family voting as a requirement of citizenship no less compulsory than filing a tax return — even for just a couple of elections? A sunsetted piece of legislation, with a test period of perhaps two elections or a decade, whichever comes first. If we didn’t like having to vote, it would not be renewed, and we would revert to the status quo ante automatically.

Per capita, Canada has more of its citizens abroad than any developed democracy, more than two million. Most of them don’t vote.

Australia makes it easy for its citizens to vote anywhere in the world. We could too, using online voting. We could allow voters to vote online 24/7 over a weeklong period.

Just think, if we rolled out such a package, our next government might even be elected by a majority of Canadians.

Robin V. Sears is a senior partner at public affairs firm Navigator Ltd. and a former diplomat for the province of Ontario.

GOLDY HYDER

IF PARLIAMENT WERE A COMPANY listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, its value would be in decline as Canadians continue to sell whatever remaining interest they have in it.

In successive elections, a discouragingly low number of Canadians have gone to the polls, with fewer still willing to fully commit themselves to the cause by putting their names on a ballot.

Democracy in Canada is suffering from the same fate as the global economy: a crisis of confidence. And much like a struggling company, the best way to recapture its historic strength is to go back to basic first principles.

Some will stress the need to modernize our voting system, to expand into new markets by electing senators, or even to consider mandatory voting.

With respect, these are tactics that do not address the real issue: people are feeling — rightly or wrongly — that elected officials are not representing them. Until that issue is addressed, how or how often one votes is largely irrelevant.

To that end, the change that is most likely to improve the quality of our democracy and restore the faith of the average voter is relaxing excessive party discipline.

At its core, democracy is not simply about choice of party, it is about representation.

The cancer in our political system is the way in which people believe, fairly or unfairly, that they are not being represented by the people they elect.

The lack of confidence is reflected in the lack of participation, which should not be confused with lack of interest. On the contrary, even people who choose not to vote continue to care, continue to debate the issues and continue to have an influence on politics.

Like the investors in the opening analogy, they may not be investing in the market today but they continue to monitor trends for new opportunities. And, more importantly, they continue to have capital to invest.

The central question then is what will it take to engage Canadians, to turn around declining voter turnout and, by extension, to improve democracy in Canada?

To be sure, elections with higher turnouts were historically driven by high-profile public policy issues that polarized or galvanized the electorate. Moreover, it is equally true such elections are the exception not the rule.

Yet, this does not necessarily mean people are motivated to vote only when a socalled “hot button” issue dominates an election. Rather, it is a sign Canadians vote when they think it matters.

If the candidates Canadians elect are not seen to represent the interest of their constituents in Parliament, or, worse, are viewed as ambassadors from Ottawa when they are back home, voters can be forgiven for thinking their votes don’t matter.

One of the challenges of party discipline is that much of the actual representation made by elected officials happens behind closed doors in caucus meetings. This behindclosed-doors approach hides the best efforts and hard work that elected officials do.

This effect is further compounded when they are forced to act like puppets when in public and read from prepared scripts, including intelligent men and women in cabinet or others who ask softball question in question period about the “great work that the government is doing.”

None of this is to suggest that political parties aren’t vitally important, or that our system could thrive in an “everyone for themselves” environment. We have seen ominous glimpses of this in the congressional Republican caucus in the United States.

In the British parliamentary tradition, which is our democratic inheritance, there has to be some discipline, particularly when it comes to matters of confidence and the federal budget, otherwise a government is rendered completely impotent.

However, the extreme to which we are practising party discipline in Canada has been a major setback to the way in which democracy is practised and, frankly, in its ability to attract the most qualified, capable and competent people to seek public office.

Parliament and legislatures across Canada need more free votes, more inf luence from the backbenches and more opportunities for the voices of Mainstream and Main Street Canadians to be heard in Parliament.

This is particularly important when, for the most part, governments are often formed with less than a majority of the electorate’s popular support. It makes the desire to “govern for all” that much harder if rigid discipline is imposed and freedom to reflect the diversity of views is suppressed.

As the prime minister once noted of our economy, the fundamentals of our democracy are strong. We just need to put something in the window that Canadians actually want to buy.

Goldy Hyder is senior vice-president and general manager at Hill & Knowlton Ottawa and a commentator on CTV Power Play.

Hollerado is an indie band with a populist bent. On a recent tour, the Toronto musicians set out to meet as many mayors as they could as the band travelled from city to town. The tour proved a novel way for the band and its fans to connect with leaders, while creating a dialogue between politics and music. iPolitics.ca’s Jessie Willms talked to lead singer Meeno Versteeg about the Meet the Mayor tour and what he learned along the way: Whose idea was it to meet the mayors?

We were talking about the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford. We wondered if you could go talk to him. Everyone in the room was like, “No, there’s not a chance.”

I suggested we try.

If you can’t meet the mayor, who can you meet? If you can’t talk to your local municipal representative, who can you talk to?

conservative, but not necessarily be socially conservative.

He actually talked about the legalization of marijuana and later got a lot of flak from his peers and the press. He didn’t back down, which we thought was really cool.

He could have easily said, “These kids took me out of context.” But he totally stuck to his guns.

What’s the connection between art and politics?

Art? You’re talking about people — it’s stories and personal experiences and people’s different reactions to different experiences.

Politics is the exact same thing.

What impressed you most?

That so many of our fans got involved.

What did you take way from meeting the mayors?

That it is possible. That’s all. You can talk to your local representatives about things that What surprised you most about your concern you. conversations?

In Thunder Bay, this really conservative If there was one thing you’d do to fix the way mayor spoke to us about a whole bunch we do politics in Canada, what would it be? of things really openly. He changed my Besides getting rid of Stephen Harper? Get perspective of a conservative politician. more young people engaged and actually He showed me you can be economically caring about politics.

DON NEWMAN

YOU SHOULDN’T TRY TO FIX THE roof when it is raining.

So with the Harper majority firmly in place until at least October 2015, now is the time to draw up new rules to govern the House of Commons the next time there is a minority government.

Changing the rules once a minority Parliament is elected is impossible. All of the parties have too much at stake. So the rules must be changed now in the political tranquility of a majority government.

