Here goes…

Current Situation

Current Senate, courtesy of Wikipedia

The Senate – currently an unelected body of representatives that are appointed by the current governor general (under advice of the current Prime Minster) whom hold their positions until they turn 75 – is the part of our government that has to approve bills after they pass the House of Commons (where our elected MPs sit and discuss bills and other issues). Since new Senators are chosen by the sitting PM, all of them are either Liberal or Conservative, and the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the House.

It’s bad enough the House of Commons doesn’t reflect the true will of the people thanks to the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Why does the Senate purely reflect the will of past PMs?

I propose that we impose a proportional representation system on the Senate, so that the number of seats assigned in the Senate are directly proportional to the percentage of votes each party has received, with a minimum of 1 seat being assigned to any party that receives a significant number of votes, or maybe even to any party that has received any votes.

The Solution

Going back to the 2008 Federal Election, here are the results for percentage of nationwide votes by party:

• Conservatives – 32.67%
• Liberals – 30.23%
• NDP – 17.48%
• Bloq – 10.48%
• Green – 4.48%
• Other – 4.66%

Note that only the top 4 parties won seats in the House, and the Bloq wins a disproportionate amount because all 10.48% of  votes come in Quebec. But what do those numbers mean for the Senate? Well, currently the Conservatives hold 52 out of 105 seats, the Liberals hold 46, Progress Conservatives hold 2, Independents hold 2, and 3 are vacant. Instead of this current oligopoly, the makeup of the Senate using proportional representation would be quite different:

• Conservatives – 34 seats
• Liberals – 32 seats
• NDP – 18 seats
• Bloq – 11 seats
• Green – 5 seats
• Other – 5 seats

Looking that over, I suppose it would be best to split those other 5 seats amongst the next top 5 polling parties (I think we have to draw the line somewhere, but that’s up for debate). Whether they be fringe parties like the Communist Party of Canada, the Rhinoceros Party, or the Christian Heritage Party – as much as you may disagree with their politics and policies – the people who voted for them deserve to be heard.

So what now?

At this point it’s important to note that each province has a set number of seats in the Senate. I’m not sure whether this should be continued or not. In the USA, each state has a junior and a senior Senator. I think, for the sake of provinces currently feeling under represented in Parliament, this should be done away with. Instead of each province having a set number of seats, instead each party should be able to choose their best and brightest to sit in the Senate.

One other thing that I’m open to suggestions on is term limits. I think a limit of, perhaps, 8 years or two elections should be in place. While the Senate should theoretically provide a steady, guiding hand for the country, fresh ideas are still needed. I suppose we could let previous Senators back in after being out for one or two elections, but I think most of us are a bit tired of “career politicians,” especially those Senators that were appointed for life prior to recent changes, and even those that are appointed until 75 yet don’t sit in the Senate nearly as often as our MPs do in the House.

What I like about this is that it’s easy to implement. Citizens are already voting for their favourite party/candidate at the local level, and this practically guarantees them representation in Parliament regardless of the results in their riding. It doesn’t require extra effort, math, deciding which parties they prefer in what order, etc. Same tick in the same box as before, with Elections Canada applying the numbers to the Senate, and then calling upon each party to send their best and brightest to the Senate for whatever term we decide appropriate.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. The existing FPTP system stays in place, but I think this is a quick and easy way to bring about electoral reform without confusing the populace (including me).

So let’s open this up for discussion. Love it? Hate it? Suggestions for improvement? What say you?

What I have never personally been able to understand though is people who support a party, and therefore that party’s local representative, with blind faith. They identify themselves as small ‘c’ or capital ‘C’ Conservatives, and therefore feel like they need to fall into line with their Dear Leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. No doubt he maintains an iron grip on the party and most of its communications, but I think we’re starting to see an increasing number of people, thanks to the aforementioned Vote Compass, start to question themselves and their allegiances (or at least the Vote Compass).

And regardless of your politics, you must be able to actually rationalize your support. I’ve had several online discussions with regular people asking them to justify statements like, “North Centre, its time to be rid of Pearson. Vote Susan Truppe!” By all accounts prior to this, I’ve heard Glen Pearson is a terrific MP, regardless of whether he’s a Liberal or not. When I asked the woman who originally said this, plus the two people that retweeted her, why they wanted to oust Mr. Pearson… well, let’s just say none of them came up with a valid reason.

The way I see it, ideology in politics gets in the way of reason just as much as religious ideology does. Always identifying yourself as a Conservative, therefore implying that you believe in a fiscally and socially conservative government, ignores the fact that most people are indeed centrists.  There are, no doubt, supporters and members of the Conservative Party that are in favour of same-sex marriage. And though the Conservatives say they have no plans to re-visit the issue now, they were indeed against the idea when it was made legal in Canada.

