Harper addresses Canadians on proposed coalition (3.12.08)
Harper's hypocritical fear mongering about coalition (26.03.11)
Video: Harper opens coalition can of worms
CP Video (27.03.11) — Stephen Harper continues to rail against what he's branding a coalition threat. But his stated position as leader of the official Opposition in 2004 was the opposite,
as reporters pointed out at a campaign stop Sunday.
Between accusations of back-room coalition deals and calls for a majority government on the right, to the debates about vote-splitting and strategic voting on the left, this election has a focus on
the mechanics of our electoral system not seen in any elections in recent memory. In order to facilitate a more informed discussion about this issue in Canada, a non-partisan group in Peterborough, Ontario has created Vote Lab [...]
Vote Lab is a website that allows Canadians to experience alternate electoral systems used around the world. Vote Lab allows any Canadian to cast a simulated ranked ballot for their riding in an online poll.
These votes will be tabulated using different electoral systems such as first-past-the-post, instant runoff, Schultze method, mixed-member proportional, party-list proportional, and single transferable
vote. These electoral systems are currently used in countries such as Australia, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Malta, and New Zealand.
“We believe many Canadians would agree that an electoral system is broken,” said Dylan Haussermann, one of the founders of Vote Lab, “when many people are casting ballots marked not with the preferred candidate,
but rather marked only to keep their least favorite candidate out of office.”
Vote Lab believes there should not be a scenario where a candidate is considering abstaining from the race, for fear that his or her candidacy will split the vote too thinly amongst
like minded voters and cause someone with a fundamentally different platform to win. These are issues that have long been resolved in countries where alternative voting systems have been implemented.
Just three days after our election, the United Kingdom will hold a referendum about the “alternative vote”, currently used in Australia. Alternative voting, also known as instant
runoff voting, allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, rather than voting only for their favorite candidate.
Both the Green Party and NDP include electoral reform at the federal level as part of their platforms, and the Liberals and Conservatives have in the past expressed a willingness to
consider it. However, many Canadians are unaware of what electoral reform would mean or what its impact would be. When electoral reform was defeated in referendums in Ontario and British Columbia, many
analysts attributed its defeat in part to a lack of information about the proposals amongst the general public.
In the first week since its launch, Vote Lab received over 4000 participants in 299 of 308 ridings. With a week remaining until the election, they invite all Canadians to participate and help ensure all ridings are
represented. Following the election on May 2, the resulting data will be tabulated, and Vote Lab will publish a comparison and analysis of the different electoral systems.
Vote Lab is a website committed to investigating possibilities for electoral reform in Canada by comparing different electoral systems through a web-based poll. Currently all Canadians are welcome to
participate at http://votelab.ca/, where final results will be posted following the federal election on May 2.
Last Updated: 4 May 2011
CANADA: Election 2011 News, Notes, References and Resources
And now for something somewhat completely different...
Stephen Harper achieved his long-sought Conservative majority last night, leaving many of us gobsmacked and dumbstruck.
[T]he Tories survived an orange surge that catapulted the NDP into official Opposition status and sent the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois to the worst defeats in history.
It took four elections over seven years, but Harper and the Conservative party that he helped build from the ground up finally hit their magic majority number, capturing more than half the 308 seats
in the House of Commons.
The Conservatives capitalized on vote splitting between Jack Layton’s NDP and Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, in an election that delivers the Tories their first majority since the Mulroney era, and guarantees Harper
four more years as prime minister. [...]
“Canadians can now turn the page on uncertainty and elections of the past seven years,” Harper added. “We must be the government of all Canadians.”
How did this happen? As Fekete and Cuthbertson indicate, and as Glen McGregor (Ottawa Citizen)
illustrates, vote splitting appears to have been a significant factor (the Liberal meltdown and the NDP surge) but Harper's politics of distraction and fear-mongering, his version of Sturm und Drang, creating cranks and feeding angst, also served to galvanize the Conservative base.
His eleventh-hour strategem was typical: If the NDP were able to form a coalition government, such a government would involve "tens of billions of dollars of new spending, financed by tens of billions
of dollars of new taxes," and "the only way to avoid that is to stay on a low-tax plan to create jobs and growth, by ensuring a majority government for our Conservative party."
Of greatest concern from my perspective is the regressive ideological approach Harper has evinced during his years at the helm of his minority government — 155-plus: What would a Harper majority look like?
(19 April) offers some perspective, but fails to remediate memories of arrogance, extreme partisanship, and lack of transparency. Here, to name but a few examples, I consider the failure to pursue avenues of conciliation with the parties in opposition, the elimination of the long-form census, the forthcoming omnibus bill of law and order
initiatives, and the dismissive response to In from the Margins, the Senate's seminal report on poverty reduction.
Now Harper (3 May) tells us that in majority,
he will adopt a no-surprises approach to government, with no radical shifts in policy: “One thing I’ve learned in this business is that surprises are generally not well received by the public and so we intend to move
forward with what Canadians understand about us and I think what they’re more and more comfortable with.”
“We’re honoured and we’re humbled by the mandate we received from Canadians last night,” he said. “We got that mandate because of the way we have governed, because of our record, and Canadians expect us to continue to move forward in the same way, to be true to the platform we’ve run on, to
be true to the kind of values and policies that we’ve laid out before them. That’s what we will do.”
To the contrary, I am suspicious of he who thinks he knows what is best for me, whose artful use of distraction and fear presumes familiarity, then skilfully takes from me that which I thought not even threatened, something safe within
my care, even taken for granted — my freedom to dare, to believe, to be.
In the absence of community, in the absence of government that works for people instead of against them, in the absence of strong, robust, imaginative civil society organizations, people will turn to an alternative that
seems profoundly, frustratingly irrational on its face: one that will dramatically roll back their quality of life.
We honor the contribution of Michael Ignatieff, who, despite reunning a principled and thoughtful campaign, lost his seat and subsequently resigned his position as Liberal leader. The Liberals lost 44 seats in this election, down from 77 in 2008 to 34 in 2011.
We honor the contribution of Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois since 1997; he lost his seat and resigned. The Bloc lost 45 seats in this election, down from 49 in 2008 to 4 in 2011
And we wish Mr. Harper well — with the new majority, his responsibility to the Canadian people is much greater than it ever was before.
These will be interesting times...
Prior to the Final Vote...
Comprehensive coverage of the 2011 federal election is widely available. This page presents selected news, notes of interest, useful references and resources.
There are those who regard this as a "Seinfeld" election, an election like the sitcom, about nothing in particular. Harper said his government fell because the other
parties rejected his budget, which indeed they did, but the government had been found in contempt of Parliament, and that led to the vote of non-confidence.
The current Speaker — Peter Milliken — ruled the Conservative government did breach the privilege of the House by not
disclosing enough information on the costs of:
Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission;
it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.
3. Privileges and Immunities,
Parliamentary Privilege: A Definition
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000
Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit, eds.
On Friday, 25 March 2011, Michael Ignatieff rose in Parliament to "inform the House that the official opposition has lost confidence in the government."
For the first time in Canadian history, he said, a committee of Parliament has found a government to be in contempt.
"We are the people's representatives," Mr. Ignatieff said. "When the government spends money, the people have a right to know what it is to be spent on. Parliament does not issue blank cheques."
In the English leadership debate on Tuesday, 12 April, Harper repeatedly said his party did not want the election — "in an election we didn't want, in an
election Canadians didn't want"1 — denying that the election resulted from his government's
failure to satisfy opposition requests for cost transparency on planned corporate tax cuts, new fighter jets, and additional prison facilities. "In response to Ignatieff's statement that
the Conservatives were the first government ever to be found in contempt of Parliament, Harper dismissed that finding as "simply a case of the other three [opposition] parties
outvoting us."1
"We're having an election," he said, "because the other three political parties saw an opportunity to go after the government."2
The Spin
Harper's spin is that all three parties conspired to bring down the duly elected and responsibly performing government, a government focused on the economic well-being of Canadians. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc are not
responding to legitimate concerns about the Harper government's performance; rather, their actions are self-serving, neither wanted by nor in the best interests of Canadians.
"I think at some point Canadians have to make a decision," Harper said. "We believe we're on the right track. We're asking Canadians for a clear majority so we can get on with the nation's business and focus on
the economy."2
In search of the elusive majority, anticipating that an election would be called on the budget and that Canadians would see the other parties as irresponsible in result, Harper refused to consider amendments. Perhaps
he neither anticipated nor regarded contempt of Parliament as
a serious problem. The Canadian public would be more concerned with the economy than
with obscure questions of ethics. The non-confidence vote and consequent election would be seen by Canadians as the result of political maneuvering by the opposition parties, and that is precisely the way Harper spun
the story.
Harper has been described by Conservatives and some commentators as a "master strategist", but
his primary tactics inevitably involve misdirection, negative personal attacks, and fear-mongering.
He repeatedly stresses the importance of fiscal prudence, the need to be responsible, pay down the deficit before we invest in necessary remedies or new initiatives because, he says, there's no money in the cupboard. He
and his government brought us safely through the financial crisis, he reminds us, and only he and his government can ensure that Canada continues to grow and prosper.
Opponents inevitably have hidden agendas, sinister intent, and aren't really interested in your well-being. Yet Harper's own approach to governance seems oddly anti-democratic, Harper-centric, even Machiavellian, as if
people are obstacles and their representatives mere pieces to be played and contained in the achievement of his grand vision.
He refuses to reveal the costs involved in his regressively talionic (the way to prevent crime is through tougher laws and stiffer sentences) anti-crime initiatives, the costs of planned corporate tax cuts, and the details
of F-35 fighter jet purchases. He wants to govern as if a majority. Loose lips sink ships. Harper knows best. He is unwilling to work collaboratively, cooperatively. But why should he?
In Harper's estimation, we would not understand and could not handle the truth.
Mr. Harper: "What we are asking — in an election we didn’t want, in an election Canadians didn’t want — we’re asking Canadians to make the decision: Do you want to have this kind of bickering,
do you want to have another election in two years? Or do you want a focus on the economy?"
Mr. Ignatieff: There he goes again with this word ‘bickering.' This is a debate, Mr. Harper. This is a democracy. [...] You keep talking about Parliament
as if it's this little debating society that's a pesky interference in your rule of the country. It's not.
Perhaps Canadians will choose the same sort of caretaker government we have had with Stephen Harper, who tells us his minority has been in power longer than any other in Canadian history and has been very productive — here's a consolidated list of 70
Harper Gov’t Accomplishments 2006-2011. Though achieved or accomplished, many would construe a number of the items on this
list as questionable or problematic accomplishments, studies of error by limitation.
We have come through the recession3 and
post-recession4 in reasonable shape, and it seems evident that,[d]espite nagging worries, the world recovery is becoming entrenched.