Because if we don’t, the next election in which no party gets a majority of seats to impose its will on the House is going to send us back into the toxic political atmosphere of the past five years. Back to a time when governing becomes secondary to political survival, civility disappears from public life.

The key to providing for stable minority governments is the fixed-date election law passed in 2006 by a minority Harper government, a law that says a federal election must be held in the middle of October every four years.

So far that law doesn’t mean much. Using a loophole in the law, Harper ignored it in 2008 when he asked and got a general election. It was ignored again when the opposition parties defeated the government in April 2011.

Du r i ng bot h t hose elec t ions , M Ps thumbed their noses at a law that applies directly only to the people that passed it: Members of Parliament.

But it would take only a few simple changes to guarantee the fixed date election law would add stability and fairness to the political process even in minority Parliaments,

and, like any law, be respected and followed.

The way to do that is to make it clear that with fixed-dates for elections, the governor general’s first responsibility is to have a government in place for the full 48 months.

And the way to help make that happen is to change the rules in the House of Commons when a government loses a vote on the budget, the throne speech or any other confidence matter.

New rules could work this way. When a minority government is defeated on a matter of confidence, the prime minister would have the right within 48 hours to place a straight vote of confidence in the government before the House. If that vote is won, the government continues uninterrupted. Of course, to win a subsequent confidence vote on the issue on which it originally lost would require negotiation and compromise with another party to continue to stay in power.

But if the government loses the straight vote of confidence, does that mean the country is headed to the polls? Not necessarily.

A governor general armed with the responsibility of keeping Parliament going between the fixed election dates would have to ask someone else — almost always the leader of the Opposition — to form a government and try to win a confidence vote to stay in

power.

Only if that process failed, and no group of parties could form a government that could win a confidence vote and control the House, would the governor general call an election.

The completion of that election would set the fixed-date calendar in place again.

These new rules would lead to bargaining, deals and compromise. But in a minority Parliament, that is what it takes to keep a government going. Moreover, with the possibility of losing office on a confidence vote midway though the four-year election cycle, the new rule changes would put pressure on the party that formed the government after an election to never lose a confidence vote.

And if, on occasion, a prime minister couldn’t find a partner, it would be an almost certainty that was because the opposition parties had already agreed on an arrangement to win control of the House.

Either way, the bargaining, compromise and deals would be cut before the hammer dropped. That is the way it should work in a minority Parliament. And in a minority Parliament, sudden elections would be almost as rare as they are with majority governments in office.

After three minority governments in seven years, there is now a sense of tranquility with the Harper majority in place at least until October 2015.

But in the past 50 years, there have been 17 federal general elections. Eight of them produced minority governments.

That is why it is time to fix the roof.

Don Newman is chair of Canada 2020 and a strategic policy adviser at Bluesky Strategy Inc. He was senior parliamentary editor at CBC Television News from 1988 to 2009.

AMANDA CLARKE

VOTER TURNOUT HAS DECREASED steadily in federal elections since the late 1980s, casting doubt on the quality and legitimacy of Canadian representative democracy. Policy-makers tasked with reversing dwindling participation rates may find this a daunting, even impossible, endeavor, as studies suggest the issue of voter turnout is far from straightforward.

An overlapping and interrelated barrage of factors determine one’s likelihood of showing up at the polling booth, ranging from sense of civic duty to weather conditions. In this context, simple and effective policy prescriptions may appear out of reach, a troubling thought considering what’s at stake.

Fortunately, emerging research that examines when and why individuals make decisions about whether to participate in socially beneficial activities — such as voting — suggests we need not despair just yet. Captured most famously by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, the politics of nudge abandons coercive measures that force individuals to “do the right thing.” Instead, it advocates that policy-makers alter the ways that various options are presented in order that individuals naturally select “the right thing” of their own volition.

In one experiment, informing hotel guests of the number of previous guests that had reused towels significantly raised their likelihood of reusing the towels themselves. Here, a strategic information cue encouraged people to “do the right thing” for the environment and, in turn, for the hotel seeking money savings in water use. Nudge advocates also cite examples of workplace pension schemes in which making contributions the default option, versus opt-in plans, significantly raised the number of employees who saved for retirement.

Barack Obama and David Cameron have openly integrated nudge politics into their governing philosophies, recognizing its po-

tential to support low-cost, “do it yourself ” public good production. Policy-makers in Canada may gain by following their lead, in particular, when attempting to get citizens to the polls when they might not otherwise do so.

What might a nudge approach to electoral engagement look like in practice? To begin with, Canadian policy-makers could draw insight from research suggesting that reminding citizens of their duty to vote or informing them of the number of their neighbours who have voted in the past can spur them to the polling booth. These results accord with the positive effect that door-todoor “get out the vote” campaigners have on voter turnout rates. These tactics are on the wane in Canada, but nudge politics suggest we may want to rethink the role a healthy dose of well-intentioned social pressure may have in reinvigorating electoral participation. These programs will likely be less cumbersome and costly to implement in an age when governments need not only rely on face-to-face door knockers and flyers, but can also harness internet technologies to efficiently deliver information cues to wouldbe voters.

Governments could also apply nudge tactics to more effectively engage young people in politics, an essential task given that their low turnout rates serve as one of the strongest drags on overall participation levels.

Imagine a situation in which voting in an election were a routine part of a student’s school day. Homeroom, math, recess, voting, lunch. “Routine” in that it is integrated into the daily grind, but not mandatory inasmuch as a student is free to abstain from voting — to opt out of the default scheme — should he or she choose to. Of course, to ensure all students benefit, such a program would involve lowering the voting age, in this case to 16, the age after which students in Canada are allowed to leave high school (with the exception of New Brunswick and Ontario, where the school-leaving age is 18). Many others have suggested the logic

of lowering the voting age and instituting in-school voting programs, recognizing that an individual who votes once is much more likely to continue to vote in subsequent elections. By this view, the public education system provides a key window of opportunity to socialize youth into political participation, with the only significant barrier to this potentially powerful policy reform being dated and arbitrary standards that suggest that 18 serve as the threshold for formal political participation.