In the same vein, there are probably Liberal supporters and members who support the purchase of new F-35 jets and superprisons. Should these people suddenly identify themselves as Conservatives? Surely not. Historically the Liberal Party is a centrist party, and welcome all who feel they belong into “The Big Red Tent.”

So what happens? People who identify themselves as wholly left wing or right wing ignore the fact that there will always be good ideas coming from the other end of the political spectrum that they can get behind. I can get behind a corporate tax cut to 16.5%, but not now when the federal government is still running a massive deficit. I’m also a fan of high speed rail, but I fully recognize that it’s an expensive endeavour that has to be fully costed and paid for without putting a massive amount of debt on the backs of taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. All avenues have to be explored to make sure any idea is feasible.

And there’s the problem. When you see yourself as purely Green or NDP, and the party proposes a set of policies you don’t like, they fall out of favour with you. You feel like they’ve turned your back on you. It happened to me when I donated money to the federal NDP back in 2006 and, suddenly, I was literally a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. I didn’t ask for a membership or card, but I got one nonetheless. When Mr. Layton, and the party, started leaning further left than I’d like, I felt a bit betrayed. It’s silly, but true.

And while I would love to argue for an end to partisanship, I know that’s just blue sky thinking. Instead, what I would like to argue for is a respectable, sensible debate over representatives, policies and platforms. Look at the facts, look at the people, then make up your mind. Feel free to go into an election not wanting to vote for the incumbent, but don’t tune out all of the other options just because you don’t think you could ever vote for, as an example, the Pirate Party. It’s not easy, and I’m certainly guilty of keeping the blinders up at times, but it’s well worth the effort in the end.

If you’re the type of person who eventually wants to run for office, you and I both know that independents rarely get elected. There’s a case to be made for spending some time raising your profile in your community by, earnestly, attending philanthropic events, participating on committees, volunteering your time to various causes and, therefore, making enough of a name for yourself that running as an independent is worth your while. It wouldn’t be an inexpensive affair, but it could certainly be worth it if you thought you had a decent chance of winning without a party affiliation.

This whole notion of ideology generating bad policy gets far worse at the top of the party. These are the people who are so in the trenches that all they see is the ideology. They sit there day in, day out strategizing, polling, and trying to figure out how to get their party into power. I can’t think of a worse career. The stress these people must go through, I imagine, is tremendous. They’re tasked with crafting ideas and costs that may get them praised or simply booted out the door.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and now the Conservative Party of Canada, illustrate just what a bad idea it is to let ideology dictate how you run the country. Former Premier Mike Harris started Ontario down the road of the Common Sense Revolution. As Naomi Klein shows us in a column written in the fall of 2001, it didn’t exactly make Ontario a better place to live. And really, isn’t the goal of public service to make the place you live better for everyone, or at least most of us? If not, shouldn’t that be the goal?

Prime Minister Harper likes to harp (ha ha, get it?) on the fact that the Liberals will raise taxes if elected. Yes, they will… one tax. They’ll undo the recent corporate tax decrease, moving it from 16.5% back up to 18%. What Mr. Harper likes to ignore is the fact that the Liberals decreased the corporate tax rate by 10% while they were in power during the 1990s, led by Mr. Jean Chretien. But again, ideology blinds us from even giving a pat on the back to the other guys for doing something good and smart for Canada when we could afford it.

The real problem is that these men are very idealistic. Once in power, they have done everything they can to lead Canada down one road that isn’t led by a vision, but by an ideology.

In recent history, we’ve seen time and time again where ideologies like “free market” and “regulated market” fail miserably. They don’t allow for a balanced and fair approach somewhere in between that not only allows businesses to thrive, but to compete and drive innovation, increasing choice and competition for consumers in the process. There is a place for regulation, and also instances where red tape must be removed. To argue otherwise is to blind yourself to the possibility of a middle way forward that benefits all parties involved.

Maybe that in itself is an ideology… that there is a middle way between the extremes. I would argue that it isn’t – that the middle way is simply an amalgamation of the best ideas from all sides of an argument. And even if you could make the case that it was an ideology, I would still argue that it’s likely much better than the extreme left or extreme right on any issue.

My point is, following a particular ideology leads you to create policies specifically geared towards meeting that ideology. You don’t end up taking into account the needs of all stakeholders, and anyone with an iota of knowledge on how to run any organization will tell you that’s a bad thing. You may end up ignoring a large part of the population, which then leads to the types of revolts we’re seeing in the Middle East and North Africa now. Clearly things aren’t the same here in Canada, but much of this entry has been about extremes.

So I ask you to take the blinders off and don’t simply dismiss an exercise that tells you you actually align better with the policies of another party. Is that really so bad? If the Vote Compass tells you you align with the Conservative Party’s platform and policies, shouldn’t you at least take a moment to investigate whether it’s true? Most everything you need to find is available in the same way you took the Vote Compass – on the Internet. Look up this opposing party’s website, read the platform, talk to the candidate in your riding. You may discover something about yourself you didn’t know, and, as long as you’re being true to yourself, that’s probably not a bad thing.