The time has come to reassess the state and reframe the direction of Canada. We sould not be focused on protecting a "still fragile" economy — the danger is passed, and the impoverished among us still
need foodbanks and homes. We know crime is not prevented by building more prisons, but we also appreciate that it requires real vision and courage to initiate the more comprehensive social strategies and programs
required to remediate the problem. We must consider the risks to social equality and inclusion implicit in the adoption of regressive ideological approaches to governance. We need to be fiscally responsibile,
certainly, but as we deal with crime prevention, stimulate job creation, address poverty and homelessness, health care provision and rising costs, environmental concerns, immigration, and a host of related issues, every
step we take has impact on Canadian identity, multiculturalism, life and liberty.
We are in a period of transition. Many Canadians have suffered, and many more may experience hardship as costs spiral upward and other unanticipated events rise up to challenge us, but Harper's restrictions and regressive
policies will not protect us; indeed, his fear-mongering may exacerbate the problems we face as a society. I surmise that we will see yet another minority, and I believe that such a result will prove far better than a Harper
majority. I do not believe that his is the vision of most Canadians.
Face-based Inferences and Voting
On CBC's The Current (4.04.11), host Anna Maria Tremonti presented Your Brain on Politics, speaking with CBC's Neil Morrison about "decisions made in a fraction of a second us[ing] a thought process
most people don't know they have". The audio is available here. Mentioned in the program is the work of Princeton University researchers Christopher Y. Olivola and Alexander Todorov;
Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting, which will soon be published in Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. The paper examines surprising evidence that election outcomes can be
predicted with relative accuracy on the basis of face-based inferences about personality characteristics, judgments of competence and dominance, for example, and less so likeability. These findings are described in the report, with extensive reference to supporting and related studies. Videos showing facial features in a variety of dimensions (trustworthy, dominant, competent, attractive, threatening, mean,
likable, frightening, and extroverted) are presented at Todorov's Social Cognition & Social Neuroscience Lab:
Changes of facial features on a variety of trait dimensions in a computer model developed by Oosterhof & Todorov (2008). The running score of each trait is presented in standard deviation units in the lower right corner
of the movie. Each video begins at the average or neutral face for the trait dimension, progresses to a face that is very high on the trait, then very low on the trait, and then returns to the neutral face. [...]
For example...
Do you read "leadership" in any of the faces below? Who is focused on the needs of Canadians? Who is competent? Who has vision? Who inspires? Who has courage? Who can cooperate?
Face-based inferences tend to diminish in importance as one becomes better versed in the political issues at play, though biases may still apply. It is also the case that
misinformed people may hold tenaciously to mistaken beliefs, becoming even more attached to them when presented with the facts. This phenomenon is called "backfire", and
it occurs as a defense against cognitive dissonance.
Source: In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter
Talk of the Nation, Host: Neil Conan, with guests: Dana Milbank, national political columnist, Washington Post; Brendan Nyhan, Robert Wood Johnson scholar in health policy research, University of Michigan; and
Alicia Shepard, ombudsman, NPR [National Public Radio] (13.07.10)
New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts -- and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises
questions about a key principle of a b democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best.
[...] In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected
facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more bly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an
underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even ber.
This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren't blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged
in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very,
very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.
"The general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong," says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as
"backfire" — is "a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance." [...]
Polls and Punditry
Polls and punditry sway opinion. If circumstances deny us the time or otherwise impinge upon our capacity to integrate information and formulate judgments regarding political issues, we may be more open to
influences which make the process easier. Consider the following:
Michael Ignatieff has paid such a terrible price for the weeks of relentless Conservative attack ads that preceded this election campaign that it may be very difficult for him to improve his brand.
Eleven days into the campaign – despite delivering an impressively professional and positive performance, and despite the general favour with which the party's election platform has been received – the Liberal Leader
has failed to create any positive impression with voters, according the Nanos Research daily survey of voter attitudes for the Globe and Mail and CTV.
The Nanos Leadership Index, which measures voter attitudes toward the party leaders' trust, competence and vision, continues to show Mr. Ignatieff as the least popular leader of the three major parties,
behind NDP Leader Jack Layton and vanishingly far from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
The latest daily survey has Mr. Ignatieff's leadership-index score at 38, Mr. Layton's at 54 and Mr. Harper's at 110. But in daily polling, individual scores are far less significant than trend lines. And the
trend line for Mr. Ignatieff is prairie flat.
"We can't underestimate the impact of those negative attack ads," Mr. Nanos said. Claiming the once-expatriate Liberal leader "didn't come back for you," the Conservative ads ran for weeks before the campaign
began, including in prime time and even during the Super Bowl. Voters appear to have been convinced.
"The Liberals must have been hoping that, even with the negative attack ads, once the campaign started and people saw Michael Ignatieff, it would help his brand," Mr. Nanos said. "But we haven't seen that yet." [...]
MRIA [Marketing Research and Intelligence Association], the industry's voluntary self-regulating body, warns that online poll results "may be skewed." Under the association's code of conduct, reporting margins of error, which can
only be applied to random samplings of the entire population, is 'misleading and prohibited' for Internet surveys.
But that hasn't stopped some pollsters or media outlets from reporting margins of error for online surveys. Or from comparing results of phone polls to online polls, as if there were no difference. [...]
Bryden tells us "[t]here's broad consensus among pollsters that proliferating political polls suffer from a combination of methodological problems, commercial pressures and an unhealthy relationship with the media".
"Pay attention if you want to but, frankly, they don't really mean anything," sums up Andre Turcotte, a pollster and communications professor at Carleton University. [...]
But it's not all the pollsters' fault. Turcotte says journalists used to be more knowledgeable about methodological limits and more cautious about reporting results. Now, they routinely misconstrue data and ignore
margins of error.
The MOE, as it's known in the biz, is usually relegated to the tag line at the end of a poll story, advising that the survey is considered accurate within plus or minus so many percentage points, 19 times in 20.
It's rarely explained what that really means.
Take a poll that suggests Tory support stands at 35 per cent, the Liberals at 30. If the MOE is, say, 2 percentage points, that means Tory support could be as high as 37 and the Liberals as low as 28, a nine-point gap.
Or the Tories could be as low as 33 and the Liberals as high as 32, a one-point gap.
If support falls within those ranges the following week, it should be reported as no change — but rarely is. A two or three point change is more likely to be touted as one party surging or the other collapsing.
Worse, the media often trumpet shifts in provinces or other small sub-samples of the population, like urban women or educated males. But with MOEs of as much as 10 percentage points, seemingly huge 20-point fluctuations
are actually statistically meaningless. [...]
In the Nanos document entitled Harper Government Trust (25.03.11), we find margins of error ranging from ±2.8 to ±16.6!
Stack up these dominoes. The Conservatives have a comfortable lead in the polls, but – assuming that the Tories maintain that edge – it would only deliver a healthy plurality of seats, not a majority. Having secured
a victory, Mr. Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, would reintroduce the budget that the opposition had already rejected in unison (though not formally in the House of Commons) before the writ was dropped.
And now, as we enter the second week of the campaign, the Bloc Québécois, Liberals and NDP have all said that they would vote down that budget, given the chance.
Immovable government, meet the unstoppable opposition.
Stack it all up, set events in motion, and they tumble toward a Tory minority government quickly falling and being replaced by a Liberal government propped up by at least the NDP.
(Conservative partisans: Please note the lack of the word "coalition" in the preceding sentence. Liberal partisans: Please note that nothing your leader has promised rules out such a move.)
So, the only question is would this happen with "lightning speed" as Mr. Harper continually thunders, with a rejection of the Throne Speech, or might the opposition take a more leisurely approach?
It's clear that the opposition has a legitimate, constitutional right to defeat the government on either the Throne Speech or the budget. The issue is whether it would be wise – and which would be less politically poisonous.
An immediate defeat of the government risks branding the opposition as undemocratic, using procedural manoeuvres to grab what could not be won at the ballot box, just as Mr. Harper currently charges. That risk
rises with the size of the Tory plurality, but decreases over time. Giving the Conservatives a chance to govern, and then bringing them down on an unaltered budget – and an unwillingness to bend to the realities
of a minority mandate – would be less perilous.
But Errol Mendes, professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa's faculty of law, says there will be no stay of execution: whatever the risks, the opposition will move immediately.
The Tories are "doomed" in a minority situation, he says, since their behaviour prompted the opposition parties to pass the contempt-of-Parliament motion, rejecting the government's legitimacy. [...]
An election about nothing? Low voter turnout predicted...
OTTAWA — More than 40 per cent of eligible Canadian adults didn't bother voting in the last federal election — the lowest turnout since Confederation.
And so far, there's no evidence the May 2 vote will yield a better result.
A recent poll found that 57 per cent of Canadian adults are "certain" to vote, says Darrell Bricker, CEO of public affairs for Ipsos Reid. He says the proportion of people who
respond this way tends to correspond closely to actual turnout.
Why such low interest? Simple.
"People show up for elections when they're really passionate about the result," he says. But the current campaign "seems to be a Seinfeld election — an election about nothing."
"We might get a small bump, but I would expect numbers to probably be as low as they were last time," agrees Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, a professor of political studies at Queen's University.
While there have been exceptions, the numbers show a general trend of progressively weakening voter turnout. [...]
Jaideep Mukerji, vice-president of public affairs with Angus Reid Public Opinion, says more people could be lured out to vote if they saw a pressing need.
A former chief of staff to Liberal MP Bob Rae, Mukerji said it's conceivable that the possibility Harper might win a majority could prompt more supporters of other parties to vote.
In terms of issues, Mukerji says he doesn't see anything "polarizing" enough to make a substantial difference in how many votes are cast.
Mukerji also downplays the role of social networks in getting the vote out.
Though much has been made of the role social media played in Barack Obama's U.S. presidential election win in 2008, data show voter turnout in that election increased only marginally, to 56.9
per cent from 55.4 per cent in 2004.
Despite shrinking voter participation in Canada, Bricker argues that it's not a sign people are becoming more inward-looking or less concerned about what happens outside their door.
"People are probably more worldly now than they've ever been," he says. "And in fact, people are more interested in political and social issues than they've ever been."
David Emerson is elected as a Liberal in 2006 but, 14 days thereafter, for personal reasons, accepts Harper's recruitment offer and crosses the floor to take up a Cabinet position with the Conservatives.
We vote for candidates and trust elected officials because...?
What's turning people off from elections, Bricker says, is how Parliament, political parties and the electoral system make people feel their vote doesn't
count.
And there's general distrust of politicians; Bricker says even when people hear an appealing idea from a politician, they doubt the candidate will follow
through on the promise if elected.
Negative politics may also make politics unattractive to people, says Mukerji. "If you look at commercials for cars, they very seldom take direct potshots at other cars," he says. "They just
talk up their own vehicle because they realize (negative statements about other automobiles) might just damage people's desire to buy cars overall."
