We live in an age of tweet-driven communication, in which a candidate's five minute response to even the most serious and complicated question seems to be far too long for it to be digested by the public, or even by those pundits who purport to be engaged in analyzing and reporting on issues.
Discourse tends to range from sound-bites to talking points, the max typically being 140 character statements, but for the occasional string of platitudes dressed as narrative, never more substantial than rhetoric.
Blogs are about as serious and deep as the discussion get.
The reality, however, is that participation in the governing of a modern nation is an important part of being a citizen, and that demands digging into the issues and the facts beyond catchphrases and superficial rhetoric.
Regardless of one's position regarding the policies underlying various aspects of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (the SCCA), the way in which this legislation came about and was adopted into law should, indeed, be part of what the electorate consider in deciding who to vote for in the election. A lot is at stake.
Relevance of Bill C-24 and 2015 Federal Election:
Relative to particular elements in the SCCA (sometimes referred to as "Bill C-24"), different people have different views. The introduction of conditional citizenship, based on behavior after becoming a citizen (while a citizen), for example, is controversial. Some favour this policy. Others find it particularly troubling.
The more controversial policy elements in the SCCA, such as those underlying the revocation of citizenship, do not have a widespread impact, and in many respects actually have a rather small footprint. (For example, how many will lose citizenship based on a conviction for terrorism?)
Thus, it is not likely that policy considerations related to Bill C-24 will determine who votes for which Party in this Federal election.
But the SCCA is an important illustration of why it is time for Harper and the Conservatives to go, to get out of town.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the policies is, in this election, almost irrelevant.
The real issue is the same overriding issue that looms so large in much of the legislation adopted by the Conservatives . . . including most of the budgets the Conservatives have passed in the past . . . never mind that all but the last being for deficits, eight years worth of deficits, and the only non-deficit one based on not providing services or funding that was legislated, some creative one-off transactions, and even more creative math otherwise.
That overriding issue is the extent to which not just debate but also consultations have been quashed, the extent to which the legislation has been rammed through with minimal regard for the democratic process. From the inception of the legislation itself, which has been done largely in secret, drafted by only a small circle with minimal if any input from even within the government let alone major stakeholders let alone the public, through the manner in which the Conservatives consistently and persistently closed debates and minimized the extent to which bills were studied in committee, the in-practice conduct of the Parliament in the last four years in particular (since Harper has had a majority government) has been severely compromised in regards to the extent to which proposed legislation has undergone scrutiny and revision.
On many occasions the Harper Conservatives shut down proposed amendments even though the proposals were to address obvious errors or problems. As a matter of principle, Harper did not allow Bill C-24 to be amended at all, not even its grammatical errors . . .
. . . rather than allow any amendments, Harper simply left it to subsequent Bills to correct the errors and problems. That ultimately works to fix the obvious problems. The obvious errors got corrected (in a patchwork of particular provisions in subsequent legislation).
But this process itself is profoundly non-democratic . . . to go to such lengths as to not allow modifications for necessary or even grammatical corrections, in order to minimize the extent to which a Bill is studied and debated, illustrates the degree to which Harper refuses to have his dictates discussed let alone debated. This despite the fact that he is fully cognizant that well more than half the country do not fully support his policies. He is not only willing to dismiss the majority viewpoint, he aggressively pursues procedures to foreclose the democratic processes which would allow the majority to meaningfully engage in the Parliamentary process.
While this non-democratic approach dominated the adoption of Bill C-24, it loomed as large if not larger in much if not most of the legislation passed by the last Parliament. Bill C-23 (the so-called "Fair Elections Act") and Bill C-51 being the most obvious and to a significant extent the most egregiously abused examples.
But it goes well beyond that. And Bill C-24 is a prime example. Not one, not a single recommendation made by the major stakeholders was studied, let alone debated, in any depth. There was virtually no substantive response by the Conservatives to a single criticism made by those who have a major stake. Sure, some of the criticisms were red herrings (such as those based on a totally wrong interpretation of the "intent to reside" clause in the amended requirements for grant citizenship). But most were genuine and legitimate concerns which, at the least, deserved to be studied and debated. The Conservative shut this process down as tightly as a draconian application of technicalities in the rules facilitated.