Joe Preston – Conservative Party Candidate

• Twitter – @joe_preston
• Facebook group
• Website – joepreston.ca

Graham Warwick – Liberal Party Candidate

• Twitter – @graham_warwick
• Facebook page
• Website - http://grahamwarwick.liberal.ca/

Fred Sinclair – New Democratic Party Candidate

• Twitter – @freddysinclair
• Facebook page
• Website – None at the moment

UPDATE: Ryan Dolby dropped out and Fred Sinclair is in for the NDP. Both the Conservative and Liberal candidates have made themselves very available online on both big social networks, along with their own websites where more contact information exists. Fred’s on Twitter and Facebook, but his Facebook page currently has 0 likes.

Again, if there are other parties you’d like me to dig up the information for, please let me know. I know of the Christian Heritage Party, and other fringe parties, but we all know they don’t get many votes. However, I will still dig up the information if you want me to.

I want my $451,000 back. That’s right, every single penny of severance that was recently afforded to Diane Beattie after the LHSC Board of Directors forced her to resign.

When a scandal like this one breaks out, there is no reason whatsoever that such gross misconduct should result in such a comfortable severance. $451,000 is almost two years worth of Ms. Beattie’s annual pay ($250,000 – not bad, huh?).

This entire issue has been handled very poorly. The audit outing the $3.3 million untendered contract was produced 2 years ago, yet the public wasn’t made aware of it. Her friend Kelly Butt telling the London Free Press that what she did was right in the business world. That’s a load of bull seeing as the LHSC doesn’t belong to the normal business world – it’s a world where taxpayers foot the bill in an era where we very rarely see tax decreases even when promised… and those decreases usually lead to increases somewhere else.

Not to mention that if a CIO were caught mishandling $3.3 million at any other company when it can be proven someone else could do the work for cheaper, you can bet your ass they would be fired with no severance whatsoever. It’s gross misconduct and breaks every due diligence rule in the book. Why the LHSC Board of Directors didn’t just throw her out on her butt is beyond me.

I really like the way the Autopro at Wharncliffe & Riverside put it:

“Break Company Rules
Get $451000
Where Do I Sign Up?”

Indeed! Maybe it’s time we replaced the entire LHSC Board of Directors and C-level executives? If they’d like to keep their positions, I urge the Board to begin including all tenders, bidders (along with proposals) and winners into the annual report. It’s my hard earned money they’re spending and I have a right to know where it’s going and how it got there.

Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government really, really needs to clean up it’s act. This week was the first time I agreed with something Andrea Horwath and that, to me, is not a good thing. Lastly, CEO Cliff Nordal, stop looking for the source of the leak. They did the right thing and exposed something very, very serious. You’re only making yourself look like a jerk and that’s the last thing you need. If I were on the Board of Directors, I’d be asking for your head on a silver platter.

Recently it has become apparent that indeed, I am a centrist. I don’t tolerate overly polarizing views or people very well (though I do hear them out on the issue and give them their opportunity to explain their rationale) and would much prefer to see people get to the bottom of an issue, brainstorm all of the possible solutions and then pick the best. Sadly that doesn’t happen very often in this “democracy” of ours where few-to-no MPs actually listen to their constituents after gaining power.

The Liberals, however, seem to be mounting a new steed and marching forward under the leadership of an intellectual. Someone who is truly smart, creative even (he has written several fiction novels which, so I read, are actually good). And so I have begun breaking my ties with the NDP both in private and in public in favour of re-joining the Liberal party in the hopes that I may help push them in what I would consider to be the “right” direction.

So yesterday when I e-mailed the riding president for Sarnia-Lambton asking him to take me off his mailing list because of a newly realized difference of opinion, he replied stating that he was “sorry that you feel that way about the NDP’s support of Unions and Pensions. I guess there is only one Party that you would find favour with at the present time.”

Indeed, I’m sorry too.  I’m sorry that the NDP is such a staunch supporter of unions no matter if they misbehave and care little for the financial state of their employers and that the NDP is a staunch supporter of defined-benefit pension plans (as opposed to defined-contribution) that place such huge liabilities on the employer and the employee thinks poses no risk to them (which Stelco employees can tell you certainly isn’t the case in the long run). The NDP candidate also seems to infer that I support the Conservatives – hardly! They’re a polarizing party that cares about nothing more than winning and retaining power, not truly what’s right for the country. They follow a methodology of certain values which is dangerous to any country or economy.

This is the e-mail I sent back to the NDP candidate in question, slightly refined for the purposes of flow with this entry.

