99 Percenters should be equal when they vote

Now with a majority in Parliament, the Harper government looks serious about introducing legislation in the House of Commons to redress the under-representation of Canadians who live in the growing provinces of Canada and the over-representation of Canadians who continue to live in places that were relatively bigger in the past.

(Federal constituencies vary wildly by population—from as little as 34,000 people in tiny Prince Edward Island to more than 170,000 in the most populous district. Some ridings near Toronto have grown so fast over the past decade that they are 50 per cent or more over the national average. In other words, one vote in Markham has half the influence of a vote elsewhere.)

However, redress is a winning and losing business; it makes enemies and needs friends.

It’s not surprising but it’s reassuring that Canada’s most respected national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, remains willing to insist that only one principle should determine representation in the popular assembly of a democratic Canada:

“One person, one vote: It is democracy’s first law. In Canada, representation by population is supposed to give it life, with each constituency having a more or less equal number of electors. The Conservatives must stay true to their previously enunciated principle when they introduce legislation to enlarge the membership of the House of Commons.”

Click on: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/conservatives-should-not-waver-on-rep-by-pop/article2207075/

“Conservatives should not waver on Rep-by-Pop” the Globe’s editorial insisted. What’s unsurprising and sad as well is that the Globe decided to beseech only Conservatives to honor this great liberal principle.

The Globe is a small-l liberal paper and was founded in 1844 by George Brown, Canada’s first great liberal reformer—a lifelong champion of the simple slogan: rep-by-pop. Yet, today, organized liberalism can’t be counted on to know its own mind on this basic democratic principle.

Acting Leader of the Liberal Party Bob Rae stands for secure representation for Quebec, fair electoral reform nationally and, of course, for the 99 Percenters in his park. Rep-by-pop stands shoulder-to-shoulder with other (unrepresentative) considerations. There is, however, no room for more than one liberal principle in allocating House of Commons seats, in a demographically changing Canada.

Smaller provinces and Quebec can be protected with a minimum number of seats in the Commons and, as well, by regional representation the present and, hopefully, in a reformed and elected Senate someday.

Canadian federal institutions and parliamentary democracy serve several objectives: representing individuals, representing founding languages, and individual provinces, and protecting individual and minority rights. However, individual votes in national elections should all pretty well weigh the same.

A two dollar subsidy to keep Canada united?

The case for not touching the design of public subsidies for Canada’s major national parties has finally reached for the brass ring—Canada’s national unity. Toronto Star’s National Affairs Columnist James Travers raised the old flag in a weekend column entitled, “Harper risks national unity in bid to end political subsidies.”

“Not much annoys many Canadians more than taxpayer support for a movement bent on tearing the country apart. So there’s no surprise in the loud applause from some places, notably the West, for the re-cycled Conservative plan to stop paying all parties $2 annually for each vote cast for them in the most recent election.

Lost in all that noise is a counter-intuitive truth. There is no bigger bargain than channelling rogue and destructive forces into legitimate and constructive political practices. . .

Politics is about winning and winning often demands taking risks. But it would be reckless to jeopardize a Canadian success to soothe what is nothing more than an irritant.”

Click on: http://www.thestar.com/article/929991--travers-harper-risks-national-unity-in-bid-to-end-political-subsidies

Has giving the Bloc Quebecois annually some $2.8 million in public funds domesticated separatist representation in Ottawa? Not likely.

Surely, what’s turned the Bloc into a caucus of “constructive” parliamentarians has been the success of Canadian federalism on the ground in Quebec. Bloc Members of Parliament “stand up” for Quebec the way MPs from other regions of Canada promise to do. Bloc MPs go as far as their supporters want them to go. 

Certainly, acting to change public subsidies in a way that explicitly hurts one party would offend taxpayers who vote for that party, other fair-minded Canadians and even potentially the courts. However, there are principled objections to the status quo. And, in principle, it must be possible to change the status quo and be fair.

 Is it healthy and fair that established political parties today receive 40% to 90% of their annual operating funds from a public funding mechanism designed by elected politicians? Can tax credit supported, transparent, voluntary individual contributions play a bigger role in supporting political parties? Can a better balance be struck that supports grassroots fund-raising, competent national parties and, yes, reasonable access for new insurgent parties in the future?

