What the Governor of the Bank of Canada saw...

This is a little past due, but it ties in with an excellent post by Stephen Gordon today in the National Post (here) so I thought I would dust it off. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, in a speech to a business crowd and a press conference on November 3 and at the House Committee on Finance on November 4, cited youth unemployment and underemployment as significant features of the sluggish recovery of the Canadian economy since the financial crisis of 2008. He refers multiple time to the hackneyed meme of the young discouraged workers living in their parents’ basement suggesting that they would be better off from a career perspective taking unpaid work for CV building purposes.

By definition, discouraged workers are not in the labour force. They have withdrawn the offer of their labour services due to poor employment prospects. They are neither unemployed nor underemployed. They simply are not labour force participants. The labour force participation rate is the statistic that is used to measure this labour characteristic. So how do the youth labour market participation rates look today compared to the recent past following economic slowdowns. Prior to the financial panic of 2008, there were recessions in Canada in 1991 and 1981. Assuming that the adult children still living in their parents’ basements to which Mr. Poloz refers are in the 20 to 24 age group, here is what the chart looks like.

Statistics Canada. Table 282-0002 - Labour force survey estimates (LFS), by sex and detailed age group,
annual

For males aged 20 to 24, the participation rate dropped precipitously after the 1991 recession from 85.4% in 1989 to 79% in 1998 and never really recovered, remaining within a narrow range between 81.4% and 78.8% until 2011. It fell slightly to 77.1% in 2012, recovering marginally to 77.5% in 2013. The effect of the so-called Great Recession on the participation rate for this group was much less severe than the 1991 recession.

For females in this age group, the participation rate also fell sharply after the 1991 recession, from 78.4% in 1989 to 72.6 in 1998. However, it had recovered to 77.2 by 2003, stabilized at 76% for a few years before dropping in small steps to 75% since 2009, almost exactly what it was in 1981. So, for this group as well, the Great Recession has had much a smaller effect on its participation rate than the 1991 recession.

The unemployment rate for this age group was also much higher following the 1981 recession (20.6% for males, 14.5% for females in 1983) and the 1991 recession (18.7% and 12.8% respectively in 1992) than following the slowdown of 2008, with rates of 14.8% and 9.1% in 2009.

So, can we stop talking about adult children living in their parents’ basements due to a bad economy as somehow emblematic of our times? If adult children really are more likely to stay in the parental home longer than before, lack of affordable housing, expanded educational opportunities and higher student debt may well be more significant factors than poor employment prospects.

Get the generational story right

Interesting article in iPolitics by Frank Graves of EKOS today, using a generational approach to statistical analysis of socio-economic and political trends. I am a big fan of that approach, basically cohort analysis using age cohorts defined generationally.

A problem I had with the article is that he talks of Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y and Millennials but then presents all his findings for the age categories Under 25, 25 to 44, 45 to 64 and Over 65. These categories don’t match and so statements concerning the former but based on the latter are difficult to correlate and are more wrong than they have to be. (Findings reported on broad categories such as these can be perceived as “wrong” simply on the basis that they are generalizations.)

For example, it's not clear if the statements regarding seniors' (age 65+) economic and political behaviours relate to Boomers or other unnamed generations. The very first Boomers we can all agree, were born in 1946. That means that today, the oldest Boomers are 68 years old. If we use 18 years as the span of a generation, then Boomers today are between the ages of 51 and 68. So all the statements in the article regarding the over 65 population are hardly not about Boomers at all, but about previous generations. Indeed, the members of those generations are not quite dead yet.

In 2014, the over 65 population represented 5,585,287, or 15.7% of the Canadian population. Using 5 year age cohorts (it would be better to do this by single years of age), 3,023,480 of them were Depression and War Babies (born between 1928 and 1945) and 730,900 members of the Greatest Generation were still around (born 1910-1927).

Unless this is made explicit, it is very easy for readers to conflate the 65+ population and Boomers, which would throw the whole article out of kilter.

Where's the fire, chief?

The Globe and Mail editorial today asks the question Why the hurry to pass the Fair Elections Act?. The question unfortunately might well be answered in this article in the Ottawa Citizen. It seems that the Commissioner of Canada Elections plans to wrap up his investigation of the electoral fraud perpetrated in the 2011 by March 31. He would then report his findings to the Chief Elections Officer, who could report them to Parliament and Canadians and go forward with any recommendations for prosecution to the Director of Public Prosecution. Unless, of course, the Canada Elections Act is changed by then and the Commissioner is made to report directly to the Director of Public Prosecution, who reports directly to the Minister of Justice/Solicitor General, where the report can be buried indefinitely, with Parliament and the Chief Elections Officer frozen out and Canadians left in the dark. According to James Sprague, former Senior General Counsel for Elections Canada, this is exactly what could happen.

"The new act would forbid the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Yves Cote — who is in charge of investigating election crime — from disclosing “any information relating to an investigation that comes to their knowledge in the exercise of their powers.”

Sprague says that means Canadians may never learn what investigators uncover about fraudulent and deceptive telephone calls in the past election."

A spokesman for Poilievre says no problem, Elections Canada investigators will still be filing court documents. Great, we get to learn about cases of electoral fraud through heavily redacted ITOs obtained kicking and screaming through Access to Information requests by valiant reporters. I feel safer now.

When considering to whom the Commissioner, who is the main enforcement officer and investigator of breaches under the Canada Elections Act, should report, it is probably wise to exclude the potential perpetrators of electoral fraud, i.e. the government in power. That would be like having the cops report to the Mafia. Better to have him report to an independent officer of Parliament, like the Chief Electoral Officer, who reports to Parliament as a whole, all parties, not just the government of the day.

But could the government be so bold as to resort to this bald faced abuse of power to quash the investigation? Is this not an all too obvious ploy? Well, we have seen what happens when this government feels cornered. When they faced a prospective non-confidence motion during their first term, they just shut down Parliament, an unprecedented, draconian attack on our democracy. When a Parliamentary Committee was getting too close to the truth on the government's knowledge of atrocities in Afghanistan, it shut Parliament down again! So, this is just the kind of thing they do when things get too hot.

So there is a race on, and that is why they are in such a hurry.

Whodunit?

Well, lots of political hoopla on the weekend, with the Liberals holding their biennial policy convention, the NDP holding their national day of action, and the Conservative PM winning cases of beer from the Americans for Canada's hockey triumphs at the winter Olympics. I don't like this dynamic. Liberals and NDP fighting for attention with the Conservatives basking in the reflective glow of Olympic gold. It reminds me too much of the situation I described in 2011 in my "Don't Split the Vote Canada" post, which listed all the ridings where three way splits meant that a shift of just a few hundred votes could deliver victory.

