Post Election Analysis - History in the Making

Anyone who voted for the first time in Election 2011 certainly found an opportune time to exercise their democratic right.

With the election now in the books the nation is free to ponder the significance (or lack thereof) of the outcome. No matter how you slice it, this is one election that’s bound to be the talk of pundits, political science majors and arm chair politicians for decades to come.

It’s often said that history is written by the victors, but exactly what history says about Canada’s forty-first federal election remains to be seen. The conundrum this time around is how we define who the victors actually are. Different perspectives may produce different findings and the answer may not fully be understood for generations.

Clearly the Harper Conservatives are victorious. After years of planning, strategizing, campaigning (yes, years of campaigning) cajoling and practically begging the people of Canada Mr. Harper finally has the one thing he’s wanted since first elected, a majority. Never the less, for his detractors, this outcome could be seen as a tainted victory based on his limited level of cross-Canada support, his losses in Quebec and the growth of support for the center/left federalist parties (Liberal/NDP combined) after the collapse of the Bloc.

Following the election Mr. Harper, speaking to a partisan crowd, proudly said that the people of Canada had made their decision. Some might argue that with only 40% of voters supporting the Conservative party, in reality the nation actually backed into a Conservative majority accidentally rather than truly choosing it. Tomato / tomato.

Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, promoted this election as necessary to save democracy itself. He may have been fighting the wrong opponent in Mr. Harper. Perhaps the real opponent to democracy in Canada is not the Conservatives, who merely take political advantage of the rules, but Elections Canada who refuse to see that the system isn’t working in its current form.

Elections as they exist today in Canada work fine when you have a two party system. They don’t serve democracy very well at all when 3 or 4 parties are in play.

The evidence speaks for itself. If asked, most Canadians would say that democracy is when a majority of the people choose a government. Not so in Canada where a party, any party, can form a majority government when over half the population doesn’t support them.

As far as democracy is concerned it was indeed at stake in this election and, no matter who came out ahead in the seat count, we all lost on that front. In essence the Harper majority came as a result of unintentional vote splits between the NDP and Liberals in Ontario. In the end these meant a gain of 20 Ontario seats, a dozen more than the 155 needed to claim a majority.

As Thomas Jefferson quite rightly said, “The government you elect is the government you deserve”. We can read into Mr. Jefferson’s statement what we will.

Democracy itself aside, although the night clearly saw a victory for Stephen Harper, many elections have been won in the past and many will be won in the future by various parties. By itself there’s nothing of historic value to the win. Perhaps what the Harper government does with its majority will change the political landscape over time but the win itself is a less than historic event outside Conservative circles. Other outcomes are far more interesting from the historic perspective.

Nobody can argue that the rise of the NDP to official opposition status with more than 100 seats in Parliament is much more noteworthy in the grand scheme of things.

This sudden shift of support says a lot about the now massive gulf between the Right and Left in Canada as a result of the tactics employed by Conservatives over the past several years. It’s a case where 60% of voters in Canada have decided a change is in order. Most of that 60%, especially in Quebec, shrugged off the shackles of conformity and walked through a previously untested Orange door in an attempt to unseat what many see, rightly or wrongly, as a government that’s far too “Republican” for their liking.

Aside from the hard left tilt taken by Canadians, the historic impact of the NDP taking on the official opposition role are not to be ignored. This position will afford them a great deal of benefits they’ve long been denied. Their elevated status will mean an increased budget and far more media attention than the party has ever been able to capture in the past. The official opposition after all has long been considered a “government in waiting”.

In short, this election has catapulted the NDP onto the political stage like never before and, depending on what the party does with their new found status it might, over time, change Canadian politics in unforeseen ways.

If nothing else, the rise of the NDP has dealt massive blow to the aspirations of the Bloc Quebecois, leaving the nation far more united than it’s been in decades. Even if that unity comes as a result of a deep seated dislike for the Harper government.