Harper’s opposition to the $2 per vote subsidy invites these questions to be discussed in the next election and allows that discussion to influence future legislative changes. Canadian democracy can accommodate such a discussion without inflaming national divisions. As Pierre Trudeau said and proved Canada is strong enough to endure a good argument.

Knife wielding politics in Quebec

The Quebec independence movement was born in the Quiet Revolution of the 1960’s. In the name of liberal and secular values, it sought to secure for Quebec all powers necessary to exercise its will as a modern open country. The case for association with the rest of Canada (and fraternity with the US) was based on common principles. Traditional Canadian federalism was said to be unworkable, not the tool of aliens.

Today, separatist parties—the provincial Parti Quebecois and the federal Bloc Quebecois—have a more modest and less attractive message. One caucus with an eye to collecting further annual pension points and the other with an eye to winning the next Quebec election, they’ve decided soften their message by merely appealing to chauvinism.

The big idea of independence is to stand down for the little idea of suspecting the neighbours.

This week, National Assembly security officials refused to allow four invited representatives of the Sikh community to carry the kirpan to a hearing at the Quebec legislature. Both parties backed up the security officials and took the issue further.

Bloc Quebecois whip Claude De Bellefeuille called on the Canadian parliament to consider a similar restriction—applying, conceivably, to sitting Sikh MP’s, as well as visitors. In Quebec City, Parti Quebecois critic on secularism Louise Beaudoin gleefully broadened the issue:   

“Religious freedom exists but there are other values. For instance, multiculturalism is not a Quebec value. It may be a Canadian one but it is not a Quebec one,” she said.”

Click on: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/invited-to-quebec-legislature-sikhs-then-barred-for-carrying-kirpans/article1874725/

Practical security concerns about the kirpan—a ceremonial dagger that Canadian courts long ago determined can, with guidelines, be worn in public places, but not carried on to airplanes—are not what has got Quebec’s opposition politicians excited. They want to brand multiculturalism as a foreign and predatory concept.

Multiculturalism, in law and practice has never trumped public safety or individual rights in our secular societies.  The values Ms. Beaudoin claims to champion are not Quebec values per se.  Equality for women, for instance, was not a Quebec gift to Canada. And it is not threaten by Canada’s “multicultural” or America’s “melting-pot” tolerance for minority religions.

Standing up for Quebec’s culture against multicultural Canada is both unnecessary and hypocritical. Cultural sovereignty—a cornerstone of the independence movement—has hardly dissuaded Quebecers from seeking and receiving generous federal support for Quebec’s cultural endeavors. 

Last fall, Statistics Canada reported on the provincial distribution of direct federal spending for culture in 2007-08. Link: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/87f0001x/87f0001x2010001-eng.htm

Two provinces were above the $113 per person average, while the other eight were below: 

• Quebec ($167 per capita);
• Prince Edward Island ($158 per capita);
• Nova Scotia ($109 per capita);
• Ontario ($106 per capita);
• Newfoundland and Labrador ($88 per capita);
• New Brunswick ($74 per capita);
• Manitoba ($68 per capita);
• Alberta ($56 per capita);
• Saskatchewan ($50 per capita); and
• British Columbia ($48 per capita). 

 Multiculturalism has many meanings. But in Canada, at least, it hasn’t been cheap.

Loosey-goosey federations can grow too

“More than 60 per cent of Quebec residents define themselves as Quebecers first or exclusively, according to the survey by Leger Marketing . . . 

“Results of the survey for the Association for Canadian Studies suggest that almost one-third of Quebec francophones define themselves as Quebecers only, while 39 per cent see themselves as Quebecers first but also as Canadians.”

"I [Jack Jedwab, Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies] think we'll have to live with the fact that selling the Canadian project in Quebec can't be about a love affair for most Quebecers," he added. "It's a marriage of convenience, not a marriage of love."

—“Quebecers Put Province Before Canada: Poll,” The Montreal Gazette, December 28, 2010

Click on: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebecers+province+before+Canada+Poll/4034358/story.html#ixzz19t400F9i

Rather than working up new ways to sell the “Canadian project” to Quebec, let’s first read the data calmly, as federalists.