The Globe and Mail reported several years ago that in 2006, "almost 15 million Canadians cast their ballots. But the decisive factor — the difference between a Conservative or Liberal minority government — came
down to less than 15,000 votes in 12 tightly-fought ridings or 0.001 per cent of Canadian voters." They noted then that, "the 2008 election…will be decided in 45 key battleground ridings in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia." That seems to be the case for the likely May 2011 election too.
Vancouver Quadra Vancouver Island North West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country Fleetwood-Port Kells Newton-North Delta
Burnaby-Douglas Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca Richmond Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission North Vancouver
Ontario
Parry Sound-Muskoka Glengarry-Prescott-Russell St. Catharines Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Brant Thunder Bay-Superior North Oakville Thunder Bay-Rainy River Huron-Bruce London-Fanshaw Ottawa-Orléans
Simcoe North London West Barrie Kitchener-Conestoga Halton Peterborough Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing Burlington Mississauga South
NDP Continues to Gain in Quebec
The following seat projection is drawn from a weighting and blending of polls conducted between Apr. 26 to 29. It is an adaption of the one circulated on April 30, but includes additional polls unavailable
at the time including data from Nanos, Ipsos,Angus Reid, Ekos, Harris-Decima, Leger and Forum Research. The aggregate sample exceeds 10,000 respondents.
Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy. → Check for Updates
C
L
NDP
BQ
Other
Canada
144
51
98
15
—
2008 Election Results
143
77
37
49
2
Atlantic provinces
14
11
7
—
—
2008 Election Results
10
17
4
—
1
Quebec
4
7
49
15
—
2008 Election Results
10
14
1
49
1
Ontario
56
26
24
—
—
2008 Election Results
51
38
17
—
—
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and territories
22
3
6
—
—
2008 Election Results
23
3
5
—
—
Alberta
27
—
1
—
—
2008 Election Results
27
—
1
—
—
British Columbia
21
4
11
—
—
2008 Election Results
22
5
9
—
—
Note:
The "regional swing model" is more fully explained in a paper originally prepared and presented by Dr. Barry Kay to the 1990 annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, entitled "Improving Upon the Cube Law: A Regional Swing Model for Converting Canadian Popular Vote into Parliamentary Seats". It should be noted that the application of the model above does not make use of the "incumbency effect" described in that paper. In tests for past elections, using late campaign polls to project electoral outcomes, the model has proved to be accurate within an average of four seats per party since 1963. [...]
Link added.
"Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level."
PROJECTED CANADIAN SEAT BREAKDOWN
Image Credit: ThreeHundredEight.com
RIDING PROJECTIONS
Image Credit: ThreeHundredEight.com click to enlarge
On the eve of the vote, ThreeHundredEight.com projects that the Conservative Party will win another minority government, with the New Democrats forming the Official Opposition. The Liberals will place third while the
Bloc Québécois will be relegated to the fourth position in the House of Commons.
The Conservatives are projected to take 36.4% of the vote and 143 seats, the same number of seats they had when the government fell. However, considering that two of the three vacancies were safe Conservative
seats, we can even say that this is a loss of two for the party.
The New Democrats are projected to take 27.3% of the vote and win 78 seats, an increase of 42 over their pre-election standing. It is almost double their previous best under Ed Broadbent.
The Liberals are projected to win only 22.8% of the vote and elect 60 MPs, a reduction of 17 since the election was called.
The Bloc Québécois is projected to win 28.1% of the vote in Quebec and 6.7% nationally, enough to give them 27 seats in the province. That is a loss of 20 for Gilles Duceppe, and the first time the Bloc
would be reduced to a minority of seats in Quebec.
The Greens are projected to win 5.6% of the vote and no seats. No independents are projected to be elected. [...]
Strategic Voting
KEY CONTESTS:
Project Democracy is a tool to help you determine if there is a way to "amp up" your vote and stop a Harper majority. By using a riding by riding election prediction
model based on the most up to date public opinion polls, we can tell you which Party is best positioned to defeat the Conservative in your riding. Just enter your postal code in the box to the right.
"More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote."
ProjectDemocracy.ca grew out of Voteforenvironment.ca which was a website launched in the 2008 federal election to give voters a riding by riding analysis of projected outcomes to help them make a decision on
whether a strategically placed vote might realistically help towards defeating the Conservative candidate in their riding.
Projectdemocracy.ca is as deeply concerned about the environment as its predecessor and so much on that front remains at risk. It is evident that Harper doesn’t care about the environment, but worse he has
shown a disturbing penchant to ignore the democratic safeguards that the public had come to rely on. Nuclear watchdog – fired. Scientists – muzzled. Climate change funding – slashed. This is just a very short
list amongst a much longer list of evidence that point to Harper’s willingness to disregard and dismantle our democratic tenets. This article [: Canada watches its democracy erode, Ramesh Thakur, The Australian, 30.03.11] nicely summarizes what is at risk in this election [...]
Canadians have felt disenfranchised and frustrated with their inability to affect change when the ballot box is not reflected in Parliament. Unfortunately, the ‘first past the post system’ is what we have to work
with this election and progressive Canadians are looking for tools that will help them express their concern over the erosion of our democracy and to get the best possible outcome of this election – or at the very
least stop Harper from achieving his majority government.
[... P]rojectdemocracy.ca makes riding projections based on a model that uses the 2008 election results (with some exceptions noted in specific ridings) and current polling to help voters understand what the public
polls likely mean in their constituency.
This information is intended to help voters determine whether a strategic vote could make a difference in their riding. Of course this is not for everyone and in the vast majority of ridings strategic voting can’t affect
the outcome. However in about 10% of ridings vote splitting amongst the opposition parties can very well end up in the election of a Conservative MP. [...] [Read More]
"Two out of three Canadians do not want to see another Stephen Harper-led government," writes Mitchell Anderson at TheTyee.ca, and "If you are one of those voters, I've created a way to send donations to
where they can do the most good to support candidates other than the Harper Conservatives."
It's called Swing 33.ca. Visit the Swing 33 website here, to move beyond the idea of strategic voting, and into the realm of strategic donation.
Swing 33 simply identifies 33 key ridings where Conservatives are in tight races with other parties, and links you to the donation page of the leading opposition candidate (not their party headquarters). [...]
Kitchener--Waterloo
Vancouver South
Egmont
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca
Brampton West
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar
Welland
Kitchener Centre
Mississauga--Erindale
Edmonton--Strathcona
Saint John
Western Arctic
Oak Ridges--Markham
Brampton--Springdale
Burnaby--Douglas
Malpeque
South Shore--St. Margaret's
Surrey North
Sault Ste. Marie
Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean
New Westminster--Coquitlam
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe
Elmwood--Transcona
West Nova
Edmonton--Sherwood Park
Guelph
Beauport--Limoilou
Eglinton--Lawrence
London West
Mississauga South
Vancouver Island North
Saanich--Gulf Islands
North Vancouver
Ottawa – A major poll, conducted by Environics Research for the Council of Canadians, has found that 62 percent of Canadians support "moving towards a
system of proportional representation (PR) in Canadian elections."
The poll accompanies a report prepared for the Council of Canadians by Murray Dobbin on the "concerted attack on democracy" by the Harper government. [...]
The report details the two recent prorogations, Harper's influence on the Senate, and his attacks on women's rights, democracy and political advocacy.
A key finding of the Environics Research poll is that 36 percent of Canadians are more supportive of PR based on the view that such a system could make it
more difficult for prime ministers to arbitrarily prorogue Parliament to avoid accountability. Harper's Hitlist makes the case that this latter figure
suggests that the anger over Harper's actions has resulted in a determination by voters to deal with the situation permanently: by changing the system
itself. To help build on this momentum for PR, the Council of Canadians is encouraging voters to sign the Declaration of Voters' Rights at www.fairvote.ca.
In addition, the b support for PR is consistent across the country – from a low of 59 percent in Alberta to a high of 65 per cent in Quebec. Young voters – prominent at the anti-prorogation
demonstrations in January – were the best supporters, with 71 percent favouring a change to PR.
As Dobbin explains in the opening paragraphs of the report, "This study is intended to examine the most serious violations of democracy committed by the prime minister
and his government. Some are clearly more serious than others. But taken as a whole they add up to a dangerous undermining of our democratic traditions,
institutions and precedents – and politics."
"These violations are not accidental, they are not incidental, and they are not oversights or simply the sign of an impatient government or 'decisive'
leadership," says Dobbin. "They are a fundamental part of Harper's iron-fisted determination to remake Canada, whether Canadians like it or not."
Murray Dobbin is an author, columnist, and former board member of the Council of Canadians. He is also the author of Word Warriors, an on-line activist tool
hosted on the Council's website at www.canadians.org/wordwarriors.
The poll on proportional representation was conducted by Environics Research between February 22 and 24, 2010. The results represent the findings of a
telephone survey conducted among a national random sample of 1,001 adults comprising 501 males and 500 females 18 years of age and older, living in
Canada. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.10 percent, 19 times out of 20.
Author and Rabble.ca columnist Murray Dobbin details the harm Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing to the political and social fabric of Canada in a new, hard-hitting essay commissioned by the Council of
Canadians titled Harper's Hitlist: Power, Process and the Assault on Democracy.
As Dobbin explains in the opening paragraphs of the essay, "This study is intended to examine the most serious violations of democracy committed by the
prime minister and his government. Some are clearly more serious than others. But taken as a whole they add up to a dangerous undermining of our democratic
traditions, institutions and precedents – and politics. These violations are not accidental, they are not incidental, and they are not oversights or simply the
sign of an impatient government or 'decisive' leadership. They are a fundamental part of Harper's iron-fisted determination to remake Canada, whether Canadians
like it or not."
It could be argued that democracy today is clearly not working because so many people are opting out. In the last election, fewer people voted than in any other federal election in Canadian
history – just 59.1 per cent of the population cast a ballot. That means that four in 10 citizens no longer believed that democracy had anything to offer them or meant anything to them. That
is amongst the lowest in the developed Western democracies and is reaching crisis proportions. [...] — from the Conclusion of Harper's Hitlist
As the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada, the Assembly of First
Nations, wants to hear directly from all federal parties during the 2011 Federal Election. The
United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples endorsed by Canada on
November 12, 2010 sets out key standards and calls on all states and indigenous peoples to
work together in mutual respect and partnership. The objective of this questionnaire is to
determine the willingness of all federal parties to work within this important new context and
opportunity for mutual growth and positive outcomes.
Education
Will your government commit to ending discriminatory funding and ensuring fair,
equitable funding for First Nation schools on a priority basis?
Reconciliation and Affirmation
Would your government work to transform the current relationship between First
Nations and the Government of Canada by implementing Treaties and other
agreements and settle land claims as opposed to continuing failed policy approaches
grounded in the Indian Act?
How would your government ensure that a new, stable and predictable approach to
fiscal transfers between First Nation governments and the Government of Canada is
developed, based on equity, accountability and mutually established service standards?