The theory of nudge underlies this proposal — an elegant, simple and potentially transformative means of encouraging behaviour that benefits both the individual, in this case, the youth socialized into voting, and society at large.

To be sure, nudge tactics will likely do little to encourage participation among those who abstain from voting out of a genuine dislike for electoral politics. However, for the large numbers of people who do not vote because of apathy, a lack of information and motivation, or administrative barriers, nudges” may be all we need to facilitate participation. Simple solutions to complex problems are rare — Canadian policy-makers should be nudged to recognize them when they come along.

Amanda Clarke is a Trudeau scholar completing a doctorate at the University of Oxford. Her research examines public sector reform, democratic renewal and the role of the internet in contemporary politics. Previously, Clarke was a research analyst for the Library of Parliament and a Canada Graduate Scholar at Carleton University. Her work can be found at www.aclarke.ca.

Back in May, after the NDP swept through Quebec, gathering up seats, the hand-wringing started over the age of some of the new MPs. 19? 22? Seemed a bit young to some.

Charmaine Borg is already proving the skeptics wrong. Sitting on the justice committee is a big job, given the government’s continued focus on the economy and balancing the budget. Borg has also been vocal in the House, speaking out on poverty, youth employment issues and proportional representation. Part of the changing face of Parliament, Borg is putting to rest any worry that age matters in the House of Commons.

CHARMAINE BORG

The most impor ta nt way t hat we, as parliamentarians, could change politics for the better would be to encourage a more open, in-depth and informed debate on the bills proposed in the House of Commons.

We need to re-evaluate the current practices used to study legislation in committees.

Despite being new to the House of Commons, I fully understand that the principle role of parliamentary committees is indeed to study legislation. Yet, since the beginning of my tenure on the standing committee for justice and human rights, I have oftentimes witnessed the role played by partisan politics in obstructing the quality of study of the issues and legislation at hand.

In my opinion, an open, in-depth and informed study of legislation demands open dialogue with experts, civil society and

everyday Canadians. Drastic decisions about the future of our country require this quality of dialogue and debate. Politicians should not be afraid of extending the time allotted for the debate and deliberation of bills if it means we are opening up dialogue that will, in the end, sculpt wiser legislation.

We are only 308 MPs in the House and although we come from many backgrounds, none of us can stand up in the House and say that we understand the multiple realities of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Rather, this knowledge is gained through dialogue with the academics, the members of civil society, the field experts and the people.

In my opinion, for the good of our country, we must have the humility to take a step back, when necessary, and say, “I thought I understood how X worked, but after hearing from multiple experts, I am learning otherwise. Perhaps I should pause and re-evaluate my position.�

As a Member of Parliament, I hope to see more parliamentarians, from both sides of the House, take the time to listen, in a nonselective manner, to the advice of the wise Canadians across the country and to use that very advice when deciding on the future of our country.

I have personally committed to hold public forums in my constituency with the goal of jump-starting open, in-depth and informed discussions around the issues of the day. I encourage my colleagues to develop similar initiatives to broaden political discussion and encourage a more informed debate.

DAVID CHRISTOPHERSON

THE REFORM OF OUR DEMOCRATIC institutions is becoming an increasingly important issue for both the Canadian public and politicians alike. New Democrats have long advocated for making our political institutions more representative, calling for addition of an element of proportional representation to our electoral system and for a referendum on the abolition of the unnecessary and unaccountable Senate.

The Conservative government has introduced Bill C-7 (Senate Reform Act) as part of its democratic reform agenda. The bill would give provinces the option of holding Senate selection elections, where the names of winners would be given to the prime minister for consideration (but the prime minister would not be required to appoint the “winner”). A senator would be appointed for a single, non-renewable, nine-year term. The Conservatives argue this bill will make the Senate more democratic — however, as the Supreme Court has said, an elected Senate is actually a “radical change.” This bill will further entrench an unaccountable Senate, result in dangerous legislative conflict between the House of Commons and the Senate, and increase regional tensions.

Bill C-7 would prohibit, by law, senators from running for re-election and being held accountable for their election promises unkept or for any actions they took while in office. How does this improve our democracy?

If anything, this risks increasing the politicization of an institution that is already filled with fundraisers and party operatives from the Liberal and Conservative parties and

Furthermore, while Bill C-7 calls for the election of federal senators, it leaves either the provinces or municipalities to pay the bill. It’s possible some provinces will decide to spend the money on Senate elections, but others will not and their senators will be appointed the old-fashioned way. This would leave Canada with a Senate where some senators will be able to sit until age 75, some will have been appointed for nine-year terms, yet others will have been “elected” for nine-year terms. This could increase dysfunction by having some senators with greater legitimacy than others.

By increasing the power of the Senate, we must also be aware of the regional disparity that will be further entrenched. The seat distribution in the Senate reflects the population and political weight of regions at the time of Confederation. For example, New Brunswick, with 10 seats has more political weight than BC (six seats) or Alberta (six seats). This disparity must not be ignored and cannot be changed without a further constitutional amendment.

The Conservatives and Liberals seem intent on maintaining an antiquated institution that they have increasingly used for partisan purposes. New Democrats understand the Senate is unnecessary and does not serve to further our democracy in any real way. We will continue our call for a referendum on the abolishment of the Senate. In the meantime, we will work hard to expose the dangers that the Conservative agenda on Senate reform pose to the very fabric of our democracy.

robs voters of passing judgment on a senator’s tenure.

The House of Commons and the Senate have almost identical legislative powers — the only tangible difference being that the Senate cannot introduce bills that increase government spending. Since senators are appointed to the Senate, they do not have the same legitimacy to represent their constituents as do elected Members of Parliament. Bill C-7 will fundamentally change how our democracy works. It’s reasonable to expect an elected Senate would flex its new legislative muscle, and there is currently no mechanism in our parliamentary procedure to break gridlock between the two houses of Parliament. We only have to look to the United States to see what our parliamentary future could look like, and they have the necessary dispute-resolution mechanism.

To add greater concern, Conservative Senator Bert Brown has recently written an op-ed that acknowledges the gridlock that would result with an “empowered” Senate, stating that a constitutional amendment is needed to fix a problem that the passage of C-7 would create. Canadians understand how difficult any constitutional discussions can be, and there is no guarantee it will be successful. This alone David Christopherson is the NDP critic for should cause great concern. democratic reform.