For those who would totally agree with absolutely every policy implemented by Bill C-24, even these individuals should recognize the extent to which this approach to governing is not just a concern but seriously problematic. The language of Bill C-24 is hugely unwieldy. It is remarkable in that the amendments to the Citizenship Act are larger, in just size, than the entirety of the then existing Citizenship Act, which had been subject to many, many amendments and additions over the course of many decades. This in itself does not necessarily mean it is bad law, but it certainly warrants a close examination and evaluation of what was being adopted. That did not happen. That was precluded as a matter of principle . . . a non-democratic, bad principle.
The thing is, drafting legislation is both a science and an art. Legislators themselves are rarely competent in drafting the legislation themselves. They decide what the legislation should be, what policies and purposes and objectives the legislation should implement. Then the language of the legislation is composed by staff, staff who are experienced in both drafting legislation generally and in the particular subject matter being addressed.
This cannot be competently done in secret. But that has been the manner in which Harper has approached all the major legislation adopted since he became Prime Minister, especially including budgets, Bill C-24, Bill C-23, and Bill C-51. (It is worth remembering that the reason Harper is the only sitting Prime Minister in history to have been adjudicated to be in contempt of parliament, back in 2011, was his refusal to divulge critical information regarding pending legislation . . . he was, literally, excluding access to the very information the members of Parliament needed to consider the legislation being proposed.)
The impact is predictable. And Bill C-24 is a prime example. It is monstrously oversized and rife with provisions which will ultimately have to be unraveled by the courts through the process of extensive and expensive litigation. The interpretation and application of many provisions will not likely be determined for many, many years, during which people are left largely in the dark, unable to predict how the law might affect them (see, for example, recent media stories about long-term citizens being denied proof of citizenship based on technicalities and misunderstandings). It is common for extensive legislation to be subject to a period of litigation to sort out its nuances. Bill C-24, however, will require many years of litigation just to sort out the meaning of many of its major provisions, not just peculiar nuances in the detail.
Overall, the reason Bill C-24 is an important election issue is that it is one more example of the non-democratic approach in which Harper governs.
On whichever side one stands relative to key policy issues, Harper has been bad news for Canada and it is time for him to go. That is, even for those who adamantly favour Harper's policies, they should support booting him from the government. (Well, I suppose there are some who may nonetheless favour Harper's approach, who favour governing by fiat, dismissing the rule of law, and a more centralized authoritative, non-democratic form of governing . . . although I suspect that is only while someone with whom they agree in policy is governing.)
Consider the Niqab issue for example.
It is extremely frustrating that this is being discussed as a significant policy issue relative to which Party should be elected to form the next government. Sure, Canadians may have various views about this issue, and perhaps even a majority of Canadians may want to implement restrictions on religious expression in certain contexts, such as while taking the oath of citizenship, voting, or walking in public places. But the current law governing taking the oath of citizenship mandates that Citizenship Judges allow the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization . . . (in taking the oath).
This is the current citizenship law, and this on its face requires far more deference to religious expression than the Charter.
Jason Kenney's directive regarding the niqab is, simply, contrary to the existing law. That is what the courts have ruled. Not complicated. Simple as that. The current law does not allow restricting religious expression during the taking of the oath. (Note, prior to the verbal taking the oath identity is verified separately, which can readily be accommodated in relative privacy by a female officer for women who wear facial coverings; and now taking of the oath must be affirmed in writing after taking the oath; so neither identity nor confirmation of taking the oath justifies a policy of requiring the removal of facial coverings during the ceremony itself.) A directive to the contrary (or policy or rule, however characterized) by the Minister of CIC is simply not legally valid.
Moreover, the Minister of CIC does NOT even have the authority to issue regulations governing the conduct of oath ceremonies. That authority is statutorily vested in the Governor in Council . . . which is subject to specified procedures for adopting or amending regulations. The Minister of CIC has no authority to overrule the existing regulations by fiat. The effort to do so was, simply, invalid.
If the majority of Canadians want the law changed, the government can appropriately go through the appropriate democratic process to change the law. In contrast, Harper, Kenney, and Alexander ignored the current law and have attempted to rule by fiat.