Economy and the Environment
Will your government recognize the role of First Nations and commit to working in
partnership with First Nations to support First Nation engagement in sustainable
resource and economic development in their traditional territories?
Safety and Community Health
How will your government ensure there is a sustainable, equitable investment in core
First Nations services including child welfare; health services; non-insured health
benefits; housing and water infrastructure?
[...] Corporate tax cuts are becoming a major issue in the federal election campaign. The Conservatives, arguing that they are the best custodians of an economy that remains fragile after the recession, say tax cuts
are crucial to stimulate job creation and make Canada more competitive on the global stage.
But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade. At
the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83-billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.
The issue has emerged as highly divisive, with the Liberals questioning the effectiveness of the no-strings-attached tax cuts as a job creation tool. They are pledging to roll corporate taxes back to 2010 levels to
free up billions of dollars for spending on family-focused social programs, including day care and tuition.
Jim Flaherty, the Harper government's Finance Minister, acknowledged in a telephone interview that corporate tax cuts are a tough sell when companies are still hoarding cash. But over the long term, he said,
his "comfort zone" comes from the fact that business leaders and economists have widely endorsed tax cuts as a job creation tool.
"Most importantly," he said, "it's a confidence builder in Canada, and it's a way of branding Canada."
Opposing corporate tax cuts is a relatively new position for the Liberals, who dropped the rate while in office in 2000. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's policy also leaves his party at odds with their provincial
cousins in Ontario.
But in an interview on Tuesday, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said he supports Mr. Ignatieff's policy even though he himself is under siege by opposition members for presiding over corporate tax cuts. [...]
With election speculation on Parliament Hill running rampant, corporate tax cuts have taken centre stage
in Canadian public debate.
The Harper government is sticking to its promise to continue cutting Canadian corporate taxes to 15% next year. It's a pricey promise: Total Harper corporate
tax cuts will deprive Canadian coffers of $14 billion a year in revenue by 2013-2014. The federal government, meanwhile, is in a fiscal deficit situation.
Given recent polling that indicates the majority of Canadians don't like the idea of corporate tax cuts, it could be a risky wedge issue on which to stake an
election.
But conservatives in Canada are careful students of framing. They understand what neuroscience is teaching us: repetition changes minds.
There are several fascinating experiments that prove this phenomenon.
For instance, psychologist Ian Skurnik asked senior citizens to sit through a computer
presentation of a series of health warnings that were randomly identified as either true or false: Aspirin destroys tooth enamel (true); Corn chips contain
twice as much fat as potato chips (false). Quizzed a few days later, the seniors remembered the false statements as true – repetition had rewired their brain to
believe falsehoods.
Kimberlee Weaver of Virginia Tech did a study that showed if
one person tells you that something is true, and tells you that over and over again, you are likely to conclude that the opinion is widely held.
Norbert Schwarz from the University of Michigan helped show that even when the task
is to educate the public with a myth-busting fact sheet, people walk way remembering the repeated myths as truth.
Astute politicians use repetition to build support for their side. Harper's Conservatives are nothing if not disciplined message bearers. Their carefully
scripted frame, which key Ministers are diligently repeating, is simple: Corporations = job creators; corporate tax cuts = job creation.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has used it: "If we want more jobs, higher wages, an improved
standard of living for all of us, Canada needs to be an attractive place for job-creators to do business and invest."
Government House Leader John Baird has used it: "We are reducing taxes for businesses because it
creates jobs and it creates economic growth," said Baird. "Our tax rates for job creators is one of the measures sustaining our fragile economic recovery."
And you can expect to hear a lot more of the Conservative frame. [...]
Stephen Harper has one more shot at a majority. He must be salivating at the chance to radically restructure the role of government in Canada. But winning over voters usually requires new campaign promises.
Harper does not want to expand government programs for regular folks: his endgame is to downsize what we expect our government to do for us.
How can Harper win a majority without promising much to address the needs of Canadians? The Harper spin machine is counting on Canadian's fear of the federal deficit to manage this tricky problem.
Since the 1990s Canadians have been persuaded that federal budget deficits, and rising federal debt, are the end of the world as we know it. Actually, it is not nearly as cataclysmic as deficit doomsayers would have you believe.
The government's projected deficit for the 2010/2011 fiscal year is $45.4 billion. It looks like a big number, but deficits should be judged by how big they are relative to the economy (gross domestic product). A
billion-dollar deficit is a much bigger problem for a tiny poor country than for an economic superpower.
The International Monetary Fund recently compared deficit/GDP across countries. The IMF projects that Canada's 2011 deficit will be 4.7 per cent of GDP. The USA comes in at 10.8 per cent. Advanced countries as a group
average 7.1 per cent.
Not that we should be blasé about deficits: deficits add to federal debt, and the interest payments on the debt are paid out of tax dollars (although with interest rates low, this is not the problem it was in the 1980s).
Even so, at this point the deficit is not the monster that is coming to eat your children.
It is obvious that Harper is not too upset when it comes to the deficit. Despite his claims to be a fiscal conservative, he cannot give away money fast enough in corporate tax cuts or military spending. Parliament can't
even get a straight answer out of him about the price tag of his anti-crime campaign or his F35 fighter jets. I guess that standards of fiscal accountability and transparency only apply when Stephen says they should.
Harper wants to spend freely on his political agenda, while having an excuse for refusing to implement the sorts of government programs that would make a real difference for Canadians who are struggling after the latest
economic downturn. Better yet, he wants to portray his refusal to help Canadians in need as a virtue.
Reality Check: Tory Platform CBC's Amanda Lang with a reality check on the Conservative pledge to
balance Canada's books by 2014.
To deflate Canadians' expectations about what the government should do for us, the Harper spin-machine is relying on some pretty intense political theatre concerning the deficit. Harper wrings his hands about the
government's fiscal position any time that Canadians might want action on issues like job creation, poverty, healthcare or the environment. The sell-job is that Harper is such a prudent economic manager that he
couldn't possibly give in to pressure to jeopardize the country's finances, much as he might feel our pain. Of course, the Harperites must work overtime to avoid explaining how much cash is hemorrhaging from the
Treasury to pay for their pet projects.
This strategy is calibrated to play on our economic anxieties. After all, the deficit does look like a scary number, particular to Canadians who are squeezed by their personal indebtedness. But even though you are
struggling to make ends meet, the Harper team would have you think that you are being down-right unpatriotic to expect the government to do something for you while there is a federal deficit. Valiant Stephen Harper
must say no to Canadians for our own good.
The PR campaign to exalt Harper as a good manager of the economy is adopting strategy straight from Ronald Reagan's playbook. The Conservatives recent feel-good ads are shockingly reminiscent of Reagan's 1984
"Morning in America" campaign: similar soothing instrumental music and warm-and-fuzzy camera shots of our fearless leader/good daddy benevolently watching out for the common good. [...]
Of course, Harper will need to get a firm hand on power before he uses the pretext of concern over the deficit to really slash government spending. Expect him to be mysterious about just how he plans to fulfill
his plans to eliminate the deficit after the next election is over. He will do everything possible to appear moderate until he has his majority.
The upcoming budget is Harper's chance to proclaim his credentials as a prudent economic steward. After all, what's a few billion dollars here or there on some fighter jets or prisons! While he is convincing
us that he is someone we can trust with the purse strings, he will probably even announce his intention to pursue some positive-sounding measures just to show us he really is a swell guy. Just give him his majority,
and good stuff will be coming down the road sometime.
If Harper was such a principled economic manager, he would start with some fiscal transparency. Just how much are your pet projects going to cost, Mr. Harper? And just how are you planning to balance the budget in
the future? Canadians deserve plausible answers to these basic questions.
We need a mature debate about the deficit, debt and the merits of tax cuts versus other uses of government fiscal capacity. This debate cannot happen amidst infantilizing fear-mongering about the deficit. As long
as the deficit morphs into the monster that silences all rationale conversation about federal finances, our deficit phobia will be exploited to the advantage of Harper's political agenda.
Economist Ellen Russell is a research associate with the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives. Her column comes out monthly in rabble.ca.
Housing and Homelessness
The right to adequate housing ... the significance of Bill C-304
Bill C-304 was before the Parliament of Canada awaiting debate and third reading, with the committed support of the majorithy of parliamentarians, when
the Conservative Government was defeated on a Motion of Non-Confidence on March 25, 2011. Introduced as a private member's bill by Libby Davies, MP, the bill
had been significantly enhanced by amendments adopted by the
Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities to conform with key recommendations from UN Human Rights bodies for a national housing strategy in Canada based on the right to adequate housing. The Bill includes:
targets and timelines for the elimination of homelessness
a process for the independent review, addressing and reporting of complaints about possible violations of the right to adequate housing;
a process for review and follow-up on any concerns or recommendations from United Nations human rights bodies with respect to the right to adequate housing;
a key role for civil society organizations, including those representing groups in need of housing, and Aboriginal communities in designing
the delivery, monitoring and evaluation of programs required to implement the right to adequate housing;
provision of financial assistance to those who cannot otherwise afford housing.
The Bill had also been improved by an amendment from the Bloc Quebecois recognizing Quebec's unique commitment to the rights in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
and its ability to participate in a national strategy through its own programs and policies.
OTTAWA – Forty percent of federal investments in municipalities are set to expire, but two weeks into the federal election campaign, no Party has a concrete plan for the growing challenges in cities and communities,
said the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) when it released its election platform today.
"It's time for leadership - traffic gridlock is choking our cities, local police services are overstretched, and 175,000 Canadian families are on affordable housing waiting lists," said FCM President Hans Cunningham.
"Municipalities just don't have the funding tools other governments have, and they can't afford to meet these national challenges all on their own."
FCM's platform, b Cities, b Communities, b Canada, contains practical and affordable solutions to protect communities and build on recent investments as the budget outlook improves. The platform
focuses on five key priority areas: infrastructure; transportation and public transit; rural, remote and northern Canada; policing and community safety; and housing.
FCM is calling on all federal party leaders to commit to renewing expiring investments in infrastructure, policing and housing, and indexing the gas-tax transfer to keep up with economic growth.
"Forty percent of federal investments in municipalities will expire in the next 36 months. That's not stimulus money – that's 40 percent of core funding – investments in roads, housing, and front-line police
officers," said Cunningham. "Across the country, voters are waiting for Party Leaders to outline their plans for building the b cities and communities our country needs to strengthen its economy and protect
its quality of life."
Federal investments in need of renewal include recently expired dedicated transit funding, affordable housing programs and subsidies, the Police Officer Recruitment Fund, and the Building Canada Fund. Together
these investments are worth $1.9 billion per year.