With a massive drop in their per vote election subsidy as a result of such poor showing in this election and with Mr. Harper’s plan, now that he has a majority, to abolish the vote subsidy (a key funding mechanism for the Bloc) entirely, this election could signal the demise of a political force that’s shaped politics in Canada for a generation.

The Bloc, with just 4 seats and after the resignation of Gilles Duceppe as their charismatic leader has a very uncertain future to be certain.

Just as Canadians might have accidentally backed into a Harper majority, Mr. Harper himself may well have accidentally helped ensure Canadian unity. If so, he accomplished this unintended result by engendering an anti-conservative movement in Quebec that grew far stronger than the deep seated yearning for Quebec nationalism/sovereignty itself.

You can add the Liberal party’s standing to that of the Bloc when questioning the future of organized party politics in Canada. The Liberal’s election results have similarly impacted their funding possibilities and cost them a leader. Going forward they may, from necessity, be forced to consider looking at options for uniting the Left, even at the expense of the historic party brand.

It’s enough to make me wonder what color you get when you combine red and orange.

Although seen by most as a small scale victory, the Green party must also be considered a winner in this election. With Elizabeth May having finally won a seat in the House of Commons the Green Party will have a voice on the national stage for the first time.

It could be argued that a single seat doesn’t mean much but with the environment a top priority for a growing number of voters and ever more important on the world stage, the timing of Ms. May’s entry into Parliament could have far more significance than many might think.

A potential resurgence of young voters and Canada’s penchant for backing the underdog, in addition to the environmental issue itself, could lead to Ms. May’s new found voice resonating with voters over the coming years.

Certainly her approach to politics and original ideas are refreshing. Time will tell if her election is just a blip or a harbinger of things to come, but what’s seen as a minor victory today might one day be recognized as the start of a green revolution in Canadian politics. Only time and the electorate will tell.

Any way you slice it this has been an election like none other Canada has seen. We live in interesting times and they may become a lot more interesting as the days unfold. Just don’t twitter that point to any of your friends until you've cleared it with Elections Canada. You wouldn’t want to break any antiquated laws would you?

Finally, since this is Web-Talk Newfoundland and Labrador, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out the direct impacts of this election on our fair province.

From the Provincial perspective, the clear message telegraphed from Newfoundland (if not Labrador) is that even without the force of will who is Danny Williams, ABC remains a reality. While the Labrador riding elected a Conservative MP, anyone who knows the situation on the ground could easily argue that this was more of a victory for a single man who is highly respected rather than a win for the party itself.

Clearly Newfoundland & Labrador remains less than fertile hunting grounds for the Harper brand of Conservatism and with Quebec rejecting the Conservative brand as well another point comes to the fore. Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador have finally found something they can agree on, their utter dislike of Stephen Harper. Now that's historic!

On a more tangible front, the outcome couldn’t have been more interesting for the Province. Yes, we sent a clear message to the Conservatives that the people do not like Mr. Harper but by electing one Conservative MP it also ensures that the Harper government no longer has an excuse for not offering the cabinet position they’ve told everyone the province has denied itself by not electing someone on the government side.

In fact, with a member in the government caucus and with 2 representatives in the official opposition ranks as well as 4 Liberal members of Parliament, Newfoundland and Labrador has covered all the bases and positioned itself about as well as anyone could have hoped.

As an interesting side note, the message sent to Stephen Harper by the Newfoundland and Labrador electorate was accomplished in spite, rather than with the approval, of the Provincial PC government.

In an effort to shore up support for the federal Conservatives the Dunderdale government trotted out cabinet ministers and caucus members by the bus load. They even went so far as to insert themselves into the election by announcing more than $4 million in funding for one riding, announcing it on election day while the federal candidate was positioned front and center beside the provincial representatives at the media event. Thankfully the voters didn’t take a bite from that apple.

Whether or not the stunt has an impact on Dunderdale’s position going into the October provincial election is a story for another day.

Last but not least, and perhaps most important to some in the Province, is the fact that with a majority in hand, an NL Conservative MP in caucus and a clear rejection by Quebec voters as clear as the nose on his face, there can be no excuse for Mr. Harper to back out of his commitments on the Lower Churchill development.