If this was an isolated example, that would be one thing. But this is not an isolated example. There are all too many examples of undemocratic measures by this government, from how the Harper government has reduced government transparency and accountability generally, to its having all but shut down the access of the media and the public to government information (and destroyed information it has been ordered or agreed to disclose . . . the contents of the long-gun registry for example, which the Province of Quebec went to court to preserve and access, and regarding which the government had agreed to an order to preserve the information pending the eventual outcome of the litigation, but went ahead and physically destroyed the information anyway, including totally destroying hard drives on which the information was kept).
Here's the thing, the big thing: in the end, in the long run, this approach simply does not work. The policy objectives will be as much undermined by poorly drafted legislation and mismanaged agencies, due to Harper's governing approach, and perhaps even more compromised than the outcome of a non-Conservative government. The damage Harper already has done is huge. For just one example, Canadian funded research is deeply damaged and it will take years to recover. I like the humour in the question posed to a Liberal candidate recently, if the Liberal are elected, will scientists be able to sing again? (referring to the suspension and pending dismissal of a government scientist for having been videoed singing a Harper protest song, which he wrote, with a folk music and church group . . . the Harperman . . . its time for you to go song) but the extent to which this government has engaged in a coercive campaign of censoring scientists is absolutely alarming, no laughing matter, and the damage wrought will have serious, long-term repercussions.
It is time for Harper to go. Even the most staunch supporters of the Conservative policies should be clamouring for Harper to go.
Some observations about the prospects of a minority Conservative government:
Even if the Conservatives win the most seats in Parliament (but less than a majority) there is no way the other parties should give Harper's speech from the throne a vote of confidence. Harper should be allowed to form the next government only if the Conservatives win a majority.
Practically, though, I suppose he would likely be allowed to form the next government if the Conservatives win 155 or more seats. Less than that, the other parties should absolutely preclude Harper from forming the governing. Even if the Conservatives have thirty or forty more seats than any other party.
However, whether the other parties would vote together to give the leader of either the Liberals or the NDP a vote of confidence (thus allowing the formation of a minority government by a party other than the Conservatives, despite the Conservatives winning more seats) is up in the air. At the very least, any vote of confidence that would allow the Conservatives to form the government should be conditioned on Harper stepping aside. Even if the Conservatives win 155 seats in Parliament, the Liberals and NDP should block Harper from forming the government.
Note: If the Conservatives win 170 seats, the Conservatives will of course give Harper a vote of confidence. That would be a majority government.
There are virtually no odds of that happening. Not by a substantial margin.
Indeed, right now the odds are heavy that no party will win more than 130 to 135 seats (if any one party can win even that many). So for Harper to form the government, assuming the Conservatives win the most seats, Harper will need a vote of confidence from either the Liberals or the NDP. As I noted, even if Harper wins 155 seats, say fifty more than either the Liberals or the NDP, the NDP and the Liberals should agree to not give Harper the necessary vote of confidence to form the government.
For example, current projections indicate the Conservatives are poised to win 128 seats, the Liberals 110, and the NDP just 98.
Following the speech from the throne, Harper needs 170 votes from the floor of Parliament, a "vote of confidence," in order to form the government. Thus, if both the NDP and the Liberals do not give a vote of confidence, that is, if there are 208 no confidence votes, Harper would fall short by 40 votes.
If they do this, technically it is up to the Governor in General whether to call another election or to allow another party to attempt to form the government; odds are the Governor in General would allow one of the other parties to attempt to form the government so long as the gap is not overwhelming, which is why I refer to 155 rather than the 170 needed to form an outright majority.
Both Muclair and Trudeau have somewhat emphatically said they categorically will not support a Harper minority government. So far they both decline to elaborate about what that means. Personally I feel that Harper is so bad for Canada, that even if the Conservatives win 168 seats, the other parties should cooperate to block a vote of confidence, forcing the Governor in General to decide whether to give a chance to govern to the party winning the next largest number of seats or to call yet another election. Practically, however, there is probably a threshold above which the leaders of the respective parties would feel compelled to at least see whether they could work with a minority Conservative government, even one with Harper at the helm.