That post had quite a lot of views actually, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out one day that it reads like a roadmap to electoral fraud in the 2011 election (I say "one day", because we still do not know all the ridings from which electoral fraud complaints have been received). Because it is in ridings like these that phone calls that misdirect just a few hundred voters to non-existent polling stations can yield rich rewards if they are targeted at voters who are known not to support the party making the calls. We know that this is exactly what happened in the 2011 election. A widespread, nationally organized campaign of misinformation aimed at keeping opposition voters away from the polls. That this has occurred has been established by a Federal Court judge and is not contested. But we still do not know who was behind the fraud. How can it be that four years later, the perpetrator or perpetrators of the largest, most serious case of electoral fraud in the country's history has not yet been identified and brought to justice? Is this not a country of laws? Is this not a law and order government? We can't get through another election without getting to the bottom of this question. It seems to me that those responsible for upholding our laws, ie the current government, should be at the forefront of this investigation. Why are they not leading the chase? And if the means currently available to get to the truth are not sufficient, why have increased powers not been legislated into effect so that we can once and for all charge and convict those responsible for these crimes?

Every day, in every forum, we should be asking the government Whodunit?

A National Nightmare

I had a bad dream last night. There was a funny clown, a sad clown and a scary clown.


The funny clown left, laughing all the way. The sad clown left too, crying. Then, the scary clown called his sidekick.

"Oily, come here you little runt. Now that we had to deep six the democratic reform chief Del Mastiff for his electoral irregularities (HA HA HA, that kills me... so funny...), you are in charge of this file. So, if we wanted to change the Canada Elections Act to make it easier for us to keep doing the kind of cheating we have been, and need to keep doing to get elected, what would you propose?"

"Don't worry boss. We got it covered. The main problem is that the Chief Electoral Officer has a big mouth. Every time he finds the tiniest bit of cheating, boom, out it goes and Canadians find out. So we can change the Act so that all he can say publicly is where the polls are and when they are open."

"Really? We can do that? No whistleblowing?"

"No."

"No press releases on anything?"

"No."

"No campaigns to encourage people to do their civic duty and vote?"

"No."

"Sweet. What else you got?"

"Well, the next big problem is their enforcer, the Commish. Even though he has no teeth, a short reach and his hands are tied, he's still a problem. Right now, if he thinks there is a case that should be prosecuted, he brings it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, you know the guy that reports directly to MacKay, whose mandate includes initiating and conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Crown with respect to offences under the Canada Elections Act. As soon as he does that, it's all over the news. So to fix that, we will have the Commissioner of Canada Elections report directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions. MacKay will be the boss of him, if you know what I mean...."

"HA HA HA. MacKay, boss of him. That's so funny...You're killing me, Oily. Well, that's great. We should be good to go."

"There's one more thing boss. Not a big problem, but I thought you would like this. There is this thing called vouching, where poor saps who don't have ID, and don't vote Conservative, can get someone else to vouch for them so they can vote. We'll take that out. That should take about 100,000 non-Conservative votes away."

"Oh Oily, you've outdone yourself this time. This is fantastic! What are you going to call this bill, the Awesome Elections Act?"

(Blushing) "No boss, we are using our standard communications policy. Call everything the exact opposite of what it is. We're calling it the Fair Elections Act."

I woke up in a sweat. And then I realized, IT WASN'T A DREAM. It was really happening, right now, in our country.

The Fair to Poor Elections Act

All through the Senate scandal debacle and the Ford follies last year, I was thinking, keep your eye on the prize. These are all petty diversions to keep everyone's attention away from the really serious stuff that could harm the governing party's electoral prospects in 2015. In my view, the serious matter is the voter fraud/suppression methods used in the last election by the Conservatives to get themselves elected to a majority. We have heard of individual instances of minor irregularities, like the Del Mastro case I wrote about in the last post, but the really big case, the massive, centrally organized telephone campaign of voter misdirection/suppression, remains unattributed to anyone. The fact that there was just such a massive, centrally organized campaign in the 2011 election, that it was conducted through the telecom facilities of the supplier of such services retained by the Conservative party, that it used the electoral database maintained by the Conservative party, that it targeted voters who had signalled in this database that they did not support the Conservatives, is not in question. It was declared a matter of fact, based on evidence, by a federal judge in the case brought by the Council of Canadians, to wit:

"I am satisfied that is has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls.

[245] In reaching this conclusion, I make no finding that the CPC, any CPC candidates, or RMG and RackNine Inc., were directly involved in the campaign to mislead voters. To require the applicants to identify the perpetrators of the misleading calls would impose an impossibly high standard of proof. I am satisfied, however, that the most likely source of the information
used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the CPC, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court. There is no evidence to indicate that the use of the CIMS database in this manner was approved or condoned by the CPC. Rather the evidence points to elaborate efforts to conceal the identity of those accessing the database and arranging for the calls to be made.

[246] I find that the threshold to establish that fraud occurred has been met by the applicants."

So an electoral crime was committed, but the perpetrators have not yet been identified. And so it has stood for nearly four years now, with only one charge laid, against the hapless Michael Sona in Guelph. Whatever investigative bodies we have in these matters, and whatever investigative means they have at their disposal, have failed to bring to justice the persons or organizations who have committed the most serious crime against our democratic electoral processes in our country's history. Again from Justice Mosley:

"There may have been isolated instances of electoral misbehaviour in the past but, as noted above, incidents of voter suppression of the nature discussed in these reasons have not been known in this country prior to the 41st General Election. For that reason, I don’t doubt that the confidence rightfully held by Canadians has been shaken by the disclosures of widespread fraudulent activities that have resulted from the Commissioner’s investigations and the complaints to Elections Canada."

So, rather than waiting for the other show to drop, the Conservatives go on the offensive, as ususal, and launch "The Fair Elections Act". I think it is "fair" only in the sense that "fair" is a rating between "poor" and "good". More on this tomorrow.

Keep the focus on CPC electoral fraud

The Del Mastro story is back in the news today, and a good thing. It's an old story, first reported in June 2012, but it needs to be brought back to the surface on occasion as it is a reminder of how the Conservative Party of Canada flouts electoral law at every turn. The Del Mastro case is indicative of what seems to be a very common attitude this party has in relation to the laws and conventions that regulate our public processes and institutions: Where are the loopholes? How can I get around it? How far can I stretch it? An attitude that carries over from a business world view perhaps, as for example in relation to taxation and regulation. This one is pretty small potatoes: getting a small business owner cousin of his to entice 22 employees, friends and family to each contribute $1000 to the campaign, all of whom are then reimbursed fully plus a $50 bonus. The employees each make $50 at no cost to them, plus a small tax deduction, the campaign gets $22,000 and the cousin gets to effectively contribute way above the campaign contribution limit of $1100. Maybe he just wants to see his cousin win, or maybe he thinks it can't hurt future business prospects, who knows? Why he did it or whether it actually resulted in any benefit to him does not matter. The simple fact is that this type of scheme is unlawful under the Canada Elections Act. From the ITO, it seems the money trail is pretty clear. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if and when it gets to court. Meanwhile, Del Mastro will need to defend himself in a separate court case dealing with yet another breach of the Elections Act, which also first surfaced in June 2012.