Time will tell if he does or not.

Promises, No Promises and Broken Promises...

At the start of this election campaign Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Kathy Dunderdale, sent letters to each of the three main party leaders, Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton. The letters outlined some of the key issues for her Province.

All three leaders responded and the letters were released this week.

If you’re like most people you either don’t have the time, patience or dogged interest to read the responses provided. Fortunately I have no life so I’ve taken the fairly significant amount of time required to fully evaluate the responses and summarize the key results for you. (you can thank me later) :-)

That said there is no replacement for reading them yourself and making up your own mind on what the leaders have actually said, or perhaps as importantly, didn’t say.

The original letters sent by Premier Dunderdale as well as the responses are available here:

LETTERS

Here are my personal takeaways from the responses.

Fisheries Restructuring and Early Retirement:

Harper: No actual promises but says his is willing to talk with the Province going forward, blames other parties for killing the budget which he says would have provided a role for the Province’s in fisheries management. Would continue to support the seal harvest.

Ignatieff: Will work with province on license retirement, fleet rationalization, older worker retirement & retraining programs and assisting in transition of workers to new opportunities. He would also recognize adjacency in the fishery, historical attachment and economic maximization. Promises increased funding for fisheries management and better fisheries enforcement. Would continue to support the seal harvest.

Layton: Would ensure adequate funding is available for DFO. Would establish a Royal Commission to determine why, after 20 years of moratorium, there has been very limited fisheries recovery. Would support a cost shared retirement and license buyout, negotiate better tariff terms with other nations for seafood exports. Are committed to a revised fisheries act that would include the concepts of adjacency and historical attachment. Would continue to support the seal harvest.

Lower Churchill:

Harper: Projects like the Lower Churchill will receive a loan guarantee or other funding if they have national / regional significance are financially viable and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Ignatieff: Would support a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill development.

Layton: Would support a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill development and would invest $375 million from the 3P fund to support construction of the Maritime subsea link.

Federal Transfers to the Provinces:

Harper: Would continue to provide 6% annual increase to provincial health care funding.

Ignatieff: Will continue to provide 6% annual increase to provincial health care funding and convene a first ministers meeting within 60 days of taking office to examine health care needs.

Layton: Will continue to provide 6% annual increase to health care funding and would seek guarantees from the provinces to ensure the integrity of the health care system. Would meet with provincial leaders to discuss health care concerns. Sees the need to provide federal transfers to the provinces on a basis that recognizes each province’s unique challenges.

Child Care Improvements:

Harper: Focus remains on providing incentives to parents with limited support ($250 million nationally) and tax credits for business to create child care spaces. Creation of 25,000 new spaces for each of the next 4 years, improvements to community infrastructure related to child care, creation of integrated community based child care options.

Ignatieff: Would dedicate $500 million to an Early Childhood Learning and Care fund in first year growing to $1 Billion by year 4 of a mandate.

Layton: Would work with provinces to develop a nationwide child care and early learning program.

Offshore Occupational Health and Safety:

Harper: Work with NL to honor the terms of recommendation 29 of the Wells Inquiry (create a separate offshore safety board). Will not commit to improvements in Search and Rescue response times and does not mention basing rescue helicopter in St. John’s region.

Ignatieff: Work with NL to honor the terms of recommendation 29 of the Wells Inquiry (create a separate offshore safety board). Would undertake a review of Search and Rescue response times with an objective of 15 – 20 response times across the industry.

Layton: Work with NL to honor the terms of recommendation 29 of the Wells Inquiry (create a separate offshore safety board). Would re-allocate defense budget dollars to ensure that Search and Rescue response times are brought to international standards (20 minutes) and will look at delays in after hours response times.

Providing 8.5% Hibernia Shares to Province:

Harper: Is open to selling shares to province at fair market values.

Ignatieff: Is open to selling shares to province, no specifics identified on cost or timing.