JIM COWAN

THERE IS A PROFOUND DISCONNECT in Canada today between government and the people it is meant to serve. Canadians have turned their backs on the political process. Only 61 per cent of eligible voters voted in the last federal election. The decline in the voter participation rate is a disturbing trend that has been in evidence for a number of years.

Canadians want to engage — they understand that government matters to their lives and the kind of country we leave for our children. But they find themselves shut out. The parliamentarians they elect are marginalized — questions in Parliament are met with scorn and obfuscation, basic issues like the cost of a bill are stonewalled, and debate and committee hearings on critical legislation are shut down. Parliamentarians’ voices are silenced.

When Canadians, including renowned experts, come to Ottawa to share their knowledge, they are given short shrift. Witnesses literally receive five minutes to state their case on complicated bills, and then are cut off midsentence. They ask if anyone cares about the quality of the legislation being passed. What kind of democracy do we have, when Canadians cannot be heard in Parliament?

The Harper government is focused on Senate reform. The Liberal Party is not opposed to Senate reform — to the contrary, we want to ensure that our parliamentary institutions are the best they can be. But re-

form of our Houses of Parliament is a serious matter. It makes no sense to begin the process of Senate reform before we know what we want the institution to look like in the end. You don’t start a voyage before you know your destination. What is the purpose of the Senate? What will be its role, its powers?

It may indeed be time for Senate term limits, but the term must be carefully chosen. Someone appointed to a single, nonrenewable nine-year term, as the government proposes in Bill C-7, has little reason to be accountable to Canadians or to act as a check on the government.

Senate elections may be desirable, but we need first to think through what will happen in the inevitable case of a deadlock between the two chambers. What should be the relationship between the two chambers, and between Parliament and provincial governments? Senators elected for nine years by an entire province will arguably wield more power than MPs, and even more than provincial premiers. And unless changes are made to the provincial representation in the Senate, western voices will be overwhelmed by those from Central and even Atlantic Canada. Surely this is not what the proponents of a Triple-E Senate had in mind. Nothing in Stephen Harper’s proposals would change this.

These are important issues, but discussion of them should not be limited to Parliament Hill. The Constitution was the result of a carefully negotiated agreement between the provinces and federal authorities. The prov-

inces have said they want to be involved in discussions of Senate reform; constitutionally, they have a right to be involved. The government cannot proceed unilaterally.

The Harper government argues that Canadians have no appetite to open up the Constitution. In fact, he has already opened it up. He claims he has the legal authority to do it on his own, and steadfastly refuses all suggestions that he ask the highest court in the land for its opinion on whether he is proceeding constitutionally.

But Senate reform is only one piece of the democratic reforms that are needed. It makes no sense to call for Senate elections when Canadians already are refusing to come to the polls. The Harper government wants to expand the number of MPs in the House of Commons, all the while refusing to listen to the current MPs. Democratic reform should be about finding ways to make Canadians feel they are able to make a difference by participating in the parliamentary process. There is much we can do to strengthen our Parliament and our nation. Canadians deserve nothing less.

Jim Cowan is a Liberal senator representing Nova Scotia.

Since her star turn as the Rogue Page, Brigette DePape kept her profile high, first by leading a protest outside the Conservative Party convention in June, and following up with speaking appearances at a Keystone XL pipeline protest on Parliament Hill and Occupy Ottawa this fall. DePape has also started penning essays on both the political change she wants in Canada and her life after becoming the country’s most famous parliamentary page, after holding up a “Stop Harper” sign during the throne speech. She’s pushing others to follow her lead, and becoming a voice for Canada’s young left. In the process, she’s adding a new dimension to our political conversation.

BRIGETTE DEPAPE

How can we make politics work?

We could start by acknowledging and celebrating the work of community organizers who are leading fundamental change.

The source for progressive change in our country has not come from rulers on high, but from people of all walks of life fighting for change. For example, we often attribute winning health care to our politicians,

but it was only possible because thousands of labour and community members set the groundwork to make it happen.

But this work is often belittled by the establishment. In a similar way that media and politicians attacked my action in the Senate, many are writing off the Occupy movement as a bunch of irresponsible youth with nothing better to do. Based on my experience at occupations in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, quite the opposite is true.

At these autonomous sites of organizing, people of all ages see that our responsibility goes beyond voting once every four years. It is a matter of daily engagement and resistance. They are providing food and shelter for those our government has ignored, are hosting educational workshops and are planning resistance to unjust policies, such as the omnibus crime bill.

Our counterforce is gaining momentum — from occupations to rallies for jobs, not jails, to the civil disobedience against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that succeeded in shifting a done deal to a delay. We are beginning to see the kind of people power that I dreamed about when I took my small action in the Senate.

When we fearlessly support this resistance, bringing it from the margins to the majority, power will shift back to us.

REALTORS®

REAL ESTATE AGENTS, ONLY BETTER. Not all real estate agents are REALTOR® agents. With the support of a 100,000 member network, responsibility for following a strict REALTOR® Code of Ethics, and exclusive access to Boards’ MLS® Systems, REALTOR® agents have more to offer. Look for the seal.

The MLS® trademarks and the associated logos are owned by The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and identify the quality of services provided by real estate professionals who are members of CREA. The trademarks REALTOR®, REALTORS® and the REALTOR® logo are controlled by CREA and identify real estate professionals who are members of CREA.

LAWRENCE MARTIN

DEMOCRACY. WHAT DEMOCRACY? Most experts will tell you Canada’s democracy has never been in such an undemocratic condition.

It’s been in a state of decline since the Trudeau years when the Prime Minister’s Office expanded its reach and became known to critics as the imperial PMO. Brian Flemming, who worked as a Trudeau policy adviser, has written that the power structure has devolved to the point that Parliament, cabinet and the public service are no longer near the players they used to be.

“What remains are increasingly efficient and ever more powerful prime minister’s offices with their staffs of policy advisers, media spinmeisters and pollsters, all beholden personally to the prime minister for their status and paycheques. As a result, many once great offices of state have become dignified shells of their former selves.”