This is the MP personally selected by Stephen Harper as his Parliamentary Secretary in 2011 and given the role of government point man on the Robocall election scandal. Takes one to know one I guess. In a now familiar pattern, the PM stoutly defended Del Mastro when the allegations first surfaced.

Back in the air

After a long hibernation brought about by the election of a Conservative majority in the 2011 election (because really, it's been like a frozen wasteland since then), the Northern Harrier is taking flight once more, with the 2015 election on the horizon and with it, the dim prospect of a new spring. So, I am starting a New Year's list of reasons we need to get rid of this government in the hope that it can somehow contribute to the regime change that we so desperately need.

#1 Canada planning to sell weapons to developing countries? Not only have we become bad actors in arms control, like not signing the cluster bomb ban treaty, but now we are considering actually joining in league with the merchants of death. Shameful.

#2 Clean energy versus the tar sands. Canada goes all in on the tar sands. Meanwhile, it looks like nuclear fusion might actually turn out to be a real thing, and we are nowhere. We are so stuck in the past it is pathetic.

Well, short and sweet. I am now also on Twitter. You can follow me at @North_Harrier if you are into that kind of thing.

Learning to live with minority governments (we can only hope)

Prime Minister Harper is now using the threat of an early anticipated election as a reason for giving the Conservatives a majority (may it not come to pass). Using elections as a threat is not a new strategy for the Harper government. It has been using the threat of an election all through its two minority mandates. It is a perverse twist of logic to recast that supreme symbol of democratic governance, an election, as a negative, as something we would want to avoid. There is now this notion in Ottawa that whichever party would be so reckless as to cause an “unnecessary” election will be made to pay at the polls.

The Harper government has not acted as a minority government, seeking common ground so as to maintain the confidence of the House. Rather, it has time and again put through those parts of its agenda it could and challenged the Opposition to defeat it and trigger an election. This is because the Harper government is not interested in governing per se, it is only interested in its own agenda. This is why it does not compromise, it only temporizes. It bides its time, waiting for the majority that would allow it to implement its agenda holus bolus. Meanwhile, they keep daring the Opposition to defeat it and govern by any or all extra-Parliamentary means available or unavailable, including suspending Parliament at their convenience.

This is not how a minority is supposed to operate. The general expectation is that a minority government act in accordance with the will of the people, as expressed in the representation in the House of Commons, under sanction of replacement by a government that will if it fails to do so. This is where our frozen political landscape and our constitutional conventions no longer serve us well. Replacement seems only possible by way of an election, which in the current environment is not an effective sanction: 1) elections are very expensive; 2) they are unlikely to bring about a very different result than the current representation; 3) for these reasons, parties do not want to be perceived as having triggered an election for fear of being penalized at the polls. So, we have a situation in which a minority government need not fear replacement, a serious degradation of the democratic legitimacy of our governing institutions. The fear of replacement is an essential component of democratic governance. It is what keeps the government honest and accountable. If it is lost, we are one step closer to tyranny.

So, our institutional framework has to adapt to the new situation, and in particular the Governor-General’s in role in agreeing to the dissolution of Parliament when a minority government falls. It should no longer be the case that an election is the first recourse in this eventuality, for the reasons expressed above. Rather, the norm should be that the Opposition be asked to form a government and try to maintain the confidence of the House for as long as possible. If that government falls, then maybe the third party can give it a try. In the end, we don’t elect a government, we elect a Parliament and we expect that a government can be formed from the representation in Parliament, in whatever configuration is necessary to maintain the confidence of the House for the life span of a given Parliament, which the Constitution Act of 1867 still restricts to five years. (see this interesting review of the Conservatives four year fixed election law). If the sanction were immediate and predictable replacement in this way, minority governments would be more likely to seek the middle ground and rule through consensus rather than division. And it would take away the temptation of using a threatened election as a weapon, which debases that most basic treasure of democracy.

Don’t split the vote!

A guide to strategic voting in the 2011 federal election

Our main democratic task in the upcoming election is to ensure that the Harper government is not re-elected. This government is in contempt of Parliament and has consistently acted against the interests of the Canadian people by its disregard and abuse of our democratic institutions. That is it was defeated in the House because of these abuses shows that our institutions can and do protect us. It is now our turn to protect ourselves by voting strategically to defeat it at the ballot box.

Why vote strategically? All the polls have and continue to show voting intentions frozen at the same levels that have returned Conservative minorities since 2006. The size and location of Conservative support, the large regional Bloc in Québec and the splintering of the remaining vote between the Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties doom us to the same result in the future unless voters collaborate to produce the Parliament they want, rather than the Parliament that randomly emerges from the vote splits in every riding where no candidate gets 50% of the vote.

In the 2008 election, 103 of the 308 ridings (including one vacant seat at dissolution) were won by candidates who did not garner 50% of the vote. This means that there are opportunities for voters to work together to produce an alternative result in each of these ridings. Assuming that voting intentions remain stable for this election, the following guide shows how voters could alter their voting preferences in a way that produces a better result for our democracy than a prospective win that effectively rewards the Harper government for its anti-democratic behaviour.

The described voting pattern produces a very narrow Conservative plurality of 111 seats, which almost certainly could not govern, and a Liberal led opposition that could maintain the confidence of the House without Bloc support. It would in effect be a Liberal minority government in waiting, which is probably the best we can expect in the circumstances.

The first assumption is that all seats won by candidates by an outright majority of votes (50 % or greater) in 2008 will return the same candidate or party in 2011. These are in effect considered “safe” seats and represent two thirds of all electoral districts or 203 seats. (There were 3 vacant seats at dissolution and these will be dealt with separately). Party standings in 2011 on this basis would be:

Conservative 90
Liberal 54
Bloc 37
NDP 21
Ind 1

The first rule of strategic voting regarding the other 102 seats is to prevent any further Conservative gains, in effect defensive strategic voting. Many seats currently held by the Liberals or the NDP were won by narrow margins in 2008 and could easily be lost to the Conservatives this time around unless concerted action is taken to defend the incumbent. This situation applies in the following 39 ridings:

Newfoundland and Labarador
Avalon, Liberal

Prince Edward Island
Malpeque, Liberal

Nova Scotia

Halifax,NDP
Halifax West, Liberal
Kings-Hants, Liberal

New Brunswick
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, Liberal

Québec

Brossard-Laprairie, Liberal
Chicoutimi, Bloc
Louis-Hébert, Bloc
Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou, Bloc
Papineau, Liberal

(Note that an odd situation occurs in Québec where, in three cases, it is better to hope for the Bloc to retain their seat rather than to suffer a Conservative gain. It tells you how bad things are when for the good of the country, it’s best to vote for the Bloc.)