Layton: Recognizes that the federal government has more than recovered its investment in Hibernia and is willing to work with the province on transferring the shares. Will negotiate with the understanding that the province should be the primary beneficiary of offshore oil. No specifics on time/price.

Future of 5 Wing Goose Bay:

Harper: Will support marketing of the base to other nations for use, committed to contamination cleanup and infrastructure spending. Says he will increase operations but with no specifics.

Ignatieff: Designate 5 Wing as a staging point for Arctic sovereignty including coastguard activities, fisheries and surveillance patrols. Goose Bay would also stage pollution patrols and arctic training.

Layton: Says federal government should honor its commitments to 5 Wing. No specifics provided.

Federal Spending & Presence in Province (federal employment):

Harper: No commitment of anything new and no committment to live up to previous election promise to station a batallion there.

Ignatieff: Would treat provinces equitably. No specifics.

Layton: Recognizes the disproportionate number of federal jobs that have been taken out of the provinces and says that federal presence should be more equitable. Is committed to reversing policies that have led to lower federal presence.

Broadband Access:

Harper: Will work with all provinces to improve broadband and digital services. No specific commitments to NL.

Ignatieff: Identifies goal of 100% broadband access across Canada within 3 years. No specifics.

Layton: Supports Internet neutrality, would end throttling and committed to broadband across country. Would create broadband program financed by wireless spectrum auction revenues in partnership with private industry investment.

Correctional Services (New Prison to replace HMP):

Harper: Recognizes NL’s desire for a new prison to replace Her Majesties but makes no commitment. Simply restates previous statements about being tough on crime.

Ignatieff: Is against U.S. style prisons as planned by Conservatives but is willing to work with province to replace Her Majesties Prison. No specific commitment.

Layton: Would work with province to come to an acceptable financing arrangement on a replacement for Her Majesties prison as quickly as possible.

Well folks, that's my take on it. Remember, this is an election campaign so reader beware.

An election promise and $3.75 will get you a beer at the local pub.

Where Will You Mark Your X on October 14th?

In January of 2006, just prior to the last federal election, I wrote an article outlining the responses of each party leader, to a letter written by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, asking each what their position was on several key issues of importance to the province.

They say that in politics a day is like a week and a week can be a lifetime. They (politicians being they) also say that the public has a short attention span and an even shorter memory when it comes to issues. With this in mind, and with Premier Williams actively campaigning against the Harper Conservatives, I thought a look back at exactly what each party’s position on those issues was just a little over 2 years ago might be in order.

A note of caution:

Recall that at the time the Liberal party was led by Paul Martin so it may be a little unfair to tar the current leader, Stephane Dion, with the same brush on these issues. Then again many of the same old party faithful are still in place in Liberal land so there may be some comparisons to be drawn.

One might also want to take Jack Layton’s responses with a large grain of salt since, at the time anyway, he was clearly not in a position to become the Prime Minister or even the leader of the official opposition and as such knew he would never have to act on his promises.

That said, if Mr. Layton's tactic was to simply make promises he knew he wouldn’t have to keep, and I’m not saying it was, that would tell voters a lot about the true character of the man.

It seems that in this election the character of the leaders is about the only real issue being debated.

The history:

Just prior to the 2006 Federal election Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams sent a letter to the leaders of the Liberal, Conservative and NDP parties identifying 17 key priorities for the province and asking each leader to respond with their level of support for each item.

The Responses:

As a disclaimer, my understanding of the content in each response is open to interpretation but having studied the precise wording, phrasing and tone of each response has led me to the following conclusions.

My analysis of course is no substitute for reading the details yourself (available at http://www.gov.nl.ca/) but if you’re not inclined to hunt the letters down and read them yourself here is the straight story. The Coles Notes version you might say.