Our country and our community need a well-funded NATIONAL HOUSING STRATEGY
Spend 2 billion dollars a year to construct new social housing units
Protect the 600,000 existing social housing units across Canada
Reinvest money from expiring social housing operating agreements
Increase the annual funding for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy
Stop the federal move in 2011 to abandon homeless people and those on low incomes
REVERSE THE 39% CUT in the national housing agency spending (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 3.1 billion in 2010 to $1.9 billion in 2011)
REVERSE THE 11% CUT in Canada's Homelessness Partnering Strategy ($124 million in 2010 cut to $110 million in 2011)
We need to start changing our mindset and how we think about
housing, how we talk about housing to our friends, our colleagues
and our representatives in government ... because progress in
protecting and promoting the health of Canadians depends on
action to promote healthy housing for all ... we have a Canada
Health Act, now it is time for a Canada Housing Act.
idem. Dr. Stephen Hwang, keynote speaker, 2010 Research Forum of The Alliance to End Homelessness, on Canada's "hidden emergency" and the
initial findings of the Health and Housing in Transition
Study, Housing Vulnerability and Health: Canada's Hidden Emergency (19.11.10)
Everyone needs a healthy place to live.
Our minimum standards for health care – the Canada Health Act – were introduced "to protect, promote, and restore the physical and mental
well-being of residents of Canada". Without healthy housing, the chances of all Canadians benefiting from these standards are very slim.
Our federal government must respond, and set national housing standards that ensure universal, timely access to decent, stable,
and appropriate housing. Everyone should be able to access – and keep – housing that supports their health.
The recent expiration of $250 million in federal housing supports could deepen a growing housing crisis facing municipalities across the country, incumbent Vancouver East MP
Libby Davies said Tuesday (April 5).
"We do have a housing crisis in this country that is growing considerably," Davies said at a news conference in East Vancouver.
"A lot of people think of the housing crisis as affecting those who are literally homeless and destitute, but the point that I want to make today is that this housing crisis has now gone far beyond, and is
affecting families who can't afford places to stay, seniors, students, it's affecting more and more people."
Funding for two federal housing programs, the Affordable Housing Initiative and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, expired on April 1. The lack of renewal of the initiatives has drawn
criticism from organizations including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).
In a statement on April 1, FCM president Hans Cunningham said the expiration of funding for the programs "put cities and communities across Canada in limbo, unable to access hundreds of millions of
dollars earmarked to build social housing and help low-income Canadians pay their rent."
Cunningham noted that in the last three years, the federal government has spent close to $4 billion on homelessness and affordable housing. But, he said, "these gains will be squandered without a long-term
plan to expand the rental market and renew Canada's aging stock of 600,000 social housing units."
Davies called Tuesday for the renewal of the two programs, as well as a national housing strategy.
Davies said her private member's legislation Bill C-304 was the closest
the country came to having a comprehensive national housing strategy. The bill went through two votes and had the support of
the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, but died on the order paper when the election was called. Implementation of the strategy would cost about $2 billion.
"We want to say to every party that's running...there has to be a commitment to follow through on a national housing strategy," she said. "This can no longer be swept under the carpet. It's affecting too many people."
Davies said close to 200,000 families across the country are on waiting lists for social housing, while an estimated 40,000 Canadians are sleeping in emergency shelters.
Since she began working with the Downtown Eastside community many years ago, Davies said she has seen homelessness in the Vancouver neighbourhood increase significantly.
"I can remember the days where in the Downtown Eastside when I first started working there, people were poor, but you didn't see destitution on the streets like you see today," she said. "People lived in SROs,
it was crummy housing, there were bad landlords, but people did have places to go, and income assistance wasn't nearly as bad as it was today."
Davies was accompanied at the announcement by social housing advocates Teresa Diewert of the organization Streams of Justice and Wendy Pedersen of the Carnegie Community Action Project.
Pedersen said homelessness has grown since the mid-90s, after federal support for affordable housing dropped off. She noted Ottawa used to fund 20,000 to 30,000 units of affordable housing across the country.
"I live in a neighbourhood that is often unfairly stereotyped for the condition that people are living in, and I can say with certainty that homelessness is not caused by addiction and mental illness, it's
not a problem of people's individual choices and poor choices that they've made, it's a problem of poor housing supply, and shockingly low wages and other systemic problems," she said.
Diewert said the decline in housing supports over the years has led to sub-standard social housing conditions.
"What's striking about the situation to us is the complete absence of the federal government," she said. "The federal government stopped funding the national housing program in ‘93, making Canada the only G-8
country to not having a national housing strategy, despite international criticisms raised by UN housing officials."
The federal Liberals unveiled a housing plan as part of their platform April 3, which proposes an increase of $550 million in housing spending over two years, and the development of an affordable housing
plan with provincial, territorial and municipal governments.
Davies, who has been the MP for Vancouver East since 1997, said if she's re-elected to Parliament she plans to re-introduce her national housing strategy legislation.
On March 25, 2011, a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons triggered a spring election. With the fall of the Conservative government, Bill C-304,
an Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians, dies on the Order Paper and must be reintroduced in the next
parliament if it is to be considered. The May 2 election, however, is an opportunity to bring affordable housing and homelessness issues to the forefront.
The Situation
More than 1.5 million households – or almost 13 per cent of all households in Canada – live in ‘core housing need,' meaning they can't
find a home that costs less than 30 per cent of their household income, that has enough room for its occupants and doesn't need major repairs.
There are 620,000 households living in social housing across Canada.
As the population grows and the effects of the recession take their toll, more is needed just to keep up with the needs of Canadians who cannot find homes they can afford.
But the long-term operating agreements between the federal government and the providers of this social housing are expiring. Without the subsidies these
agreements provide, many housing providers will have to sell off some units to save others and/or raise the rents for some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens
just to keep the doors open.
Between 150,000 and 300,000 Canadians do not have a home. Homelessness is both a serious individual risk and a considerable public expense.
Some federal programs have helped to alleviate pressure, but they have been short-term; making it difficult to plan for long-term success.
The Solution
Members of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association believe that all Canadians deserve a secure, adequate and affordable place to call home. CHRA
believes this is possible with leadership from the federal government. CHRA urges all political parties to:
Adopt a national housing strategy that includes long-term federal funding and engagement in housing and
homelessness. A long-term strategy, developed in collaboration with stakeholders from across Canada would enable long-term
planning and more effective and enduring results.
Continue funding social housing after operating agreements expire. Operating agreements have generally
been tied to the life of a project's mortgage. As mortgages are paid off, it will cost less to keep social housing projects viable. However, funding is still
needed because rental revenues from tenants with low-incomes will not be nearly enough to sustain these buildings.
Maintain current funding levels for social housing with savings from the expiry of operating agreements going toward other
affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. Federal spending on social housing is at approximately $1.7 billion annually. If the government were to maintain current
spending levels and reinvest any surplus after existing housing is secured, they could help many more Canadians who are struggling to find a home they can afford.
Renew the Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI) and CMHC's suite of renovation programs (RRAP) and double the funding to better
meet current needs. The federal government currently invests $125 million annually in AHI and $128 million annually in RRAP. These
programs help to produce new and maintain existing affordable housing. Both programs serve as important economic drivers. However, neither has been formally
renewed for 2011-2014 as had been expected.
Extend the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) through 2016 and increase the funding to $269.6 million
annually. Getting people into housing costs less than the services they may use while experiencing homelessness, including expensive
emergency health, criminal justice and social service systems. HPS (worth $134.8 million annually) was renewed until 2014 and is an important first step; but
more investment is needed to address the full scope of this problem.
Reinstate and extend the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program, or a similar, grant-based energy audit and retrofit program until
2016 and add a low-income component. Investing in energy retrofits makes housing more affordable, creates jobs and has important
environmental benefits. A low-income component, if added to such a program, would help families who have limited or no financial capacity to pay for
required home audits or portions of retrofitting not covered by the mainstream program.
How we treat our most vulnerable citizens says a lot about our country and its values. The same is true of governments.
Citizens for Public Justice, along with our partners in the Dignity for All campaign, have long called for vigorous and sustained action by the federal
government to combat poverty in Canada. We’ve described the measures that we think are necessary to achieve the vision of a poverty-free Canada in the three
goals of the Dignity for All campaign:
A federal plan for poverty elimination that complements provincial and territorial plans.
A federal anti-poverty Act that ensures enduring federal commitment and accountability for results.
Sufficient federal investment in social security for all
Canadians.
We’ve also argued that eliminating poverty calls for a comprehensive approach that addresses factors including income security, housing, Early Childhood Education and Care, Employment Insurance and job creation.
So how do the political parties currently vying for our votes specifically plan to address poverty in Canada?
The Conservative Party’s platform only mentions the word poverty once, in relation to seniors. The Conservatives promise
to top up the Guaranteed Income Supplement to seniors by up to $600 a year for single individuals and up to $840 a year for couples.
To encourage employment, the Conservatives have said they will reduce Employment Insurance (EI) premiums for one year for small businesses that hire new employees. For employees, the Conservatives commit to
enhancing the work-sharing program that allows people to retain their jobs while receiving some income support from EI.
The Conservatives also promise changes to the Canada Student Loan program to assist part-time students and to make it easier for students to work while studying.
The Green Party’s platform explicitly mentions poverty only in connection with global poverty, however they
do offer a number of policy initiatives that would help to reduce poverty domestically. One of the key elements is the promise to create thousands of new
green jobs through investment in renewable energy, shifts in transportation and retrofitting of old buildings for energy efficiency. The Greens also commit to
expanding access to EI and protecting pensions.
The Greens will implement a national affordable housing program, with funding commitments rising from $400 million to $1,267 million the third year. Related
investments in community housing, energy retrofits for low income housing, and improved housing for First Nations people in Canada are also highlighted.
As well, the Greens’ platform budget includes promised investments in early childhood education, more bursaries for post-secondary education, and national pharmacare.
Finally, while they are not specifically stated in this year’s platform document, the Greens’ policy commitments as outlined in their
Vision Green document include a Guaranteed Livable Income for all Canadians and a 25% increase in the
Guaranteed Income Supplement for all seniors.
The Liberal platform promises a federal poverty reduction plan with specific
targets, practical measures to achieve them, and collaboration with other levels of government. Several major commitments of their platform will form the
foundation for this strategy, including the Canadian Learning Strategy, the National Food Policy and a new Affordable Housing Framework. Together, these
policies represent a $5 billion investment over 2 years.
The Canadian Learning Strategy involves investments in learning at different stages of life, including an Early Childhood Learning and Care Fund, the
Learning Passport which will provide grants for post-secondary education, increased funding for Aboriginal Canadians in both K-12 and post-secondary
education, and expanded language training for new Canadians.
Linked to the poverty reduction plan, the new Affordable Housing Framework also represents a significant commitment to collaborate with other
levels of government to create a national strategy with long-term goals. The Framework will seek to reduce homelessness, maintain and renew existing
affordable housing, and create new affordable housing. Over the next two years, the federal contribution of a Liberal government would be $550 million.
The Liberals promise a Youth Hiring Incentive to small and medium-sized businesses hiring youth, offering a complete reduction of EI premiums to help
create jobs for young people. For employees, the Liberals offer a new Family Care EI Benefit, which would allow people to receive EI benefits while taking
time off work to care for a sick family member.