Ontario

Ajax-Pickering, Liberal
Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Liberal
Brampton-Springdale, Liberal
Eglinton-Lawrence, Liberal
Hamilton Mountain, NDP
Kingston and the Islands, Liberal
London North Centre, Liberal
Mississauga South, Liberal
Mississauga–Streetsville, Liberal
Richmond, Liberal
Sault Ste-Marie, NDP
Sudbury, NDP
Welland, NDP
York Centre, Liberal

Manitoba
Elmwood-Transcona, NDP
Winnipeg South Centre, Liberal

Alberta
Edmonton-Strathcona, NDP

British Columbia

Burnaby-Douglas, NDP
Burnaby-New Westminster, NDP
Nanaimo-Cowichan, NDP
Newton-North Delta, Liberal
New Westminster-Coquitlam, NDP
British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP
Vancouver Centre, Liberal
Vancouver Kingsway, NDP
Vancouver Quadra, Liberal
Vancouver South, Liberal

Northwest Territories
Western Arctic, NDP

If Liberal, NDP and Green voters in these ridings can be convinced to switch their vote to support the current incumbent, this would prevent further Conservative gains and result in the following standings in the House (based on the 203 safe seats plus these 39 ridings):

Conservative 90
Liberal 76
Bloc 40
NDP 35
Ind 1


There remain 63 seats therefore where strategic voting can go on offence to take away seats from the Conservatives (including a Conservative Independent and in some cases the Bloc). But first, a reality check. Some of these seats were won by the Conservatives with less than 50% of the vote, yes, but with large pluralities that would be very difficult to upset. These should probably be conceded off the top so as to concentrate our efforts where they may yield results more surely. There are 17 of these “nearly safe” seats for the Conservatives:

Québec

Lévis-Bellechasse
Lotbinière-Chutes de la Chaudière
Louis-St.Laurent
Mégantic-L'Érable

Ontario

Burlington
Cambridge
Chatam-Kent-Essex
Newmarket
Oakville
Peterborough
Thornhill

Manitoba
Winnipeg South

Alberta
Edmonton Centre
Edmonton-Sherwood Park

British Columbia

Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo
Nanaimo-Alberni
West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country

If the Conservatives retain these seats, the standings in the House after the election (based on 203 “safe” seats, 39 incumbents saved by defensive strategic voting, and 17 “nearly safe” Conservative seats where offensive strategic voting is not really an option) would be:

Conservative 107
Liberal 76
Bloc 40
NDP 35
Ind 1

There are therefore 46 seats remaining where strategic voting has some prospect of taking away seats from the Conservatives (including a Conservative Independent and in some cases the Bloc).

In 29 cases, usual NDP and Green Party voters would be asked to cast their vote for the Liberal candidate:

Prince Edward Island
Egmont

Nova Scotia
West Shore

New Brunswick
Fredericton
Miramichi
Saint John

Québec

Ahuntsic
Alfred-Pellan
Brome-Missisquoi
Jeanne LeBer
Laval
Pontiac
St-Lambert

(Note: These are all takeaways from the Bloc. A Liberal MP from Québec is a more formidable anti-Conservative option than a Bloquiste, because it takes away the “coalition with the separatists” threat that the Conservatives always use.)

Ontario

Brant
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
Haldimand
Halton
Huron-Bruce
Kenora
Kitchener Centre
Kitchener-Waterloo
London West
Mississauga-Erindale
Oak Ridge
Ottawa-Orleans
Ottawa West-Nepean

Manitoba
Saint Boniface

British Columbia
Fleetwood-Port Kells
North Vancouver

Nunavut
Nunavut

In 10 other cases, Liberal and Green Party voters would be asked to vote for the NDP candidate:

Nova Scotia
Central Nova
South Shore

Québec
Gatineau

Ontario
Essex
Oshawa

Saskatchewan
Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River
Palliser
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar

British Columbia
Surrey North
Vancouver North Island

Finally, there are a number of special cases.

First, we have the situation in Québec where a vote for the Bloc is better than a Conservative win. This would entail having usual Liberal, NDP or Green Party voters cast their ballot for a Bloc candidate. This is a proposition which many would not even consider but in the current situation, it is actually a less damaging result for the country than a Conservative win. The Bloc is only a potential problem down the road. The Harper government is a big problem right now. There are four such ridings, all in Québec of course:

Beauport-Limoilou
Charlesbourg – Haute St- Charles
Portneuf-Jacques Cartier
Roberval-Lac St-Jean

Second, we have an opportunity to finally elect members from the Green Party to the House of Commons, something most Canadians would probably want to see in a Parliament of their own design. Elizabeth May in Saanich-Gulf Islands and the Green Party candidate in Guelph, Ontario both have a fighting chance to be elected, each taking down a Conservative MP in the process. Of course, they will need the help of usual Liberal and NDP voters, a favour well deserved if Green voters come through for these older parties in the other ridings described above.

Finally, there were three vacant seats at dissolution and the special case of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, the seat held by Keith Martin for the Liberals until his retirement from politics. The vacant seats previously held by Jay Hill and Jim Prentice, both prominent Conservative cabinet ministers, are deep in Conservative country and should probably be considered “safe” Conservative seats. The other vacant seat was held by the Bloc in Haute Gaspésie, but was narrowly won in 2008 and is a candidate for offensive strategic voting. The Bloc won this one by only 616 votes over the Liberals, a 2% margin. The 2500 votes garnered by the NDP and the Greens could swing the seat for the Liberals in a riding where the Conservatives are far behind. In the case of Esquimault-Juan de Fuca, this riding was Liberal only because of the strong personal following enjoyed by Keith Martin, who represented the riding as a Reform member, an Alliance member, an Independent and as a Liberal. There is a strong potential for a Conservative gain here and a defensive voting strategy will be required to keep it out of their hands, the most likely scenario being in favour of the NDP candidate.

Should all of these assumptions hold and these concerted strategic voting actions come to pass, the make-up of the House of Commons after the May 2 elections would be as follows:

Conservative 111
Liberal 104
NDP 46
Bloc 44
Green 2
Ind 1

This is based on 203 safe seats + 2 vacant; 39 opposition incumbents returned thanks to defensive strategic voting; 17 “nearly safe” seats for the Conservatives; 29 seats to the Liberals (+1 vacant), 10 NDP seats (+Keith Martin’s old seat), 4 seats to the Bloc and 2 Green Party seats, as a result of strategic voting.

In the above scenario, the Opposition parties, minus the Bloc, would be just one seat shy of commanding a majority in the House. Perhaps some of the 17 “nearly safe” seats for the Conservatives will prove to be not so safe and further reduce their minority status. A delicious irony in this scenario is that the one Independent seat forecast belongs to Helena Guergis. She might enjoy that situation.

Of course, none of this will come to pass if voters are not aware of the opportunities to collaborate or inclined to do so. There is not much one can do about the disinclination, but at least it should be possible to make voters aware that they can make a difference, not in that old way that very vote counts, but in this new way that your vote, combined with that of many other citizens, can shape the outcome of the election in a predictable, desirable way. We cannot count on the political parties to get this message out. They can, and should, only act in a self-interested way. Citizens must themselves take this on, and through their own means of communication and coordination, which are now vast, achieve a collective result that speaks to the greater good. So, dear reader, don’t just read this. Pass it on, post it, tweet it, speak to your family, friends and colleagues, put it on Facebook, get it to the people in the ridings where it can make a difference. It’s up to all of us.