One-man rule is now the way.

Donald Savoie, a leading authority on governance, says we have a system of court government — a king and his court of unelected disciples exercising full control. Cabinet, Savoie says, has been turned into something akin to a focus group.

The country’s constitutional democracy is based on the supremacy of Parliament, the system’s legislative branch. But while the executive branch has expanded its power and while the judicial branch has grown in influence with the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the people’s forum, where democracy’s blood flows, has atrophied.

It is under the Caesar of the present day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that PMO power has been maximized to an unprecedented degree.

The most recent display of anti-democratic impulse was his government’s move to limit debate on such key pieces of legislation as the dismantling of the gun registry. Never, say the New Democrats, has time allocation

been used so often in such a short period — five times in 38 days, they counted — to push through legislation.

In the spring, following a condemnatory ruling by the Speaker, the government was found in contempt of Parliament — a first in Canadian history — for its refusal to disclose information on the costing of programs. In the G8 spending controversy, Parliament was misled into thinking that $50 million it allocated was for border infrastructure projects.

Instead it was for beautification projects in a cabinet minister’s riding.

Before the advent of court governance, or what one critic has called “the controlfreak kingdom,” parliamentary committees acted as a check on PMO power. But they have been made increasingly dysfunctional.

The Conservatives reversed themselves on a promise to have the committees elect their own chairs, they issued their members a 200page handbook on how to disrupt committee proceedings and, more recently, they have stipulated that political staffers to ministers no longer have to testify before committees.

As for the ministers themselves, in our 21st century democracy, it has become common for those in trouble to refuse to take questions in question period.

Information is the lifeblood of democracy, but the Conservatives have gone to new extremes to control it, imposing a governmentwide vetting system on virtually all communications, thus diminishing the influence of the civil service and the diplomatic corps.

Parliament was twice shut down, once to avoid certain defeat on a coming non-con-

fidence motion.

Democratic inquiries, such as the commission investigating the Afghan detainees’ affair, have been shut down. Watchdogs or agency heads who don’t tow the government line have been fired or silenced or overruled, while others, like former integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet, make a mockery of their oversight functions.

These are but some of the ways in which the democratic system has been subjugated.

The root of the problem, many experts feel, lies in a Constitution that leaves too much arbitrary power in the hands of the leader.

Much of the Canadian system, says Alex Himelfarb, a former clerk of the privy council, operates on the basis of convention. It is up to the prime minister of the day to respect or defy democratic principles. The system is vulnerable to a political strongman.

While there has been some opposition to ever-increasing one-man rule, an example being a country-wide protest over Harper`s second prorogation of Parliament, the pressure for democratic reform has been unsustained. Opposition parties have offered only weak plans for attacking the problem. The complacent media show a lack of outrage at democracy’s descent.

Though the last election was triggered by the government being found in contempt of Parliament, the issue of abuse of power did not strike a strong enough chord to affect the outcome. Despite their record, the Conservatives won handily. The result could be seen as a vindication, giving them a green light to continue their ways. What happens to our alleged democracy in the meantime is another question.

Lawrence Martin is the author of 10 books and the senior columnist at iPolitics.ca. His most recent book, Harperland, was nominated for the Shaughnessy Cohen award. His other works include two volumes on Jean Chrétien, two on Canada-U.S. relations and three books on hockey.

We can probably credit Tony Clement for pushing our MPs into the Twittersphere.

Whereas citizens might before have had to rely on sporadic coverage in their local paper’s national section, they can now track their Ottawa representative virtually in real time, thanks to constant updates on Twitter, and perhaps see an exchange between members outside the staid question period. And yes, Twitter works both ways, acting as an easy outlet for government messaging, but its potential is promising.

Clement pushed this new media adoption, and it is changing our discourse.

TONY CLEMENT

It’s been said that any sufficiently advanced technolog y is indisting uishable from magic. Sometimes, working on my tablet or tweeting someone hundreds or thousands of kilometres away, it feels like just that.

I have eagerly embraced new social media tools that I believe allow Canadians — and people from almost anywhere in the world — a more direct, less filtered, medium to engage their elected representatives.

Voter turnout in the last federal election was just above 61 per cent. This is near the historical low point and viewed as an indicator of public disengagement from the political process. At the same time, however, we’ve seen massive citizen engagement through social media outlets.

New media has democratized information, and people are far more aware of current events than ever before. My hope is that through social media, politicians can better engage with citizens, dialogue with them and, most importantly, hear directly from a variety of minds on issues that matter to them locally, provincially, nationally and internationally.

This is the solution to political apathy.

In addition to social media initiatives, I am excited to be spearheading other innovations for our government. Open government and increased transparency from increased and improved data sharing will be a hallmark of government in the future, a lasting legacy I am proud our government, in Canada, is leading.

There is a tremendous opportunity to take the tools of information technology and make government faster, more effective and more efficient. I believe we can enhance core government business such as program and service delivery, and even policy-making, with the right technology tools.

Right now, the move to update federal government technology is linked to the government’s overarching plans to find savings across departments in programs and ser vices. This year, we received a mandate from Canadians to eliminate the deficit, keep taxes low and continue creating jobs — and IT can help us. I have been an early adopter of these technologies and tools, relying heavily upon my tablet to edit speeches or correspondence on the fly. In my department, we have begun the process to lead the government in tele-presence and web-based collaboration.

While we will always need the full and open debates of Parliament, new social media tools are putting Canadian citizens in direct communication with the people who represent them. Modernizing government by using technology to work smarter is a goal we have. By embracing innovation we will indeed make the government of tomorrow a reality today and fundamentally change the way government works for Canadians. Social media and IT innovations are like a politician’s open-door policy, and that’s the way it should be.

MASSIMO BERGAMINI

ELIZABETH THOMPSON’S ARTICLE appeared on iPolitics on Oct. 27, 2011 under the headline “Twitter, Facebook and social media ‘critical’ to government, says Clement.”

It was one of those stories that sails just under the radar of mainstream media.

Speaking after an appearance before the Senate official languages committee, Treasury Board President Tony Clement told iPolitics that he wants to launch a pilot project to use social media to consult and engage Canadians more on government policies. He added that he intends to push forward with the Treasury Board’s open data initiative where government information is shared openly online.