Do you support cost sharing an early retirement program in fisheries workers:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – NO, NDP – YES

Will provide a northern shrimp allocation to the Province:
Liberals – Evasive, C – Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you take Custodial Management on the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you adopt the Northern Cod Strategy and not List cod as endangered:
Liberals – YES, Conservatives – YES, NDP –YES

Will you support a comprehensive federal/provincialAquaculture Agreement:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Will you assist with the Lower Churchill hydro development:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Will you sell the Federal share of Hibernia to NL:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – NO, NDP – YES

Will you re-open Gander Weather Office:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – YES, NDP – YES

Will you increase the Federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador:
Liberals – YES, Conservatives – YES, NDP - YES

Will you undertake Equalization Reforms:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives - Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you cost share Trans Labrador Highway:
L – Evasive, Conservatives – YES, NDP – YES

Will you make 5 Wing Goose an operational requirement (with troops):
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – YES, NDP – Evasive

Will you create a reserve at Sheshatshiu by June of 2006:
Liberals – YES, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Will you stabilize Marine Atlantic services and cut fees:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Do you support bilateral cost sharing for economic development:
Liberals – Evasive, C – Evasive, NDP – YES

Will you ensure federal contracts for Marystown and Bull Arm shipyards:
Liberals – NO, Conservatives – NO, NDP – YES

Will you participate in costing sharing of a waste management strategy:
Liberals – Evasive, Conservatives – Evasive, NDP – Evasive

Final Tally: Liberal: 5 NO, 3 YES and 9 Evasive
Final Tally: Conservative: 3 NO, 5 YES and 9 Evasive
Final Tally: NDP: 0 NO, 12 YES and 5 Evasive

Of course there’s a certain level of subtlety to each of the evasive answers that might allow them to be interpreted either a yes or a no, but I thought it best to simply label those as evasive and be done with it. We all know it doesn’t pay to read between the lines with political types and unless a promise is spelled out in great detail, and sometimes even if it is, what does it really mean anyway?

There’s nothing a politician loves more than a good loophole he or she can crawl through when the time comes to deliver the goods.

In all fairness, a few of the evasive answers may have been valid and perhaps the Premier himself should have been aware of potential problems prior asking the questions.

For example, how could anyone support a shrimp quota for a community until ensuring stock viability and availability prior to allocating it? I believe it was moves like handing out quotas willy-nilly that helped lead us to the sorry state of a fishery we have today.

In another response it would have been difficult for a government leader to promise contracts to a specific shipyard when a little annoyance like the public tendering act is in place.

Those realities lead to another interesting point. Some of the questions NDP leader Jack Layton responded affirmatively on should perhaps have elicited a more evasive answer than was given, including the aforementioned question of shrimp quotas.

So, what does all of this mean to the average voter today?I guess it means that when you get right down to it we all have to do some soul searching and hard thinking before we step into that ballot box on October 14th. How many promises were met and how many were broken, who stands for what and who deserves your support are all important questions.

Whether Stephen Harper, or any of the leaders for that matter, can be trusted will likely play a big part in the decision of where to mark your X, or at least it should.

In Newfoundland and Labrador in particular the impact of Williams' ABC (Anyone But Conservative) campaign and the string of broken promises left behind by the Harper government, as well as previous federal leaders, both locally and nationally will no doubt be on people’s minds as will the very structure of the Canadian parliamentary system and the province's lack of voice in it.

For those of you with the kind of short memory politicians love to talk about (and who are not yet tired of reading this lengthy review) here is a short list (certainly not all inclusive) of the broken promises given by the current Conservative government (some of which were given in writing).

Taxing Income Trusts after saying he wouldn’t tax them and in doing so encouraging thousands to invest and lose their savings.

Promising to remove of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization calculation and then including them anyway.

Promising to station a 650 person rapid response battalion at 5 Wing Goose Bay and a military contingent in St. John’s and walking away from that promise. Nothing has been said about the issue since the 2006 election.

Passing a federal fixed election date law and setting the date of the next election for October of 2009, in an effort to prevent a ruling party from timing elections when it is most favorable to them politically, and then disregarding that law and calling an election anyway.