In the following pages, you will find detailed commentary on each of the 103 ridings where the winner took less than a majority (50%) of the votes in their riding in the 2008 election.

Newfoundland and Labrador

Avalon
Scott Andrews took this riding for the Liberals but with only a 10% margin over the Conservative candidate. The NDP took 17% of the vote, much of which should now shift to the Liberals to make sure it stays in their hands.

Prince Edward Island

Egmont
Gail Shea took this for the Conservatives by a mere 55 votes. The NDP collected 1670 votes, 9% of the total, but more than enough to swing this to the Liberals.

Malpeque
Wayne Easter took this riding for the Liberals but with just a 5% plurality over the Conservative candidate. The NDP’s 10% of the vote would be sufficient to keep the riding for the Liberals.

Nova Scotia

Central Nova
Peter McKay ought to be a target. He won the seat with 46% of the vote, 14% ahead of Elizabeth May. But the combined Green Party/NDP vote was 51.8% of the vote, with the Liberals not running a candidate. The combined NDP and Liberal vote in 2004 and 2006 was greater than McKay’s share in both elections, which he won, with the NDP coming second both times. Time to swing this one to the NDP.

Halifax
The NDP took this one with 42% followed by the Liberal candidate at 28%, so it should be safe for one or the other. But no complacency! The Conservative candidate took 20% of the vote and a three way split could work out very unpredictably. Let’s keep this in the NDP column.

Halifax West
Same thing here as in the Halifax riding, but with the Liberals coming in first and the NDP second. Keep this one in the Liberal camp.

Kings-Hants
The Liberals won this one handily, with 44% of the vote, the Conservative candidate coming in at 26%. Up to the NDP voters to switch here and ensure the Liberals stay in.

South Shore
The Conservatives won this seat with 36% of the vote, a mere 2.3% plurality over the second place NDP candidate. A classic “split the vote” scenario, with the Liberals taking 24%. The combined Liberal and NDP vote would have been 57%! Liberals, time to vote NDP here and boot the Conservatives out of this riding.

West Shore
Another nail biter, with the Conservatives winning with 40% of the vote, only 4% ahead of the Liberal. Come on NDPers, take one for the team and put the Liberals over the hump in this one.

New Brunswick

Fredericton
The Conservatives won this seat with 42% of the vote with Liberals second at 37%. There are more than enough NDP votes here to put the Liberals over the top.

Miramichi
Same scenario in this riding, Conservatives winning with 42%, Liberals second with 37%, the combined Liberal and NDP vote representing 54% of the total. Score this one to the Liberals.

Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe
The Liberals won this seat, but with only a 3% plurality over the Conservative candidate, with the NDP coming in 3rd at 17%. It would be a shame to lose this one to the Conservatives because of the vote split. The NDP vote must bleed votes to the Liberals to prevent this from happening.

Saint John
The Conservatives won this riding with 39.6% of the vote, a very slight lead of 1.4% over the Liberals. Dear NDPers, you have to paint this one red, for the good of the country.

Québec

Ahuntsic

Lest we believe that Québec is an electoral wasteland for the national parties, the Bloc took this riding by a mere 423 votes over the Liberal candidate, less than 1% of the vote. The NDP’s 4276 votes would have easily won it for them. And let’s face it, a Liberal MP from Québec is a more formidable anti-Conservative option than a Bloquiste, just because of the specter of a “coalition with the separatists”, which the Conservatives always pull out of their bogeyman closet.

Alfred-Pellan
Same scenario here, but with a more comfortable lead for the Bloc. Nevertheless, the combined Liberal/NDP vote would have won the seat, with the Liberal candidate the more likely winner.

Beauport-Limoilou
The Conservatives won this riding with a 4.2% plurality and only 37% of the vote. But there were not enough non-Bloc votes to win so better for this one to go to the Bloc. Maybe the hockey fans can take this one away from the Conservatives. It tells you how bad things are when for the good of the country, it’s best to vote for the Bloc.

Brome-Missisquoi
The Bloc took this one with only 35% of the vote, 2.4% more than the Liberal. The NDP’s 9% of the vote looms large and could swing the riding to the Liberals. Even the Green Party’s vote could have swung it.

Brossard-Laprairie
The Liberals just squeaked past the Bloc by 69 votes in this riding, the Conservatives coming third with nary a chance of ever winning it. Even the Marxist-Leninist vote (157) would have swung it to the Liberals, but better to rely on the Green Party or the NDP to do the job.

Charlesbourg – Haute St- Charles
Another Québec city area Conservative riding, winning with 41% of the vote, 10% ahead of the Bloc. Sometimes, an area is just bleu but who knows, the Conservative vote could just collapse in these areas and the combined 29% of the NDP/Liberal/Green could benefit although it is more likely the Bloc would come through on the split. Well, better the Bloc than the Conservatives. The Bloc are only a potential problem down the road. The Conservatives are a big problem right now.

Chicoutimi
The Bloc with a 6% plurality over the Conservatives, the Liberals et al way behind. Better for the Bloc to keep this one in their column.

Gatineau
Maybe the most classic split the vote scenario of all. The Bloc won the riding with 29% of the vote, ahead of the NDP with 26% and the Liberals with 25%. Maybe the Gatineau voters can elect a second NDP member from Québec to accompany Mr. Mulcair in their Québec caucus.

Jeanne-LeBer
Held by the Bloc but with only 35% of the vote, a 3% plurality over the Liberal candidate and the NDP coming in third with 15% of the vote, more than enough to swing the riding.

Laval
The Bloc again, with 38% of the vote, 10% points ahead of the Liberal candidate. The combined Liberal and NDP vote was 40%, however, enough to take the riding for the Liberals.

Lévis-Bellechasse
A bleu riding, held by the Conservatives with 46% of the vote and a bad split for all the other parties, including even the Bloc. Looks safe for the Conservatives at this point, unless they implode.

Lotbinière-Chutes de la Chaudière
Same scenario here. Another bleu riding, with not many options except Tory self-destruction.

Louis-Hébert
Another Bloc win in 2008, with 36% of the vote, but in a more classic split with the Conservatives at 28% and the Liberals at 23%. Probably a Bloc keep, with little chance for the Conservatives to make up ground.

Louis-St-Laurent
Bleu, bleu, bleu sang Marcel Émond many years ago and this is how this riding will likely end up, with Josée Verner retaining the seat she won with 47% of the vote in 2008, 20% ahead of her Bloc rival.

Haute Gaspésie
The Bloc won this one by only 616 votes over the Liberals, a 2% margin. The 2500 votes garnered by the NDP and the Greens could swing the seat for the Liberals in a riding where the Conservatives are far behind.