Yawn, right?

Wrong.

This is one story with legs. Or at least, it’s a story that should have legs. While it may not be readily apparent, few initiatives on the government’s drawing board have the potential to transform our democracy as much as this one.

Anyone who believes in the concepts and merits of open government, or government 2.0, needs to take stock of this and react now.

Senate reform and more MPs for rapidly growing provinces amount to tinkering at the margins of our democratic system when compared with the transformative potential of genuine online engagement and its institutional implications.

Clement, who is one of the most active MPs on Twitter, is quoted saying that the opportunity “to use social media, to speak directly to people, to our constituents, to citizens…is a big occasion to promote the conversation between citizens and the Canadian government.

It is very important for the future.”

He’s right. The problem is there have been no conversations on what that conversation could or should look like.

The absence of a public debate on the merits and implications of using technology to open up government and engage more with citizens means that what has the potential to transform our institutions also runs the risk of being used to shore up the status quo.

Our system is built around incrementalism — small, cautious steps that don’t rock the boat are what garner promotions in Ottawa, not proposals for sweeping institutional reform.

And citizen consultation is nothing new in government. There are well-staffed units in most federal departments that do nothing but consult and engage with citizens and interest groups.

But using new online tools to make these consultations easier do not mean we’ve embraced government 2.0. Giving outdated concepts and approaches, a fresh coat of paint will only hide the rust and cover up cracks.

Our current system of ministerial and bureaucratic accountability is not designed to easily integrate solutions that run counter to formal advice. Alternatives or contrary opinions tend to be relegated to the public environment scans of memos to cabinet, not recommended action.

Designing new government online strategies to operate on the old institutional and accountability platforms would be like putting a Ferrari body on a ’72 Pinto drive train — it’ll look nice in the garage, but don’t take it for a spin.

If the core principles of open government (data as a public good, largely unfettered access to information, implementation of citizen solutions and democratic engagement) were implemented, they would result in a fundamental shift in how government works and thinks. It would also amount to a dramatic rethink of our democracy.

But without a compelling main-street narrative to create political space and demand for

real change and without any obvious external champions for this cause, the prospects of a transformative open government agenda being implemented any time soon are dim.

Open government is not a bureaucratic issue — open government is all about politics.

And political decisions will be what makes it happen.

It’s not enough for techies and theorists to carry on amongst themselves about the virtues of new digital technologies in opening up government. It’s time for Canada’s open government evangelists to step up to the plate and kick-start the debate, explain why open government matters and what the cost of halfhearted reforms would be.

Clement has already hinted at his vision: a connected, more collaborative government, a bureaucracy empowered to engage directly with Canadians, the sharing of data to foster innovation. He also said his officials were now busy developing guidelines that will frame this vision.

Clement opened the door. Anyone who wants to see government open up needs to grab the perch offered by the minister now, before government’s blueprint is fully set and reputations become wed to it.

Ma s s i m o B e r ga m i n i i s p re s i d e n t of InterChange Public Affairs, an Ottawa-based public affairs firm.

The idea that government should be more open and accessible is, arguably, something that is more or less inevitable. People are finding new ways to get information every day, and with so many MPs and government officials using social networks like Twitter and Facebook, governments are wise to open the door before it’s kicked down. After Treasury Board President Tony Clement announced this month that the government will launch its open data program, federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault reminded everyone that “a commitment to transparency must include a willingness to improve the efficiency of our access to information regime.” There is still work to be done, she said.

SUZANNE LEGAULT

The one thing I would do to fix the way we do politics in Canada is to develop a clear vision of Canada’s future and to have the courage to take the necessary steps to develop this vision.

Let me explain.

Canada, like all other nations worldwide, is faced with complex public policy issues that arise in the context of a high degree of inter-

dependence among nations. One need only consider public health, environmental and financial issues to understand this readily.

Simultaneously, two key changemakers are transforming public institutions. First, public administrations are looking to reduce their own costs of operations and are thus reducing their capacity in many respects — especially in the public policy field.

Second, as stated by Jocelyne Bourgon in A New Synthesis of Public Administration, Serving in the 21st Century, the evolving relationship between the state and its citizens as value creators and the emergence of an expanding public space shaped by modern communications technologies have created networked societies.

Simply put, as the old saying goes, two brains are better than one. By extension, thousands of citizens’ brains interacting — through the use of communications technology — with public administrators’ brains make for better public policy. There is an opportunity, and I would argue a necessity, for government to redefine its role in society and to help launch a new era of participatory government. As stated by Tim O’Reilly and David Eaves in Open Government, Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice,

government needs to transform our public institutions into platforms for networking.

There is a catch though, and this is where the courage component comes in. To truly leverage citizens’ input, governments must share the invaluable national asset that they hold and control: public-sector information.

They need to embrace transparency as a fundamental and essential tenet of governance in order to develop this vision of Canada’s future. Such a vision, developed via a participative democracy, enabled by the sharing of our public sector information, will maximize accountability, maximize efficiency, lead to innovation, increase our competitiveness and ensure Canada’s future is reflective of our collective will and wisdom.

SCOTT VROOMAN

THE AIM OF THIS MAGAZINE IS to suggest a number of ways in which to improve our democratic process. Rather than feed you more utopian drivel, I’m going to grab you by the scruff of your rationality and drag you back down to Earth. The fact is, democracy is a fundamentally weak system of government. It’s time we trade in the tattered rags of compromise for the purple robes of royalty. Yes, that’s right, I propose Canada become an absolute monarchy.

“What?” you collectively gasp, “Go back to being a British colony?” While the British are undoubtedly our cultural superiors (their reality television is more sophisticated, their street riots more refined, and their food more meticulously deep-fried) that is not what I’m suggesting. No, I propose we start an independent, Canadian monarchy. A monarchy we can be proud of, that we can point to one day and say to our grandchildren, “Top that you little punks.”

I’ll admit it was fun to pretend to be the boss for a bit. We had a lot of elections, and there was that whole “women’s suffrage” fad.