Campaigning on a platform that included plans for the election of senators and providing a government that would be truly accountable to the public. In his first days in office the PM appointed his campaign manager to the senate, and put him in charge of public works by making him cabinet minister, a cabinet minister who is not really accountable to the public since he does not have to face questions in the House of Commons.

And the list goes on…

Senate Abolition VS. Senate Reform

This week NDP Leader Jack Layton publicly called for a referendum on abolishing the Canadian Senate. Not surprisingly it’s a move that seems to be getting some support from inside the Conservative government.

Calling the upper chamber "outdated and obsolete”, with “…no place in a modern democracy in the 21st century," Layton put out the call for a referendum on the issue.

Layton’s words have some glimmer of truth in them but fixing the problem by throwing the baby out with the bath water seems a bit extreme to say the least.

For years Canadians have come to accept the fact that the Senate is little more than a vestige of a bygone era. A rubber stamp factory for federal legislation and essentially a golden retirement plan for former MPs and party faithful. But is that any reason to abolish it?

Shouldn’t the question revolve around reforming the chamber and making it work rather than doing away with it completely? It’s not like everything in Ottawa would suddenly function better and the sun would rise earlier in the morning if the Senate didn’t exist. When it comes to government dysfunction there’s more than enough blame to go around.

When Harper was elected a couple of years ago a major plank in his platform was Senate reform, not senate destruction. Many people have called for a triple E senate for years (elected, equal and effective). That’s a far cry from abolition. If full senate reform was put in place not only would the problem of a useless Senate go away but the government itself would more effectively meet the needs of all Canadians, not just those in the Ottawa/Quebec corridor.

From the perspective of smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador a triple E senate might solve some of the problems inherent in finding any kind of a voice in Ottawa. Doing away with it would only serve to further strengthen the position of larger provinces by silencing the smaller ones completely.

Elected: An elected Senate (with set terms) means senators would need to go back to the people of their province or territory for a renewed mandate on a regular basis.

This would ensure that they do their job while in Ottawa (reviewing and providing sober second thought to legislation) rather than simply showing up in the chamber when it suits them, as many do now.

Anyone who has seen the kind of flawed legislation coming out of Ottawa on a regular basis lately would be hard pressed to disagree with the need for sober or any other kind of second thought.

Effective: An effective senate means different things to different people, but for me it represents a senate that is non-partisan. A Senate made up of independent members elected by the people of their province or territory without the benefit or liability of party affiliation.

Such a Senate would take party partisanship out of the equation and allow senators to truly represent their constituents, a situation sorely lacking in the House of Commons.

An effective Senate would also be one that is given the power and mandate to amend or even kill legislation if the need is there to do so.

Equal: An equal senate would provide something missing in Canadian politics today, an equal voice for all of the provinces and territories.

A newly designed senate with 5 or 10 representatives from each province or territory, each with a single vote, would ensure that no one region, regardless of population or number of parliament seats, is capable of hijacking the federal agenda for their own benefit.

No doubt there are those who believe this sort of power in the Senate would hamstring legislation and never allow anything to get done. I refuse to buy that argument. A majority of votes in the senate would be achievable as long as the majority of provincial/territorial representatives are in favor of the legislation. This is a far cry from the current system that allows passage of whatever serves to buy the most votes in the larger provinces.

With so few voices in Ottawa, can the smaller regions afford to give up even the largely ineffective ones they have in the Senate today and leave themselves fully at the mercy of MPs from Ontario, Quebec and Alberta?

No matter what the result of a federal referendum, abolition of the Senate requires a constitutional change and the support of the provinces, something that isn’t likely to happen. We’ve all seen how well the provinces agree on even the smallest of matters, but fear not, a referendum, or even talk of one, is not a wasted effort.

There is a silver lining in all of this even if full abolition is unlikely to ever happen.

With a referendum being discussed, and potentially in the offing, the topic of senate reform has suddenly moved from the back burner to the front burner for many Canadians. This may provide an opportunity to begin the process of airing public concerns and potentially moving from an unelected, unequal and ineffective chamber toward the type of elected, equal and effective one that would be the most beneficial for everyone involved.