Near the end of the 2008 federal election, I read a comment on CBC's election website that mused about the $200 million wasted through the Canadian government's sponsorship program. The program was designed to promote Canada and the federal government to Canadians, especially in Quebec. The dollar amount ($200 million) is not entirely accurate since that is the approximate value of the program, and not all program money was misspent. Having said that, this still ranks as one of the most expensive examples of corrupt politics.
What is the most expensive example of corrupt politics? The 40th Canadian General Election. The Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Elections Act on November 6, 2006. C-16 was the result of the Conservative Party's campaign promise to give Canada fixed election dates. The first election was to be held on October 19, 2009. Since then, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on September 7, 2008, had Governor General Michaelle Jean dissolve Parliament thereby forcing an election. Less than 3 years after promising Canadians fixed election dates, Stephen Harper broke his own law. We went to the polls (some of us...begrudgingly) on October 14, 2008 - a full year before we were legally supposed to. This blatant violation of Canadian law cost taxpayers (approximately) $300 million. This is the most expensive abuse of power and taxpayer money in Canadian history.
So why don't Canadians vote? The answer seems obvious enough - corruption. The Liberals were corrupt during their last reign as governing party and the Conservatives are corrupt now. So who do Canadians vote for? The NDP - a party that offers all-encompassing social programs without concern for how to pay for them? The Greens - a party whose raison d'etre begins and ends with protecting the environment? The Christian Heritage Party? The Marxist-Leninist Party? The Marijuana Party? The Communist Party of Canada...?
Maybe now we know why voter turnout is so low.
Let's hope we don't get asked to vote again until the next legislated date (October 15, 2012 ).
"Let's hope we don't get asked to vote again until the next legislated date (October 15, 2012)"
ReplyDeleteCan I take that statement to mean that the Liberal Party has committed to not defeating the Tories until September 2012? Does that also mean the Liberal Party has given Canadians its promise (for what it's worth) that when its new leader is elected in May, that person won't immediately promise to have an election?
If that's the case, then I will join you in the "Let's hope" movement. Furthermore, if that is the case, then I promise you I will be the first to protest if PMSH decides to do it again.
As you know, I cannot make any promises about what our next leader will decide. I assume that leader will do much as Dion did and suggest he might vote against the government on various bills, but not ever do it (though considering the size of Harper's minority, the next leader may have more freedom to vote against).
ReplyDeleteI assume PMSH, being the ego-maniacal power-seeker he is, will send us to the polls again this time next year (before the new Liberal leader gets a chance to get settled and before we get a chance to raise money) perhaps on the rather dubious basis that his law said the next election would be held in October 2009. Or maybe not. Depends on if, this time, his intelligence manages to overcome his desire for power.
We'll see.
The corrupt actions of the Liberals and Conservatives are not causalities for the problems that exist in Canadian politics; rather, they are symptoms of an out-dated electoral system.
ReplyDeleteWhen a Canadian thinks about a federal election he or she is afforded two primary choices; the Liberals or the Conservatives. Both parties work together to ensure that they are viewed as the only legitimate contenders for the electoral crown; slandering any alternative political organization as being "too extreme" or "unrealistic." We empower both of their criminal houses via endorsing their actions every time we cast a ballot in either of their favors at the polling box; issuing them an individual carte blanche that we believe them when they say that nobody else has any good ideas because only an irresponsible citizen would vote for an alternative.
In principle, they have worked together to create a two-party system; one enormous cash cow for the companies in Washington and Bay St. Do you realize that if we had proportional representation than the Greens would have 27 seats in the next Parliament? Its a shame that we continue to support the First Past the Post system.
Derek, you are correct that the Greens would have 27 seats in Parliament if we had proportional representation, but in a PR system, how many constituencies would have voted in the Greens? You know the answer. The problem with PR is that it creates MPs who have no constituency. Granted, there are ways around this (Germany provides a good example), but the problem still persists.
ReplyDeleteOur FPTP system is not undemocratic as people argue. It rewards local campaigns, it ensures local representation, and, as an added benefit, it creates stronger governments. In the world of PR, minority governments are all you get. In a system driven by party discipline, minority governments don't last (Harper's lasted considerably longer than any prior minority). FPTP creates stability. In Canada, that's good. Of the 4 major parties, all are left of centre and none are even close to as far left as, for example, Hugo Chavez. The differences between our major parties isn't rich vs poor or public vs private, it's how private, or (as in the last election) how best to "go green". Even the Tories offered incentives for green initiatives.
When the political landscape is so narrow, it's ok to have majorities. Think hard about the difference between the Liberal 90s and the Tory 80s. I bet you thought first of the deficits under Mulroney and the debt repayments under Chretien-Martin. Now ask how the Grits got the money to turn the economy around. The answer lies largely in Mulroney's GST. Add the increased revenue (GST) and increased necessity (the debt was much bigger in '93 than in '84) and your sum is heavy enough to overcome the resistence to cutting social programs. Or maybe the difference you thought of was NAFTA. Mulroney made it happen, but Chretien was PM when it was finally ratified. While all this may seem off topic, my point is that majorites are ok in Canada because there is little difference between the 4 major parties. FPTP creates these effective majorities.
As for your assertion that the Grits and the Tories work together to ensure the rest are by-standers, I can say that conspiracy is false. The Tories work to ensure they are the only legitimate contender, and the Grits work to ensure they are the only legitimate contender. The NDP (as in the last election) didn't cost their programs (i.e. they didn't say how they were going to get the money), therefore, considering their massive tax hikes on corporations, they were "too expensive" and "unrealistic." As for the Greens, Canadians decided the Liberal Green Shift was too extreme, so why would they have voted for the even more extreme plan offered by the Greens? I'm not saying the Greens had a bad plan, or even one that was too expensive, but Canadians resoundingly said that. In my mind, the Greens had the second best platform in the election, but Canadians didn't agree. In this election, the alternatives simply didn't offer what Canadians wanted. Further strengthening the de facto two-party system is their history. The Greens and NDP are fairly new relative the Grits and Tories. Therefore, Canadians who vote (usually very few under 30 bother), have a long history of allegience to one party over the other. In many cases their parents and grandparents simply always voted one way, so they will always vote that way. This is a difficult socialization of the population for any organization to overcome. But they can. The NDP have formed governments in various provinces over the years (including this one). Last year, they raised about the same amount of money as the Liberals. If this becomes a trend, the NDP will become a viable 3rd party. My point is that the door is wide open for our two-party system to open up.
The bottom line though, is that the Tories and the Grits will do almost anything to get elected. This includes offering the "only viable alternative" message. That's not a conspiracy, that's a tactic to win power.
Fact is, Harper called this election specifically to destroy the Liberal party. He bankrupted us, he beat us further down in the polls, and he sent us into another self-destructive leadership contest. He'd much rather have the NDP (or anyone else) be his primary challenger. The Liberals did the same thing to the Mulroney-Campbell Tories and were rewarded with over a decade of majorities. These parties hold no punches. Until another party earns their way into the contest, things will stay the same.
Want to know who to blame for corrupt governments and two-party domination? The over 40% of the population who didn't bother to vote. Look at the stats about who doesn't usually vote: the 18-35 group and the lower class group - if any is going to support parties like the NDP and the Greens, its those people who don't vote. Change the system to PR or to whatever else you want and those 40% who don't vote are going to keep sitting on their hands. Hell, most of them probably won't know anything has changed.
The power held in the hands of that 40% of the population is immense.
PS. Sorry for the excessively long response, but Derek's very valid comments warranted it.