Canadian nationalists use their fair share of nation-building “projects” to romanticize the Canadian union.  Railways, public healthcare, and graves in northern France have been evoked to embellish the case for Canada. However, federalists have consistently made a winning case for Canada’s federation without asking for a change of heart. Indeed, our greatest unifiers have insisted we keep the heart in its place.

Laurier and Trudeau were immensely appealing. They loved British liberalism and the liberal possibilities of a federal state. However, they never seriously asked Canadians to love one another, sight unseen. Their case for Canada didn’t ask Quebecers to feel less passionately about Quebec, but to appreciate the benefits of the wider federation. They insisted that federalism was honourable and viable because they were Quebecers and Canadians at the same time.

As Oliver Wendell Holms said slightly differently about taxes, divided loyalties is a price we pay for living in a free and dynamic society. It is not the thin edge of the wedge that will eventually break Canada up or, for that matter, America’s federation.

Of course, it offends federalists that a plurality of Quebecers has recently been electing separatists to Canada’s federal parliament. However, saying Quebec has all the benefits with none of the responsibility of looking out for the federation is a morbid stretch. In the 2008 federal election, the Bloc Quebecois won only 38% of the popular vote in Quebec. Furthermore, the turn-out in that federal election in Quebec was above the Canadian average. Indeed, it was above loyal Ontario: 61.1% compared to 59.1%. On tests of sacrifice—for instance, paying federal taxes and volunteering to fight in Afghanistan—Quebecers are as reliable as Canadians elsewhere.

However, could this palpable lack of emotion about Canada in the province of Quebec lead to separation by accident? Surely, countries that have stayed together freely as long as Canada has do not come apart by accident.

A more emotional transCanada nationalism in Quebec, of course, is something that romantic nationalists want to see more of in other parts of Canada as well. Without Quebec, that nationalism would be no easier to manufacture elsewhere.

An unsentimental union also harbors a larger idea, one that also grates with nationalists. If British Columbians and Quebecers can do politics together without loving each other, why not with Californians and Bostonians as well?

Restoring two-party parliamentary government

Canadian politics should be crackling. Unaddressed issues should have the Harper government on the ropes. And at least one national leader should be offering a way to restore effectiveness and accountability in our national politics.

Yet, the outstanding question is for us: after 143 years, do we still have enough confidence in our democracy to decide clearly who will govern? Whether nationalists in Quebec, environmentalists on Vancouver Island, industrial workers in Hamilton, or entrepreneurs in Surrey, do we want to elect a majority in national elections?

Policy piles up and is written everywhere—in government, in think tanks, in the mainstream and social media, and, intermittently, in political parties. Establishing a new policy or venture doesn’t need an autocrat or high polling numbers. Change, however, often does require audacious leadership that is able to renew the architecture of decision-making, the task of making tolerable solutions the law of the land.

For some time, interest in the old norm of majority government has been replaced by calls for proportional representation and the far-off European virtues of coalition government.  Each favours representativeness over effectiveness and insists that’s more democratic. North America’s great accomplishment in governance—very large, diverse, and representative national parties—would be outsmarted by a system that would include both winners and numerous losers in daily governance as well as in legislative deliberations.

However, political competition—without clear-cut winners and clear-cut losers—may not best serve our circumstances. When it comes to the price of carbon and new initiatives to balance the budget, we ask not only whether the proposal reflects our interests but whether anyone can get it done.

In a representative democracy, dissent is recognized; it needn’t be jailed or bribed before we move forward. The opposition in the House of Commons is free to oppose and strive to bring the winners to account. The losers are respected and put to use. As important, with two competitive national parties, we find out which ideas are broadly acceptable and, crucially, who won.

The Bloc Quebecois didn’t prevent the election of three majority governments and needn’t now. Today, its appeal as a safe harbour for regional ambitions stands, largely, on being inside the system, as well as being outside trying to bring it down. The wisdom of voting regionally will only successfully be challenged when federalist parties again can assemble national majorities—can govern without the daily consent of a special interest caucus.

In part, tolerance for minority government is borne of fear for what a strong majority government might do. Yet, the status quo makes marginal parties, not moderates, the king makers. A two-party system would keep both national parties—and their leaders—in the center, busy attracting and then holding the support of an increasingly pragmatic electorate.