Mégantic–L’Érable
Christian Paradis, the somewhat hapless Tory minister, won handily with 47% of the vote, some 20% points ahead of the Bloc candidate at 28% and the Liberal and NDP vote combined at only 23%. Strategic voting will not help here but I somehow feel that ministers of the Crown will especially be made to pay in this election and this may turn into an unpredictable split scenario.

Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik—Eeyou
The Bloc took this riding with 40% of the vote, 10% ahead of the Conservative candidate. No opportunity for a change here and it is best held by the Bloc.

Papineau
Justin Trudeau only won this riding over the Bloc candidate by 2.8% of the vote. The support of the NDP and Green votes would provide some insurance to keep him on top.

Pontiac
Here is another Tory minister on shaky ground. Lawrence Cannon won this seat with only 33% of the vote. The Liberal candidate garnered 22% and the NDP 15%, enough combined to overtake this deeply unimpressive Minister of Foreign Affairs. Time to return to the Red fold Pontiac.

Portneuf-Jacques Cartier
A bleu riding, held by Independent iconoclast André Arthur, who sits with the Conservatives. I can’t believe this novelty act will be re-elected and the Bloc, which trailed by only 662 votes in 2008, are likely to come through as winners this time. Again, for the good of the country, this is the right thing.

Roberval-Lac-St-Jean
The Conservatives won this seat with 43% of the vote, only 4% ahead of the Bloc candidate with no other serious contenders in the race. Look for the Bloc to take down another Conservative.

Saint-Lambert
A Bloc win with only 37% of the vote to the Liberals 28% in second place. The NDP’s 14% would handily swing this riding to the Liberals.

Ontario

Ajax-Pickering
Located in the 905 ring that will be targeted by the Conservatives, Marc Holland won this seat for the Liberals with 44% of the vote, only 6.6% ahead of his Conservative rival. The NDP garnered 9% of the vote and the Greens 7%. Some of these are needed to shore up the Liberals against a potential Tory push.

Bramalea-Gore-Malton
Same story here. The Liberals won with 45% of the vote, to the Conservatives 37%. We can’t afford to lose any seats to the Tories, so the 17% parked with the NDP and Greens are needed to keep this one Red.

Brampton-Springdale
A real slugfest in perspective, with Ruby Dhalla winning by only 773 votes over the Conservative candidate. She needs all the help she can get from the 19% of voters who went with the NDP or Green Party last time around.

Brant
The Conservatives took this seat with 42% of the vote, with the Liberal candidate coming in second. The combined Liberal/ NDP vote represented 50% of the electorate, so more than enough to swing this seat to the Liberals.

Burlington
The Conservatives won this riding with 48.6% of the vote, so would only be vulnerable if this share eroded considerably and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) united behind the Liberal candidate. Looks like a long shot.

Cambridge
Same story here, with the Conservatives taking it with a 48.6% share of the vote. The only difference compared to Burlington is that the NDP fared better and could claim the leadership of the ABC movement. But, looks like a Tory keep.

Chatam-Kent-Essex
Another big Conservative plurality, at 48%. Short of a collapse in the Tory vote, it would be near impossible for strategic voting to make an impact on this race.

Eglinton-Lawrence
In the Liberal stronghold of downtown Toronto, Joe Volpe only won this seat by a 4.7% margin over his Conservative rival. There is little margin for error here and the 16% of the electorate that voted NDP or Green needs to switch their support to help keep him in the House.

Essex
Here is a classic three way split, held by the Conservatives with 40% of the vote. The Liberals were at 29%, the NDP at 26%. This riding is deep in the automotive industrial heartland, in the shadow of Detroit. The NDP vote is not just an also ran and would be hard to shift. Liberals, can you see it in your heart to send an NDP member to the House?

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
A long-standing Liberal riding, which got tired of Don Boudria as MP and has returned a young Tory in 2006 and 2008, there is a 15% NDP and Green Party vote that could help to put this one back in the Liberal column, where it belongs.

Guelph
The Liberals won this seat with only 32% of the vote in 2008, just 3% ahead of the Conservative candidate. This was actually a four away split, with the Greens coming in third at 21% and the NDP at 16%. If all of the NDP vote switched to the Green Party, this could actually be the breakthrough for the Greens, and nowhere more appropriate than from Guelph, the home of our finest agricultural college.

Haldimand
The Conservatives took this riding north of Toronto with 41% of the vote. It is held by Diane Finley, another lackluster minister who could be made to pay for the Tory sins. The Liberals’ share of 32% could be boosted by the 11% NDP vote and the 10% garnered by an independent candidate in 2008 to take this one away from the Conservatives.

Halton
Lisa Raitt took this seat for the Conservatives with 47.5% of the vote, so it will be a pretty tough battle to dislodge her unless there is significant erosion in the Conservative vote. This could very well happen as she won this seat over love him or hate him Liberal Garth Turner last time, who nevertheless garnered 36% of the vote. A shift towards the Liberals of the Green and NDP vote, representing 15% of the electorate, could very well put the new Liberal candidate within striking distance. It’s worth a try.

Hamilton Mountain
The NDP took this seat with 44% of the vote over the closest rivals, the Conservatives at 31%. Keep up the good work, and Liberals, please lend a hand to keep this sear orange.

Huron-Bruce
The Conservatives held this riding with 44% of the vote, a healthy 12% lead over the Liberal candidate in second place. The combined vote of the Liberals and NDP would have been sufficient to elect the Liberal however, by a small margin. So, there is an outside chance for a changeover here.

Kenora
Same story in this riding, won by the Conservatives with 40% of the vote over the second place Liberal at 33%. But the combined Liberal and NDP vote was 54%, more than enough to unseat the Tory.

Kingston and the Islands
Peter Milliken, the now retired Speaker of the House, held this riding for the Liberals fairly narrowly, with only 39.2% of the vote over the Conservatives at 33.6%. The man is a Canadian hero and a saint for how he has handled the House over this very turbulent period in our Parliamentary history and as a tribute to him, the 27% of the vote parked with the NDP and the Green Party ought to swing over to keep the seat in Liberal hands.

Kitchener Centre
This was a real nail biter, with the Conservatives edging out the Liberal candidate by 339 votes, 36.7% to 35.9% of the vote. It would have taken very few of the 18% of the electors who voted NDP to switch their vote to put the Liberals on top.

Kitchener-Waterloo
An even closer race in this riding, with the Conservatives winning by just 17 votes over the Liberals. Come on people, everybody get together and push the Liberals over the top in this one. It should be an easy one to take from the Conservatives.

London North Centre
The Liberals won this seat with 39% of the vote, 6% points ahead of the Conservatives. No time for a slip up. The Green Party and the NDP combined took a 27% share of the vote. Surely a few of them could go Liberal this time to make sure the Tories don’t make any gains in this Liberal heartland riding.

London West
Another narrow Conservative win in southwestern Ontario, by a narrow 3.7% margin over the Liberal candidate. This translates to 2121 votes. The Green Party and NDP combined collected 14,000 votes. Do the math.