The Liberals also pledge a $700 million increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors and the introduction of a new Secure Retirement Option as
part of the Canada Pension Plan for those with no pensions.
The NDP platform promises a national poverty reduction strategy entrenched in legislation. Goals and targets
for poverty reduction will be set in consultation with provinces, territories, Aboriginal governments and non-governmental organizations.
As a first step toward poverty elimination, the NDP would combine existing supports such as the Child Tax Benefit in a new non-taxable Child Benefit and
increase the support by up to $700 per child over the next four years. The NDP would also invest in a Canada-wide early learning and childcare program to
create 25,000 childcare spaces per year for the next four years.
The NDP also commit to legislation ensuring secure, adequate and affordable housing with significant new funding for affordable housing.
On education, the NDP platform details a plan to transfer $800 million to the provinces and territories to lower tuition fees, as well as increased funding
for Canada Student Grants particularly targeted to Aboriginal, disabled and low income students. The NDP would also raise the amount of the education tax
credit.
The NDP would extend stimulus measures until unemployment returns to its pre-recession levels and modify EI to eliminate the two-week waiting period,
establish nation-wide access based on 360 hours of employment and raise the rate of benefits to 60%. The NDP also promise to reinstate the federal minimum wage.
Finally, for seniors the NDP would increase the CPP benefit with the goal of eventually doubling the benefits and increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement
to a sufficient level so that no Canadian senior is living in poverty.
If you've been paying attention to this federal election, you've heard all about how much the health of the economy and the middle class matters
to each party. But at least two parties are starting to pay attention to the lower income brackets, the roughly 10 per cent of Canadians who live in poverty, by proposing a national anti-poverty strategy.
Both the Liberal and New Democratic Party platforms promise to work with the provincial governments to provide poverty relief to Canadians in the form of a
national affordable housing strategy, more affordable early childhood education, and increasing the Canada Pension Plan, to name a few promises. [...]
Two buildings that cost $27-million in the lead-up to last year’s G8 meeting in Muskoka have become symbols of a new political headache for the Conservatives
as they fight an election campaign in which they are accused of failure to be accountable and transparent with Parliament.
According to draft reports leaked on Monday, Auditor-General Sheila Fraser is set to condemn the so-called G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund that was used by the
Harper government to shower the riding of a key minister with spending projects.
The report will not be tabled until after the May 2 election, but draft versions leaked to The Globe and Mail and other media have lit up the campaign
trail ahead of Tuesday night’s English-language leaders debate.
Ms. Fraser criticizes the government for a lack of openness toward Parliament, which unwittingly voted for the program as part of a border
infrastructure initiative, and for letting Industry Minister Tony Clement pick the 32 projects that were approved for funding out of 242 applications. The
draft report also leaves the Harper government exposed to charges of financial mismanagement in the $50-million program, which had a budget 10 times higher
than the funding allocated to major summits in Quebec City and Kananaskis, Alta.
The initial draft of the report, dated in January and released to the Canadian Press, went as far as saying that the government "misinformed"
Parliament and that obtaining approval for funds under the guise of a border initiative might have been illegal. The Conservatives, however, released a
second draft to The Globe, dated in February, in which the Auditor-General was still sharply critical, but dropped the reference to breaking the law. In
addition, the updated version did not refer to misinformation, but said the government was "not transparent" with Parliament. [...]
Source: Harper's G8-Gate: Demand the truth
Avaaz.org. Online petition launched 14.04.11, 11:00h EST.
Accessed 14.04.11. Emphasis in original.
An Avaaz campaign urging all political leaders to call on the Auditor General to release the G8 report and tell the truth about Harper's spending.
This week, a leaked report alleged that the Harper Government illegally
handed 50 million taxpayer dollars to a single Conservative riding – and
then covered it up as G8 summit spending. With Canadians heading to the polls in
mere weeks, we need to know the truth about Harper and his loose-fisted
ministers.
Parliamentary experts say that no law bars the Auditor General from immediately releasing this report to the public. In fact, it
would serve our bruised democracy to reveal the facts about G8 spending before Canadians are asked to choose the next government. [...]
[...] A variety of factors were behind the change in government in 2006 [...]
[a]nd the Conservatives capitalized by making sweeping new accountability rules
a centrepiece of their platform.
When they enacted that legislation as one of their first acts in office, the
Conservatives seemed to be building a long-term edge. At every opportunity, they
sought to draw a contrast with the government of Jean Chrétien and Mr. Martin,
aiming to do permanent damage to the Liberal brand. And indeed, that brand is
still hurt by the sponsorship scandal in particular – if not in every province,
then certainly in Quebec.
But in only a few years, the Conservatives have lost much claim to the high
ground. Controversies afflicting prominent members of their party have ranged
from the tawdry (Maxime Bernier, Rahim Jaffer, Bruce Carson) to the wonkish (Bev
Oda). More importantly, the flow of information in Ottawa has slowed to a
trickle – culminating in the government being found in contempt of Parliament
for withholding details related to the costs of its anti-crime bills, however
self-serving that judgment by the opposition parties might have been.
Image Credit: Globe and Mail.
Meanwhile, the sprinkling of cash around Industry Minister Tony Clement’s
riding during the G8 – whatever the Auditor-General has to say about it – cuts a
little close to the pork-barrelling Mr. Harper once railed against. So, too,
does the apparent prioritization of infrastructure projects in government-held
ridings, rather unhelpfully alluded to by star Tory candidate Larry Smith during
this campaign.
The Conservatives dismiss most of this as white noise, and the polls suggest
most voters agree with them. Unless something turns dramatically in this week’s
leaders’ debates, or some earth-shattering scandal emerges in the campaign’s
final weeks, ethics will not cause them to lose on May 2.
But neither will it help keep the Conservatives in power – and perhaps the
erosion of that edge was inevitable. Rare is the party that can govern for any
amount of time without at least a few people in its midst causing embarrassment,
particularly now that the ethics bar has been set higher than it was
previously.
The Conservatives were a new party in 2006, so they had an unusual lack of
ethical baggage. They were never going to have that luxury again. But it’s
nevertheless surprising quite how quickly they allowed the issue to become a
wash.
Stephen Harper's claim Canadians don't care his government was charged with contempt of Parliament is a clear indication of his ethics and his opinion of
Canadians' ethics.
Contempt for Parliament equates to contempt for the people it represents. Harper also has lessened Parliament with his importation of divisive American
style "attack politics."
Voters have found out Harper's 2006 election plank of a new honesty/openness in government and a tough on crime agenda wasn't meant to apply to the
Conservative party.
A smorgasbord of scandals include "in and out" financing, Bev Oda's creative writing, and RCMP investigations into Harper's close adviser Bruce Carson for
influence peddling.
Refusing to pay $700 million to lift the poorest seniors over the poverty line, while paying $30 billion for fighter jets is morally repugnant.
Paying $1 billion for a G8/G20 meeting is ridiculous. Yet another decrease in corporate tax rates when Canada at 16.5 per cent (U.S. rate is 39 per cent)
already has the second lowest rate in the developed world while health and education suffers is senseless.
Harper is serving the greater greed not the greater good.
[...] In most of Canada right now, there is no fee of any kind attached to emitting greenhouse gas pollution. But that pollution causes climate change, which is already imposing costs on Canada and the world — and which is projected to cause much more
serious harm unless we can significantly reduce our emissions.
A price on emissions helps to:
Change economic decision-making so that polluters make cleaner choices. If pollution costs money, companies and individuals will find ways to produce less of it. And if companies have to pay the
real costs of polluting technologies, it makes clean options cheaper by comparison, and thus more competitive.
Find the lowest-cost ways to reduce emissions. Rather than governments deciding which technologies we should or shouldn't choose, carbon pricing lets markets find innovative solutions.
Government of Canada analysis shows that a broad-based carbon price would be the cheapest way to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets.
Transfer the costs of climate change from all citizens to polluters. This lines up with the environmental principle of "polluter pays."
The two main ways to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution are through cap-and-trade systems or through a tax on carbon. In our view, both options can work, but they have to be designed well to do so.
In looking at a government's carbon pricing proposal, we would use a full set of criteria (including start date, breadth of coverage of emissions, limits on the use of offset credits or other flexibility provisions,
administrative simplicity, use of revenues, and adequacy of carbon price) to assess its likely effectiveness.
Election platforms usually don't provide that level of detail, but we can make a rough comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of parties' proposed approaches from the plans they have released.
VICTORIAVILLE, Que. — Stephen Harper has opened the door to funding power projects in other provinces in the wake of outrage over federal support for the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project in Labrador.
Harper announced last week in St. John's that a Conservative government would back the $6.2-billion project with a federal loan guarantee or equivalent financial support.
The project will export electricity to North American power markets once Newfoundland and Labrador's local needs are met.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have also endorsed the project.
But Quebec Premier Jean Charest, whose province is also a big hydroelectric producer, has accused Harper of "changing the market rules" by favouring Atlantic Canada over Quebec.
And Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has complained that the federal government is subsidizing electricity rates in other provinces at the expense of Ontario. McGuinty is calling for equivalent
support for power projects in his province.
Harper said Tuesday the Conservatives would be open to backing similar projects in other provinces.
"The Lower Churchill project, we believe, is an essential opportunity for an entire region of the country — Atlantic Canada — to get off of fossil fuel electricity generation (and) to move
to a clean energy source. This is part of fighting climate change," he told reporters at a campaign stop here.
"We haven't defined the scope of our involvement, the size of that. But I've been very clear that when we do, we will make sure we offer and are open to similar projects in other regions of the
country, equitably, including in Quebec."
Conservative officials say the federal government is expected to provide a loan guarantee worth up to $4.2 billion for the Lower Churchill project.
Federal taxpayers would be on the hook if the provincially owned power producer, Nalcor Energy, defaulted on the loan.
The guarantee could affect the federal government's deficit projection, since the government would likely have to book at least a portion of the guarantee.
The Conservatives are eager to win some of the seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Tories were shut out in 2008 after then-premier Danny Williams campaigned against them. [...]
[...] The Conservative Party does not currently support carbon pricing, as Environment Minister Peter Kent
confirmed in a recent media interview. The
Conservative party's opposition to carbon pricing leaves a gaping hole in their climate change plans, and would make it very difficult to meet the 2020 target they have chosen.
Indeed, the Conservative platform even
failed to mention the party's preferred alternative to carbon pricing, which is to impose emission regulations on Canada's industrial sectors. (However, a
subsequent news release clarified that the party's plan
consists of "targeted and common sense regulation of industries by sector.") As we discussed in an earlier blog post, economic analysis shows that
choosing command-and-control regulations over carbon pricing is a less efficient, more expensive route to reducing Canada's emissions.
Each of the other four parties does support carbon pricing.