There’s nothing wrong with supporting pensions and unions. My problem is that lately unions tend to misbehave and act only in their own interest without regard to the business they work for – that’s a problem. Staging protests outside an arena and slowing down traffic is an absolute nuisance and unnecessary; especially when a good portion of the people arriving at the arena don’t even live in Windsor.

And the CAW seems to be delighted in single-handedly destroyed the auto industry in Canada recently! I used to work for a non-unionized auto plant and could not have been happier. Individuals were rewarded with increased pay and promotions, laggards were punished – exactly the way it should be. The CAW cares about nothing more than increasing the pay and benefits of it’s employees without giving a damn about what shape Ford, GM and Chrysler are in. That’s not a sustainable model! The plant I used to work for just made some changes to it’s pay structure and positions in order to remain viable and more realistic when you compare workloads of different positions – to me that makes sense, and in the end it rewards the people who work the hardest there.

The CAW and CUPE are doing nothing but alienating what little non-union support they have, even within Windsor. They do their best to maintain the status quo without innovating or taking into consideration that the companies they work for are doing so poorly. Why would Chrysler stay in Canada when someone like Ken Lewenza explicity blurts out that there’s no way they’ll concede $19 worth of compensation? It’s ridiculous.

If the banks can’t maintain defined-benefit plans and the CPP has to be extremely aggressive in their investments in order to do so, why must the auto companies be kept to theirs? Because heaven forbid the auto companies download a little bit of responsibility onto the workers and the financial advisors working the account, right? A defined-contribution plan puts the responsibility back into the worker’s hands, along with their financial advisor, giving them the ability to choose the right investments for them. Doesn’t that make more sense? Shouldn’t that be the way we always operate?

Government has its place, and looking back at history and moving forward, I think a very centrist approach is the only way to go. Find the best ideas, leave the partisanship out, and you end up with a better country in all manners. The Conservatives are a bunch of morons and a few candidates have recently jumped ship from the Green Party to the Liberals. Jack Layton is a great man, but in the end I can’t support unequivocal support for unions or the defined-benefit plans they adore so much. It’s unsustainable when they act the way that the CAW and CUPE have recently.

This goes hand-in-hand with my post on self-responsibility. You should be able to rely on government to provide health care, police protection and municipal services along with a small portion of your retirement income (but only because you pay into the CPP, and the money is invested by the CPPIB). People need to take more responsbility for their lives at home, at work and at play. You can’t always rely on government to protect you, let alone your employer. Ford, GM and Chrysler are in business to make money, not to make sure you have a nice retirement fund or that you have the best benefits possible. Those are perks and niceties, not necessities. In fact they cost so much they take away from the money you could be making hourly instead but it’s less expensive for a business to provide benefits instead of wage increases.

If you don’t like what your employer is doing, find a new job.

9:30PM UPDATE: And here again we see a great example of what I’m talking about. Local manufacturing firm Accuride wants to change their defined-benefit pension plan to a defined-contribution benefit plan for new employees. Reduce liability on the employee, put it back where it belongs on the employee and their financial advisor! Unfortunately the London Free Press article mistakenly states that the investments rely purely on how the stock market performs, which isn’t true at all. Most investment portfolios include some fixed-income investments, which are not traded on the stock market. This type of misinformation doesn’t help anyone but the union employees in their fight for better wages and benefits than the rest of us.

In fact, the only bright spot for me is that the NDP gained several seats. If you take a look at the CBC’s election map, the NDP painted large swaths of the country orange last night. While heartening, especially when you see seats that the NDP took from the Conservatives, it’s still a reality that the Conservatives are more powerful now than they have been in over a decade. The amalgamation of the majority of the right-wing vote has done them well, and I must say they’ve also done well courting centrists.

Another thing I’m displeased about is the Green Party further splintering the vote on the left. They were able to come out with 6.8% of the vote nationwide which, although lower than every poll I’ve seen predicted, certainly took away from both the Liberals and the NDP. With the environment clearly a focus of the Liberals and NDP these days, I don’t see why the Green Party couldn’t dissolve and join the ranks of the other, far more entrenched parties. It would probably do a lot of good in pushing an environmentally-focused and healthy lifestyle-focused approach to some of the problems we face. For example, I’m not a naysayer to a carbon tax, I just wish it was explained more clearly even before the election was called.

Stéphane Dion did a poor job of it and the Conservatives jumped down his throat about it. The true message was shut out, just like the NDP’s promise during the last federal election to cut everyone’s income tax by 1%. That would have made a much bigger difference to the majority of Canadians’ pocketbooks and bank accounts instead of cutting the GST by 2%. But we are where we are now, and the only way is forward.

And so I hope that the next 2 years can bring some renewed focus on winning the House of Commons and the PMO back from the Conservatives. If we don’t, I’m afraid we may end up like the USA is today, and that’s a far scarier premise than I care to imagine.