But while democracy has become more sophisticated since it started as a mere party game in ancient Alexandria (invented by wealthy merchant Carl Democracy when he came up with a novel solution to decide who was to be the first to disrobe and jump into the giant tub of wine at his slavewarming party), it has nonetheless been mostly ineffective. So-called “elections” are little more

than a beauty contest (case in point: Stephen “Chiseled From God’s Marble” Harper), and many Canadians don’t even bother to vote (case in point: me).

“Hey!” you collectively shout, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater!”

Oh what, this baby? (I am holding a baby with soiled diapers and the word “INEFFICIENCY” tattooed across its chest while I point to it with a look of disdain on my face) I think we could all do without that baby. (I discard the aforementioned baby along with the aforementioned bathwater, then pause to nod with satisfaction). I’d much rather bathe this (I hold up a new baby, with a long, noble chin and a tiny crown).

“OK!” you collectively rejoice, “I’ve been swayed by your astute analysis and formidable intellect. But how do we end democracy as soon as possible?” First, let me be clear I am certainly not suggesting we have God Himself appoint a Head of State for Canada.

While He took on that responsibility several times for countless other monarchs, He’s far too busy these days lobbying against gay marriage and making toys for Christmas.

I propose instead we have The Final Vote.

One last hurrah before we send democracy on its way. The Final Vote would determine our inaugural Canadian King and Queen.

They will thereafter reside in the Parliament buildings, as soon as they are converted into a glorious palace with a moat that will double as a skating rink in the winter.

“We look forward to it!” you collectively sing in a falsetto, “But who will administer royal decrees?” Once elected, the new King

and Queen shall appoint several underlings to do their bidding. These may be former coworkers, old friends, a horse or maybe even a woman. It’s not important because it’s no longer our business. And that’s the beauty of monarchy: we don’t need to make any more decisions! They keep society organized so we may be free to spend more time with family, friends, television shows and porn.

Thereafter, the King and Queen will be expected to breed in abundance (keep in mind during The Final Vote that you may want to skew young, or at least virile), providing us with many generations of royalty to rule us, provide us with fodder for gossip and humble us with their lavish lifestyles and expensive, imported skin.

So you can read the rest of this magazine and see how maybe a bit of lipstick here and mascara there can cover up the hideous face of democracy. But deep down we all know that the best solution is to replace that ugly mug completely with the noble, jewelencrusted fist of monarchy.

“Let’s do this!” you collectively cheer, torches and pitchforks aloft, ready to restore civilization to Canada.

Let’s do this, indeed.

Scott Vrooman is a member of the sketch comedy troupe Picnicface.

INDEX: 78 Ways to Fix the Way We Do Politics Abandon coercive measures that force individuals to “do the right thing.” (Amanda Clarke), 19 Abolish the Senate. (David Christopherson), 42 Adapt work cultures to accommodate the work-life needs of a broader range of people. (Isabel Bassett), 13 Adopt a “constructive nonconfidence” procedure. (Mark Jarvis), 18 Acknowledge and celebrate the work of community organizers.

(Brigette DePape), 44 Allow online voter registration.

(Paul Howe), 26 Allow voters to rank their choices.

(Adil Sayeed), 23

Don’t despair (just yet). Amanda Clarke, 19

Insist on truth and respect (Michaela Lukas), 28

Do your part. (Micaela PiraniWatson), 28

Integrate “nudge” politics. (Amanda Put Canadian citizens in direct Clarke), 19 communication with the people who represent them. (Tony Install pneumatic tubes in the Clement), 48 parliamentary restaurant.

(Sarah L.), 52 Reduce partisanship. (Rick Anderson), 8 Institute online voting. (Dylan Marando), 31 Restore the right of an MP to question the government. (Michael Light a spark in youth. (Colleen Chong), 17 Trang), 29 Require political leaders over 50 to Know history, understand watch The Social Network. (Kevin traditions, recognize when they are Page), 20 being usurped. (Rick Anderson), 7 Require the consent of two-thirds Learn lessons from abroad and act majority of the House to prorogue locally. (Adil Sayeed), 23 Parliament. (Mark Jarvis), 18

Draw up new rules to govern the House the next time there is a minority government. (Don Newman), 38 Eliminate red tape. (Hayley Wickenheiser), 15 Embrace transparency. (Suzanne Legault), 50 Encourage a more open, in-depth and informed debate on bills.

(Charmaine Borg), 40 Ensure no one slips through the cracks. (Paul Howe), 26

Open parties to a wider base of Canadians. (Bob Rae), 32

Learn to engage stakeholders and citizens. (Don Lenihan), 14

Revisit the supply and estimates process. (Kevin Page), 20

Listen to citizens. (Tim Uppal), 19

Set MPs free. (Goldy Hyder), 35

Fix elections at four-year intervals. (Rick Anderson), 7, (Mark Jarvis), 18

Lower the voting age to 16.

(Amanda Clarke), 19, (Paul Howe), 26, (Shaughnessy Dow), 27, (Nicolas Sanchez), 28

Socialize youth into political participation. (Amanda Clarke), 19

Ban unflattering suits. (Sarah L.), 53

Get political leaders to think like statemen. (Kevin Page), 20

Make Canadians vote. (Robin Sears), 34

Become an absolute monarchy.

(Scott Vrooman), 52

Govern the people justly and fairly.

(Caitlin Russell), 29

Bring back consensus, civility and substance. (Nino Ricci), 15

Give Canada something to believe in. (Emma Beattie), 29

Make constituency associations the final authority over candidate nominations. (Michael Chong), 17

Change the language. (Rick Anderson), 7

Give caucus power to decide upon its membership. (Michael Chong), 17

Allow voters to vote online 24/7 over a week. (Robin Sears), 34 Appoint Justin Bieber to the Senate.

(Sarah L.), 53 Ask a woman. (Sandra Sanguli), 28

Change the voting system.

(June Macdonald), 22, (Michelle Cisneros), 27, (Isaac Bothan), 27 Cultivate more political citizens.