Mississauga-Erindale
A real squeaker for the Conservatives, winning by less than 1% over the Liberals, with both the NDP and the Green Party left far behind. These are exactly the kind of votes that are needed to remove the Conservatives from office. They are votes that express a political opinion, cast with no hope of winning, a pure exercise in democratic choice, which is a beautiful thing. This time, make an alternative democratic choice, use your political expression to throw the bums out.

Mississauga South
Won by the Liberals by only 4.6% in a two man race, these 905 belt ridings will be under concerted Tory attack. So, all hands on deck, Green and NDP votes are needed to shore up the Liberals and keep the Conservatives out.

Mississauga –Streetsville
Similar story here, with the Liberals winning by 10% last time. But no complacency, please. They will be under furious attack and need all the help they can get.

Newmarket
A comfortable Conservative win, with 46% of the vote, a 12% advantage over the Liberal candidate. They will be hard to dislodge as nearly all the Liberal, NDP an Green Party votes would be needed to defeat them, unless there is significant erosion of the Conservative vote. One can always hope.

Oak Ridge
A 905 belt battleground, taken by the Conservatives by the narrowest of margins of less than 1% in a two man race. Another case for a better use of NDP and Green Party votes this time: remove the Conservatives from power.

Oakville
The Conservatives took 47% of the vote to hold this seat last time, and unless there is sharp drop in support they are likely to take it again, even with concerted opposition voting. Does not seem ripe for a strategic voting upset.

Oshawa
How this riding represented by the venerable Ed Broadbent for the NDP fell to the Conservatives is a tale of woe. Won by the Tories by a 6.6% margin over the NDP in 2008, it is time to take it back. Liberal voters, your man has no chance. Put an NDP member back in the House and help rid the country of this government.

Ottawa-Orleans
A 6% win by the Conservative Party of Canada in 2008, it was their second win ever in this Liberal bastion. The Liberals ought to be able to win this seat on their own. But they are kind of pathetic and might need help, so the 16% of voters who went to the Greens or the NDP, could you lend a hand?

Ottawa West-Nepean
Guess who is vulnerable? John Baird is vulnerable, that’s who. He won the riding for the Conservatives with 45% of vote the last time, a not shabby 9% margin over the Liberal candidate. The Liberals have put up a decent candidate in this election and the NDP are running the same person who collected 12% to 16% of the vote in 2004, 2006 and 2008. So NDP types, would you like to send John Baird home? Don’t vote for Marlene this time and put Anita in the House.

Peterborough
A comfortable win by the Conservatives in 2008, with their candidate taking 47% of the vote. Probably a difficult one to strategically vote out, unless there is a collapse in the Tory candidate’s vote (which would be richly deserved as he is a truly awful MP.)

Richmond
A comfortable win by the Liberals with 47% of the vote, almost 12% points ahead of the Conservative candidate, and one they should hold.

Sault Ste. Marie
The NDP edged out the Conservatives by a mere 2.7% in 2008. The Liberals were far behind at 17% so it’s their turn to come out for the NDP and make sure the Conservatives don’t take this seat.

Sudbury
Different story in this riding, won by the NDP by 5% of the vote over the Liberal candidate, 35% to 30%. But here is the danger: what if these two bludgeon each other and the Conservatives, who took 26% of the vote the last time, come up the middle? So Liberal voters, swallow you pride this time and return an NDP member.

Thornhill
Peter Kent won this seat with 49% of the vote and looks a lock to repeat, unfortunately.

Welland
A classic three way split, with the NDP winning with 32.9% of the vote, the Conservatives at 32.3% and the Liberals at 27.9%. So anything can happen, including returning a Conservative, unless everyone is careful. Although it traditionally has been a Liberal riding, the NDP won it fair and square last time and as both the Liberals and the NDP are running the same candidates as in the last election, let’s keep it in their column.

York Centre
Ken Dryden only won this seat by 5.5% last time out over the Conservative candidate, with 43.3% of the vote. So, NDPers and Greens, let’s help to keep this Hall of Famer in the House in what has historically been an ultra Liberal riding.

Manitoba

Elmwood-Transcona
A narrow 5% win for the New Democrats over the Conservatives in a two man race. The 12% of the votes parked with the Liberals and Greens could be used to shore up the NDP’s support in this riding and keep it out of Conservative hands.

Saint Boniface
A huge swing of NDP votes to the Conservatives and a small drop in Liberal support secured a Tory win last time in this riding, which had been held by the Liberals for 76 of the 85 years since it was created in 1924. Time to atone for this transgression and either go back to voting NDP or, better still, give the Liberal candidate your vote this time.

Winnipeg South
Big win for the Conservatives with 49% of the vote. No real opportunity to unseat this MP without a meltdown in Tory support.

Winnipeg South Centre
The Liberals won this seat with a 6% lead over the Conservative candidate. It’s a pretty close win and some of the 21% of the vote taken by the NDP and Green combined could provide some insurance against a Tory surprise.

Saskatchewan

Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River
This riding, which covers the northern 60% of Saskatchewan and the population of which is 65% aboriginal, returned a Conservative the last time, with 47% of the vote, over second place Liberal novelty candidate David Orchard, the disgruntled Progressive Conservative, at 30% and the NDP at 18%. It will be a tough job, but the NDP has nominated Lawrence Joseph as their candidate for this election, a past Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, and maybe our First Nation brothers and sisters will do us all a favour this time and take down one more Conservative MP.

Palliser
The Conservative won this seat with 44% of the vote, a 10% point lead over the second place NDP candidate. There are enough votes between the Liberals at 17% and the Green Party at 5% to swing the riding to the NDP if everyone cooperates.

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
A real nail biter, with the Conservatives winning by less than 1% over the NDP candidate in a two woman race. The same two candidates are facing off again in this election and the 9% of the votes that went to the Liberals and Green Party combined in 2008 would easily put the NDP over the top.

Alberta

Edmonton Centre
A very comfortable win for the Conservatives with 49% of the vote, there is little prospect of any different result this time around.

Edmonton-Sherwood Park
This was a close win for the Conservative candidate Tim Uppal, with 36% of the vote, 3.4% ahead of Independent James Ford, a long time Conservative organizer and potential candidate aggrieved by the nomination process in 2008. They are both running again, with unpredictable results I suppose. But nothing good can come of this. Even if he wins, the Independent Mr. Ford would vote with the Conservatives in the House. The Western Block Party (the Western answer to the Bloc) might bleed a few votes away from these bitter rivals but it would be near impossible for the NDP vote at 13%, the Liberals at 11% and the Greens at 7% to coalesce around someone to come up the middle.

Edmonton-Strathcona
Better prospects in this riding, won by the NDP by a mere 463 votes, 1% of the total, over the now infamous Conservative/Alliance MP, Rahim Jaffer, in a two person contest. The 15% share garnered by the Liberals and Green Party could be put to good use by returning the NDP candidate.

British Columbia

Burnaby-Douglas
Won by the NDP by a very small 1.7% margin over the Conservatives, with the Liberals far behind, this is a riding where Liberal voters can make themselves useful by helping the New Democratic candidate keep his seat.