The Liberal Party platform commits to "establish a cap-and-trade system" and to auction allowances under that
system to companies. The system will apply to "all sectors of the economy without exception" and be "equitable" across all of Canada's regions. In a subsequent
clarification, Alberta Liberal Senator
Grant Mitchell explained that auction revenues raised in a given province would be returned there, to be invested "through partnerships with the province and industry in technologies and science to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure the protection of water."
Strengths: Auctioning allowances is a design feature we support. We also advocate for re-investing some carbon pricing revenues in further emission reductions, and the Liberal Party's regional policy
commits to do that. In addition, the decision to apply the system to all sectors "without exception" could mean that the Liberal party supports a broad-based cap-and-trade system — one that covers not just
industrial emissions but the transportation sector too. Again, that's a policy direction we support.
Weaknesses: The Liberal policy doesn't answer some fundamental questions, including: When will the system go into effect? What level of emission reduction does it aim to make? How many allowances will
be auctioned? It's concerning that the platform's two-year budget plan doesn't book any revenues from carbon pricing, which raises the prospect that the system wouldn't go into effect for two years (or,
alternately, that the system wouldn't auction any allowances in its first two years).
The NDP platform also commits to auction allowances under its cap-and-trade system. But unlike
the Liberal party, the NDP's costing document shows cap-and-trade revenues as early as 2011
(for a total of $3.6 billion dollars), with revenues increasing to $7.4 billion in 2014-15. The funds are to be spent "equitably across Canada into investments in green technologies, businesses and household
energy conservation, public transit, support to renewable energy development, and transitioning workers to the green economy," and the costing document has 16 separate line items under "green initiatives."
Strengths: The NDP platform would see Canada adopt a cap-and-trade system in 2011 and devote the auction proceeds to green initiatives. According to party officials, the $3.6 billion dollars is based on
an initial auction rate of 25% of allowances, with a price floor of $40/tonne. Economic modelling analysis we published in 2009
shows that a price of $40/tonne starting in 2011 would get Canada on track to reach the government's 2020 target.
Weaknesses: The platform says that the carbon price will apply to "Canada's biggest polluters," which means the system is likely to cover just half of Canada's emissions. (A broad-based cap-and-trade
system could instead cover about 80% of Canada's emissions.) Like the Liberal platform, the NDP proposes a process to determine a 2020 target rather than committing to a specific goal. As a result, the NDP's
platform does not specify what contribution the cap-and-trade system would make to meeting a 2020 goal.
The Bloc Québécois platform does endorse a specific 2020 target (25 per
cent below the 1990 level) based on scientific assessments of the contribution a developed country like Canada would need to make to avoiding dangerous climate change. However, in other areas their cap-and-trade
proposals are fairly vague: the Bloc supports absolute caps on emissions (a pre-condition for a cap-and-trade system) and a carbon exchange in Montreal, along with financial penalties for companies that don't
meet their targets.
Strengths: An ambitious 2020 target and a clear commitment to carbon trading.
Weaknesses: The platform lacks details about the start date of the Bloc's preferred system; its level of stringency; which sectors would be covered and whether it would include an auction of
emission allowances.
Finally, the Green Party platform shows the most enthusiastic support for carbon pricing, supporting
both a broad-based tax on greenhouse gas pollution starting at $50/tonne and a cap-and-trade system for heavy industry. The carbon tax is designed to be revenue-neutral, meaning that the taxes that an average
family would pay will remain the same; the Green Party plans to use the $34 billion this initiative is estimated to raise in
2011-12 to reduce other taxes, provide a carbon rebate, and implement income splitting. (While the party is not proposing to spend carbon tax revenues on further emissions reductions, their platform does provide
for increased spending on a range of clean energy programs funded from other sources.) The party also has a clear 2020 target even stronger than the Bloc's, at 30 per cent below the 1990 level in 2020.
With commitments like that, it’s pretty hard to find weaknesses – although our assessment of the Green Party’s platform did have some suggestions to make on effectively targeting the party’s clean energy
spending.
Health care rightfully has become one of the key issues of this election. But while politicians are paying attention, Canadians have so far been presented
with promises of funding and piecemeal initiatives. Good intentions only go so far. Throwing more money at the system will not cure its ills in the absence of
an overarching plan for reform.
In fact, the current state of Canadian health care — with all of its shortcomings — is in large part a product of past decisions to focus on funding
rather than on the drivers needed to improve patient care through fundamental reform of the health-care system.
If dollars were the key to quality in health care, then Canadians would already be getting top-notch care. While our country spends $192 billion a year
on health care, international studies have shown that Canada performs at the back of the pack in terms of the value its citizens receive for this investment.
For example, at the Ottawa Hospital, where I am chief of staff, the occupancy rate is seldom less than 100 per cent, 30 to 40 patients await a hospital bed,
and 450 surgeries were cancelled last year because of a shortage of beds.
Yet, on any given day, we have 140 to 150 patients who are awaiting placement in long-term care where they would get more appropriate care at a fraction of the cost.
The same scenario repeats itself in hospitals across the country with alarming consistency:
Five million Canadians do not have a family doctor;
Emergency departments are congested;
Wait times for tests, while improving, are still unacceptable;
Mental illness services are woefully lacking; and
10 per cent of Canadians can't afford the drugs they need, while many more will not be able to afford longterm care.
Every day, Canadians lack access to the health care they should expect and, as a result, suffer both physically and emotionally.
We could do so much better, but that won't happen if we continue to stumble along with patchwork repairs to a system in need of a major overhaul.
No large corporation would operate without an overarching plan, why should our health care system?
Canadians have no easy way to manage spending rise, think-tank warns
Canada can't keep spending on health care at its current rate, and must choose between a number of unpopular options for its state-funded medical system, a former central bank chief said on Wednesday.
David Dodge, co-author of a study by the market-friendly C.D. Howe [I]nstitute, said health care spending would rise from 12 per cent of GDP in 2009
to 19 per cent in 2031 if spending kept growing at its current pace.
This thanks to an aging population, an expansion in the scope and quality of medical services and the rise in the relative price in health care services.
That would force Canadians to choose between a combination of a sharp cut in other public services, higher taxes, more private spending or a degradation of health care standards in the public sector, the report said. [...]
There are two ways to alleviate the fiscal squeeze, he added: Boost effectiveness and efficiency or boost productivity in the economy.
Either or both of these combined will help stimulate health care spending, giving it a growth effect.
But even that is not enough, he said.
The four actions Dion and Dodge say will be "necessary" to manage Canada's "spending disease" are:
Sharply reduce public services other than health care, especially those supplied by the provincial government.
Increase taxes to finance the public share of health care spending.
Draw more cash from individuals for health care services that are insured by provinces through copayment or by delisting services that are financed publicly.
Put up with a major degradation of publicly insured health care standards. Canadians would have to face longer lines, poorer quality services and opt for a privately
funded system, such as the two-tiered ones that are in place in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.
Opinion polls show health care is a top concern for voters ahead of the May 2 election.
But the campaign has so far included little debate on how to tackle rising costs. [...]
We've heard commitments for pharmacare, homecare and longterm care.
These programs are urgently needed, but they need to be part of an integrated health care system that includes a strong prevention component, and high-quality, patientcentred care from the beginning of life to the end.
And let's remember: we've heard these promises before.
This election presents a unique opportunity, then, for voters to ask their political leaders to present their overarching plans for the future of health care.
If Canadians are to get value for money, we need accountability mechanisms and greater transparency.
If we are to benefit from the disparate pockets of innovation and efficiencies that exist, we need a systematic way to spread cost-effective best practices coast to coast. And if all Canadians are to be treated fairly,
politicians must commit to work with health care providers to develop standards to ensure patients have access to the highest level of care, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay.
Beyond funding, the federal government has an important responsibility in the oversight of our health care system.
As the custodian of the Canada Health Act, it has a duty to uphold its principles, such as accessibility and universality. Moreover, the federal government itself is responsible for the provision of health care to the
military, RCMP, and First Nations, making it the fifth-largest health care provider in the country.
After years of growing frustrated with piecemeal initiatives, Canada's physicians — and we are not alone — believe this election campaign represents a crossroads.
The current 10-year Health Accord on health care funding bought the system time, but failed to achieve real change. With the Accord set to expire in 2014, the party that gains power on May 2 will likely be the one
responsible for negotiating the next agreement. And if those talks are only about money, the health care system that Canadians have long cherished both as a reflection of our values and a key to our country's high
quality of life, risks becoming but a memory.
Canadians have helped push health care into the limelight during this election campaign. Now we need to hear how the system will be reformed to meet their needs, now and in the future.
Source:Letter Opposing Bill S-10
UHRI Urban Health Research Initiative, Vancouver BC. (6.02.11) Accessed 7.04.11, Links added.
NOTE: The complete document includes the list of 563 signatories, academics and professionals.
Letter to Government Expressing Opposition to Bill S-10
February 6, 2011
Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Hon. Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Québécois
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Sirs:
Re: Opposition to Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Crime Act
We, the undersigned, are concerned that the federal government is pursuing significant amendments to federal drug legislation,
through Bill S-10, which are not scientifically grounded and which research demonstrates may actually contribute to health and social harms in our
communities. We join with other individuals and community groups that have previously expressed concerns in their testimony to various Committees and in
open letters, and we outline our key concerns, in brief, below.
We oppose Bill S-10
We are extremely concerned that Bill S-10 will exacerbate drug use challenges and related health and social harms in Canadian communities.
Specifically, we are concerned that:
There is no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences will reduce drug use or deter crime. Research from the United States
demonstrates that mandatory minimum penalties are a considerable burden on the taxpayer and are not effective in reducing drug use or drug-related crime. It is
especially concerning that while several states in the US, such as New York, Michigan, Massachusetts and Connecticut, are now repealing and moving away from
costly and ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing legislation, Canada is moving towards this failed and expensive policy approach.
Mandatory minimum sentences have a disproportionately negative impact on youth and Aboriginal persons. In Canada, mandatory minimum sentences will most negatively affect Aboriginal people, and
particularly youth, who already face elevated risks related to and harms associated with substance abuse, are at increased risk of HIV infection and are
disproportionately incarcerated. Over the last three decades, the proportion of Aboriginal persons admitted into correctional institutions in Canada has doubled
from 9% to 18%, despite only representing 3% of the total population of Canada. Bill S-10's emphasis on mandatory minimum sentences will likely lead to
worsening drug-related harms experienced by Aboriginal persons, and does nothing to address the underlying causes contributing to these unacceptable disparities.
Policies that over-emphasize drug law enforcement have a negative impact on public health and rates of HIV. According to the Correctional Service of Canada, approximately one in twenty inmates is
already HIV-positive and one in three has hepatitis C (HCV). Rates of infectious diseases continue to climb among this population. The House of Commons Standing
Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently raised concerns regarding the inadequate level of care and supports for inmates who suffer from
mental health and addictions challenges, and stressed that community resources should be augmented to avoid incarcerating this population in the first place.