(Alison Loat), 10, (Paul Howe), 26 Practise daily engagement and resistance. (Brigette DePape), 44 Debate using technology to open up government. (Massimo Bergamini), 49 Demand that governments learn to collaborate. (Don Lenihan), 14 Democratize the Senate. Or abolish it. Pick one. (Rick Anderson), 7

Establish a deadline requiring the House of Commons to be summoned within 30 days after a general election. (Mark Jarvis), 18

Give caucus power to conduct a leadership review vote. (Michael Chong), 17 Give parliamentarians independent authority to determine the membership of parliamentary committees. (Rick Anderson), 7 Give people more information.

(Gillian Macdonald), 27 Grow up. (Victoria Fogarty), 3 Host meetings on social networking sites. (Sarah L.), 53 Implement preferential voting.

(Adil Sayeed), 23

Make elections matter. (Rick Anderson), 8 Make every vote count. (Rick Anderson), 8 Make politics accessible for everyone. (David Shannon), 15 Make voter registration at age 16 mandatory. (Paul Howe), 26 Make politics relevant to people’s lives. (Wayne Chu), 12 Modernize government by using technology to work smarter. (Tony Clement), 48

Stop excluding people. (Wayne Chu), 12 Stop overlooking the untapped talent pool of women. (Isabel Bassett), 13 Talk to your local representative.

(Hollerado), 37 Take more responsibility for change. (Isabel Bassett), 13 Teach young people that a career in politics is a worthy and credible way to spend time. (Alison Loat), 11 Throw away the talking points.

(Rick Anderson), 8 Transfer powers absorbed by leaders back to Parliament and parliamentarians. (Rick Anderson), 7 Unite around an overarching vision.

(Gywn Morgan), 16

No one should be appointed to Parliament. (Rick Anderson), 7

Use social media to engage with citizens. (Tony Clement), 48

Occupy the ballot box. (Graham Fox), 33

View citizens as active owners of the political process. (Graham Fox), 33

    BUYING  Â

Canadian

 IS  GOOD  FOR  ALL  OF  US Canadians  have  repeatedly  said  that  they  want  Canadian-­produced  food  and  support  Canadian  farmers.

$2.4 24.4

$5.0 49.7

Economic Contribution ($ billion) Jobs (thousand)

$7.3 98.4

$9.5 99.6

$1.3 18.5

Buying  Canadian  is  good  for  all  of  us  –  it  supports  jobs,  supports  farmers,  and  supports  local,  provincial  and  national  economies.  This  is  particularly  true  within  the  Canadian  dairy,  poultry  and  egg  sectors.  Our  dynamic  supply  man-­ agement  systems  have,  for  more  than  40  years,  allowed  generations  of  farmers  to  make  a  sizeable  economic  contribution  to  the  nation,  while  meeting  dramatically  evolving  consumer  demand  for  high-­quality  products.  Together,  the  dairy,  poultry  and  egg  sectors  sustain  over  290,000  jobs,  contribute  approximately  $25.5  billion  dollars  to  the  Canadian  GDP  and  contribute  over   $  4.5  billion  in  tax  revenues  at  federal,  provincial  and  municipal  levels1.  1  The  Economic  Impact  of  the  Dairy  Industry  in  Canada  –  Éco  Ressources  2011  The  Economic  Impact  of  the  Poultry  and  Egg  Industries  in  Canada  –  Informetrica  Ltd.  2011

Supply management – Truly Canadian, with no subsidies

Increasing  liberalization  of  agricultural  markets  around  the  world  has  created  dramatic  price  volatility,  which  is  threat-­ ening  food  security.  So  much  so,  that  in  June  2011,  G-­20  Ministers  of  agriculture  addressed  it  by  supporting  market  stability.  The  United  States  and  the  European  Union  subsidize  their  farmers  with  billions  of  Costs are rising for all of us

poultry  and  egg  farmers  receive  100%   Canadians  have  been  feeling  the  pinch  of  their  revenue  from  the  marketplace.  from  the  rising  cost  of  food.  Canada’s  farmers,  too,  are  feeling  the  squeeze.  Costs  Supply  management  is  a  uniquely  Canadian  approach  whereby  farmers  get  a  fair  return,  of  production  continue  to  rise.  Farmers Â

processors  get  a  reliable  supply  and  investments  –  often  in  unstable  input  costs,  Canadians  are  provided  with  a  consistent  choice  of  excellent  and  high-­quality  prod-­ such  as  fuel,  feed,  equipment  and  other  ucts  at  reasonable  prices  –  all  without  necessities  over  which  farmers  have  no  government  subsidies. control.  Canadian-­made  products  meet  demanding  standards  that  are  the  envy   of  many  in  the  world.  There  are  costs  to  Thank you, Canada!

We  thank  the  federal  government  and  all  programs  that  all  Canadians  have  come   parliamentarians  for  their  ongoing  support.  to  count  on,  including  programs  assuring,  As  recently  as  the  June  2011  Speech  from  food  safety,  traceability  and  animal  care.  the  Throne,  government  has  repeatedly Â

Supply management does supply  management  within  trade  talks.  not inflate the price of food They  support  it  because  it  works.  It  works  for   Supply  management  ensures  that  farmers  farmers,  for  processors  and  for  consumers.  receive  a  fair  price  for  their  product  –  but  the  And  it  works  for  Canadian  taxpayers  –  no  subsidies  and  $4.5  billion  of  tax  revenue. price  paid  at  your  local  grocery  store  or  restaurant  is  not  controlled  by  the  farmers  –  We  are  tremendously  proud  of  our  system,  retailers  make  that  decision.  This  disconnect Â

between  farm  and  retail  prices  is  evidenced  continue  responding  to  the  evolving  in  countries  where  industries  have  been  consumer  preferences.  deregulated  –  in  those  cases,  farmers’  incomes  have  dropped  substantially,  while  consumer  prices  have  not  followed  suit2.

They  say  we  should  produce  enough  Canadian  food  to  satisfy  our  needs,  that  food  produced  in  Canada  is  a  lot  or  somewhat  better  than  food  produced  elsewhere,  and  that  they  trust  Canadian  farmers.  They  also  feel  that  it’s  important  to  preserve  strong  farming  communities  throughout  Canada. Â

2   Mercier-­Gouin,  Supply  management,  still  an  appropriate  model,  2004

Thank you, Canada, for your trust.