Technically Harper gets to decide when the new Parliament will convene. In the past this has been delayed by the sitting government (one getting the most seats, but needing to form a minority government) for up to four plus months. Obviously, the delay was undoubtedly a period of time during which the leading party engaged in negotiations in order to assure a vote of confidence.
Hard to see a delay in convening Parliament working to Harper's advantage. Any delay would more likely give the other parties an opportunity to negotiate support for forming a minority government by the party which won more seats but less than the Conservatives.
Technically Harper can insist on giving a speech from the throne no matter how many seats the respective parties win. That is, the Conservatives could come in third place and Harper could, technically, insist on the opportunity to give the speech from the throne and ask for a vote of confidence. Not likely to happen if Harper falls so much as one short of having the most, since in that scenario the outcome of any such vote would be obvious and an embarrassment.
My nightmare scenario is that the NDP and the Liberals each get, say, 106 seats (or it is otherwise very close, say 105 and 107 respectively), and the Conservatives get 125 (and the Green party 1) . . . and neither the Liberals or the NDP will bow to supporting the other to form the government. I mean, I have no doubt that Harper will not be able to form the next government so long as the Conservatives win less than 140 seats (I am hopeful this hold for up to 154 seats), but that is dependent on the Liberals and the NDP cooperating relative to determining who gets the necessary vote of confidence in order to form the next government. There are separate reasons which may preclude either Trudeau or Muclair from cooperating.
The outcome of the popular vote may be a big factor in how the respective parties react. For example, current projections indicate the Conservatives might get 32 percent of the popular vote. My sense is that anything less than 34 percent will be sufficient incentive for the Liberals and NDP to cooperate to form a minority government . . . so for example, even if the Conservatives win 141 seats, and neither the NDP or Liberals win even a hundred seats, if the Conservatives do so with 34 percent or less of the popular vote, the Liberals and NDP should still cooperate (and barring a standoff between them, are likely) to block Harper and attempt to support either a Liberal or NDP minority government.
In contrast, if the Conservatives get more than 37 percent of the vote, and especially if it is close to 39 percent or more of the vote, but only win a minority of seats, that is well within the range of typical minority governments in the past (and at the 39 percent mark, even some majority governments, including Harper's), and it would be more difficult to convince Canadians that a party who won fewer seats should form the government. Right now this does not seem to be at all likely (my best guess is that the Conservatives are actually at the top of their potential numbers, a recent bump up probably given a significant shift in poll numbers due to the niqab issue and its effect in Quebec after last week's debate . . . my best guess forecast is that the Conservatives will garner no more than 32 or 33 percent of the popular vote . . . in which case it will be clear that more than two-thirds of Canadians will have voted to boot Harper, and Harper will indeed be departing, probably from Parliament altogether).
Note that in this regard Harper has expressed the view that the Party who wins the most seats is the only party which can "legitimately" form a government. My understanding is that he is using "legitimate" in a popular usage sense . . . or is otherwise simply wrong about the law (he is often wrong about the law, as the courts have repeatedly ruled). Not sure how far Harper would push things if the Conservatives win the most seats, but less than a majority, and the Liberals and NDP overtly act to preclude Harper from forming the government. It could get ugly. But Harper is not one to engage in a fight he cannot win (he is a lot like a school yard bully who only picks on someone much smaller).
The trend in the polls suggest, however, a significant chance we will get to see how such a scenario will work out . . . it is, for example, very easy to see the prospect of the Conservatives winning 121 seats, the Liberals 116, and the NDP 100, and the Green Party 1. In this scenario, my sense is that the NDP would have to cooperate and support a Liberal minority government, and the big question would be to what extent Harper attempts to maneuver his way toward avoiding a no confidence vote . . . or alternatively forcing another election.
My sense is it still goes that way even if the Conservatives win 131 seats, but obviously the more seats the Conservatives win the lower the chances the Liberals and NDP will block Harper from even forming a government.
From my perspective it is going to be, at the very least, interesting. Question is do I pack my bags and travel to some ridings where things are close and invest in physically campaigning for the candidate with the best chance to beat a Conservative currently leading in the polls? (There are scores of such ridings in the corridor running from Toronto to Windsor.) Wish I had more time.