The pending legislation, if implemented, will result in additional prison overcrowding and can be expected to contribute to further increased HIV and HCV
risk behaviour in prison. This has serious implications for public health, given that most inmates will be released and reintegrated into the community. It also
has implications for healthcare budgets, as the average health costs of each case of HIV infection are estimated to be $250,000.
Mandatory minimum sentences are expensive and ineffective. Although the government has not produced detailed budget estimates regarding the potential cost of implementing mandatory minimum
sentences, similar sentencing regimes introduced in the United States have cost taxpayers billions of dollars. During these difficult economic times, this
raises the question of why the federal government proposes to spend scarce financial resources on policies that have been shown to be expensive,
ineffective and harmful. The reasons given by US jurisdictions for moving away from mandatory minimum sentencing legislation are the extreme costs to
taxpayers, the ineffectiveness of this approach, and the resulting disproportionate harms to ethnic minority communities.
Investing tax dollars in safer communities means a better life for all of us -but is Stephen Harper's "tough on crime" policy a good investment?
The Harper government brought several bills before the House. Those with the greatest cost to taxpayers were the ones that increased the length of time an
offender spends behind bars by abolishing credit for time spent in custody while on remand, introducing many more mandatory minimum sentences, reducing parole
opportunities and increasing the length of time to be served for certain offences.
The total cost of this program remains a matter of contention. However, we do know some costs.
Vic Toews, the federal minister of public safety, says he requires an additional 2,700 prison cells. He has not said how many staff he needs to
supervise the additional prisoners but reports in the press suggest the federal government will have to hire between 4,000 and 5,000 new correctional officers.
In March 2010, Toews said the Truth in Sentencing Act would cost $90 million. But Ken Page, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, estimated the cost would be between $10 billion and $13 billion.
Over the past six months, government ministers have announced 18 major expansions to existing penitentiaries to add about 1,000 new bed spaces at an estimated cost of $600 million. But no one has announced
the cost of building an additional 1,700 cells they say are required.
Page estimates that Corrections Canada's annual budget will increase from $4.3 billion at present to $9.3 billion in 2015.
We have heard even less about the cost to the provinces, which are responsible for holding prisoners serving a sentence of less than two years.
While some provinces have demanded that Ottawa pay for any additional costs they incur, a demand that will likely be ignored, none have published their projected costs.
Professor Justin Piché of Carleton University estimates the costs to the provinces will be between $5 billion and $8 billion which would include thousands of new jail guards.
As the government is so reluctant to publish the projected costs of its tough-on-crime legislation, and the figures it has published are considered grossly under-estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Office, it
is reasonable to conclude that the cost will be exorbitant and will run into the billions for years to come.
But will this massive spending to keep people behind bars longer make us safer? Keeping offenders in prison will certainly prevent them from committing another crime while they're inside.
But if the increase in prisoners leads to double-bunking, as it likely will, the danger to correctional staff and the rate of violent crime, including murder, inside prisons will increase dramatically.
In addition, experience has shown that the longer people spend behind bars, the more likely they are to reoffend.
While longer sentences might deter a reasonable person, most, if not all, criminals do not act reasonably when they choose to commit a crime. They don't care, and probably don't know, what sentence faces them;
they just don't intend to get caught.
Building many new prisons and creating up to 10,000 new, long-term, well-paying jobs will certainly stimulate the economy.
But is there a better investment that will both stimulate the economy and lead to safer communities?
The most effective deterrent to crime is better policing. Five thousand new officers attacking organized crime, financial swindlers and sexual predators on
the Internet will give us far safer communities than 5,000 new federal correctional officers.
Keeping offenders in prison for longer time won't prevent them from committing more crimes on release: They need to learn how to respect other
people, manage their drug, alcohol and psychological problems and develop job skills so they can become taxpaying citizens. Five thousand workers focused on
training prisoners how to become law-abiding citizens will lead to far safer communities than 5,000 new jail guards.
As for the building boom, just imagine how many homes we could provide for the homeless for the cost of 2,700 new prison cells. Not only would this make a
dent in a problem that is a national humanitarian disgrace, but it would free up police from dealing with the nuisance behaviour, which is so often the
consequence of homelessness, so they could concentrate on more dangerous behaviour.
Or perhaps the money could be spent on public transport that would reduce the number of cars on the road leading to a reduction in traffic deaths and injuries
and free up police from investigating accidents to focusing on serious crime.
These are just four examples of how our tax money, which the Harper government wants to spend on prisons, could be better invested to make our communities much safer.
We need a fiscally responsible government that assesses the cost benefit of its programs rather than shooting from the lip.
Tony Sheridan, now retired, was deputy commissioner of corrections and assistant deputy minister of court services for the B.C. government.
The Legislative Summary for Bill S-10 outlines no evidence supporting mandatory minimum sentences as an effective means of improving public
health and community safety, or deterring crime. We support the goal of improving community health and safety through evidence-based drug policies,
which includes expanding drug prevention and treatment initiatives. We encourage you to use the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Vienna
Declaration, a scientific statement endorsed by leading scientists, researchers and health professionals around the world, to guide Canada's drug
policy.
We share the government's commitment to addressing the challenges of substance abuse but do not support the implementation of non-evidence-based
policies, such as Bill S-10, which place an enormous burden on taxpayers and will cause considerable health-related harms, while failing to improve community
health and safety.
We are calling on the federal government to demonstrate leadership in addressing these challenging issues by abandoning Bill
S-10 and pursuing an evidence-based policy approach that moves away from ineffective and costly incarceration schemes for non-violent drug offenders and
towards evidence-based modalities. We invite you to work together with the public health community to develop scientifically grounded policies that
meaningfully address drug-related health and social harms, are fiscally responsible, and are "smart on crime."
[...] Mr. Harper has prorogued Parliament not twice, but thrice.
In December 2009, his doing so inspired nationwide protest. In December 2008, he did so to avoid the likely defeat of his government in the House of Commons. But Parliament was first prorogued on his advice in
September 2007, when he asked that the resumption of parliamentary business be pushed back a month so that his 19-month-old government might present a new Throne Speech. [...]
Paris Gourtsoyannis is a Canadian-born freelance journalist and news blogger based in Edinburgh. He is a regular contributor to Guardian Edinburgh. Since
the Guardian's publication of this astute and thought-provoking article there have been more than 160 comments, an engaging discussion. Gourtsoyannis'
piece reminds me of the 2008 US Election and a seminal article by Michael Knox Beran, who examines the healer-redeemer fable and explores the US social susceptibility, at that particular time, to belief in a panacea for
social and economic problems. In Canada's Election 2011, on the other hand, we seem vulnerable to fables of fear and belief in the merits of protective walls.
In the general election runup, the fuss about Michael Ignatieff's Canadian credentials points to a nation retreating in on itself
In 1998 Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian Liberal party leader and former globetrotting academic, said that he voted Labour in Britain's 1997 election to
oust the Conservatives — or in his own words, "to get the rascals out". It is looking increasingly unlikely that after the 2 May general election in Canada,
Ignatieff will be able to repeat the same boast.
The Liberal campaign hardly got off to a good start, with Ignatieff's declaration that he wouldn't seek a coalition after
the vote implying that the Liberals weren't interested in governing. It is the latest furore over the Liberal leader's voting record, however, that not only has the potential to hand victory to Stephen Harper's Conservatives,
but also underlines the social and cultural malaise that has taken hold in the half decade of Harper's leadership.
It bears all the hallmarks of an embarrassing, if harmless political gaffe: a poorly briefed Liberal party press officer was caught off-guard by a tabloid reporter's questions on whether Ignatieff, who
spent long stints in the UK and the US, had ever voted in another country's elections. On the defensive, the staffer issued a flat denial, at which point the Toronto Sun gleefully
printed the above quote, along with another from a 2004 interview with Glasgow's
Herald endorsing John Kerry for the US presidency, and records showing Ignatieff was registered to vote in the UK as recently as 2002.
The Liberal leader has since set the record straight,
but the episode has played directly into his Conservative opponents' hands. The Tories have long since run suggestive ads questioning the depth of Ignatieff's Canadian identity. Helped by press coverage
of the latest Liberal pratfall, the mud clings when the Tories tell voters "he didn't come back for you". The
slur is aimed more at Ignatieff's identity as an upper middle-class urban intellectual rather than his Russian origins. However, this level of jingoism betrays a society ill at ease with its own
diversity, where an attack on internationalism and ambition — after all, that is what Ignatieff is being accused of — has traction with culturally isolated voters.
The current Liberal leader has none of the charisma of his internationalist predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, or the down-home accessibility of his Conservative opponent. Indeed, in the personality stakes,
the debonair leader of the nationalist Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, eclipses both. So while Ignatieff struggles to shed his image as an aloof academic, the Conservatives merely have to release a steady
stream of images of Harper, the "real" Canadian, to drive the message home: shaking hands at a Tim Hortons coffee shop
in Niagara; or playing a pickup hockey game with local kids in Ottawa. It's working: the latest opinion poll puts the Conservatives
11 points ahead nationally, and 3% up on their 2008 election result. This election marks
Harper's best chance of securing the majority government that has eluded him since he became prime minister in 2006.
Modern Canada seems to be retreating in on itself, clinging to the security of its own cultural stereotypes. The coincidence with Harper's leadership is difficult to escape; George Monbiot wrote powerfully in
2009 that the Conservative environmental policy had seen Canada degenerate into a "thuggish
petro-state". His only inaccuracy was not seeing just how far that transformation had gone. In 21st- century Canada a Conservative incumbent candidate in Calgary can attack his Liberal opponent as being
a "visitor from Toronto" simply because she attended university
there – despite the fact they are both of immigrant origin. A Pakistani-born commentator can plough a furrow through the public debate, warning of the
danger of radical Islamism in a country with a Muslim community making up just 2% of
the total population.
This isn't George W Bush's America, this is Canada, today. It seems ludicrous, in a country that has participated in every UN peacekeeping mission in history; one whose last governor general was a
Haitian refugee-turned-journalist. There is seemingly no
reason for a flight to monolithic cultural values, with Canada weathering the economic storm far better than most developed countries. However, far from being comforted by economic
prosperity, in the past decade Canadians have become more afraid of one another, to the extent that even lost boys like
Omar Khadr and far-left pin-ups like
George Galloway are deemed toxic national threats.
As a result Canada now lacks the cultural confidence to meet news of Ignatieff's foreign votes with the only reasonable response: "what of it?"
Intraspec.ca : Tools for Personal Development — Readings, writings and research on matters of health and well-being.
A not-for-profit site (2002-2012) by Richard Dagan, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Exceptions, where copyright resides with the original author or current
holder thereof, include all excerpted text and third-party images provided herein. All such material is presented in accord with
fair dealing and fair use, fully cited,
and hyperlinked to source whenever possible. Logos and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. For privacy and legal notices, see About.