Burnaby-New Westminster
The NDP won big here in 2008, with 46% of the vote, 16% ahead of the Conservative candidate. Keep up the good work.

Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca
This is a very strange one. This riding was left vacant by Keith Martin’s retirement from politics. He had held the riding since 1993 first as a Reform Party candidate (beating the NDPs ex-BC Premier Dave Barrett), then the Alliance, then as an Independent after the formation of the Conservative Party of Canada, then holding the seat as a Liberal since 2004. So clearly, a deeply committed personal following in his riding kept him in office. So who will succeed this socially liberal, fiscally conservative maverick? Keith Martin barely edged out Conservative Troy de Souza, who is running again, by only 68 votes in 2008. There is no strong loyalty to the Liberal Party in this riding so the new Liberal candidate will not likely be very successful. The best bet for keeping the Conservatives out is the NDP candidate, Randall Garrison, who placed a good second to Keith Martin in in 2004 and 2006. So Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca progressives, get behind the NDP candidate if the Tories are to be shut out.

Fleetwood-Port Kells
Is it possible that Nina Grewal will keep her seat for the Conservatives? She carried the riding with 45% of the vote in 2008, over the Liberals at 26% and the NDP at 22%. The Liberals have placed second in this riding since 2004 and have room to grow having suffered some erosion in the last election. They have fielded a new candidate this time and with the help of the NDP voters, maybe they could give the Conservatives a run for their money.

Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo

The Conservatives won this riding with 46% of the vote, a comfortable 11% ahead of the NDP candidate in second place. It would take a large swing of Liberal and Green Party voters to unseat this Tory MP.

Nanaimo-Alberni

Same thing in this riding, which the Conservatives won with 47% of the vote, 15% ahead of the NDP candidate. The math to unseat this Conservative MP is very difficult indeed.

Nanaimo-Cowichan
The New Democrats won this seat by a margin of 7.6% over their nearest rivals, the Conservatives, a margin they should hold. But it would be nice to get some help from Green Party voters, representing nearly 10% of the electorate, and the other 7% of voters who voted Liberal.

Newton--North Delta
The Liberals won this seat by 5.5% over the Conservatives, who garnered 31% of the vote. There is a large NDP share as well at 26% so the temptation to go for it will be huge, risking a three way split with unpredictable results, including returning a Conservative MP. So, NDPers be patient and return the Liberal member this time.

New Westminster—Coquitlam
The NDP won this seat with 41.8% of the vote in 2008, just 3% ahead of the Conservatives in a two person race. The Liberal and Green vote combined represented 18% of the total so a just a moderate switch will help to keep this riding out of the clutch of the Conservatives.

North Vancouver
The Conservatives took this seat with 42% of the vote, 5% points more than the Liberals in second place in a two person race. Green Party and NDP votes ought to shift to the Liberals to put them on top this time around.

Saanich-Gulf Islands
Is there a more unimpressive minister than Gary Lunn? And from the Gulf Islands and all? Shameful. He only won by 4% over the Liberal candidate in 2008 so here is your chance to fix things. Green Party voters, over 10% of the vote, and NDP voters, hold your noses and put the Liberal in the House. It’s for your own good. Alternatively, if enough of you can get together on this, put Elizabeth May in the House. Now that would be a Member of Parliament worthy of your geography.

British Columbia Southern Interior
The NDP candidate won this riding comfortably, with 47% and a 12% point lead over the Conservative candidate. Should repeat but can always use a little help from the Green and Liberal voters, who represent 15% of the electorate.

Surrey North
Dona Cadman is running again for the Conservatives in this riding, carrying on the legacy of her late husband Chuck Cadman. She won it by a margin of only 3% over her NDP rival in 2008, in a two person race. The Liberals were far behind the front runners with a 15% share of the vote and should now get behind the NDP to take this riding away from the Conservatives.

Vancouver Centre
The Liberals won this seat with 35% and a 9% lead over the Conservatives. They should be able to maintain their hold on this riding, although if the Green Party and the NDP collaborated, they would have a 39% share of the vote. Your choice.

Vancouver North Island
The Conservatives took this riding with 46% of the vote, but only 4.4% ahead of the NDP candidate in a two person race. The combined 12% share of voters for the Green Party and the Liberals could have easily tilted the balance and given the win to the New Democrats. Don’t let it happen again.

Vancouver Kingsway
Another New Democratic seat, taken with a 35% share of the vote over the Liberals with 29% and the Conservatives with 27%. So a potentially dangerous three-way split if the Liberals and NDP go at each other while letting the Conservatives slip through unnoticed. Don’t take any chances, Liberals. Make sure enough of your votes go the NDP to make sure the Conservatives don’t win.

Vancouver Quadra
The Liberals won this seat with 46% of the vote and a 9% margin over the Conservatives. So, it should be safe but why take a chance. The NDP vote, at 8% of the total, is not doing anyone any good so why not provide some insurance against a Conservative win and go the Liberals’ way this time?

Vancouver South
One of the closest race in the 2008 election, with the Liberals winning by just 20 votes over the Conservatives, each with a 38% share of the vote. The same to candidates are going head to head this time so the 17% who voted NDP and the 5% who voted Green will determine the outcome. Don’t let it be a Conservative win.

West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country
The Conservatives won this riding with a seemingly insurmountable margin of 18%, but with only 44% of the vote. There is a very bad split in the remaining votes with the Liberals at 26% and the NDP and Green Party each at 14%. Seems intractable unless these relatively strongly held NDP and Green positions are temporarily abandoned in support of the Liberals, which does not seem likely.

Northwest Territory

Western Arctic
This single riding for the entire NWT has been held by the NDP since 2006, the last time by a narrow 3.8% margin over the Conservatives in a two person race thanks to a huge shift of Liberal votes to the Conservatives. This time, do us a favour and go back to the Liberals or support the NDP. Whatever you do, you hold the key to keeping the Conservatives out.

Nunavut
This single riding for Nunavut has been represented by Leona Aglukkaq since 2008, who won by a 5.8% margin in an election that saw a large drop in Liberal support. The Liberals are putting up a very strong candidate this time in the person of Paul Okalik, the first Premier of Nunavut. May the best candidate win.

Stumbling and bumbling through 2010

The PM offered his year end assessment today on the occasion of the New Year. According to him, it was a momentous year for Canada: a record medal haul at the Winter Olympics (can’t really claim credit for this, but why not?), the economy didn’t tank as badly as our neighbour’s (can’t really take credit for this either, but why not?), we held the G8/G20 summits, seven law and order bills were passed and we’re still in Afghanistan. Pretty slim pickings for a momentous year. My recollection is that it was indeed a momentous year, but for very different reasons.

One year ago at this time, the PM informed the Governor General by phone that he was proroguing Parliament. No more actually going in person and sweating it out for an hour or so for permission as he had done the year before. As has become abundantly clear, there was absolutely no basis in law, convention or tradition for this unilateral suspension of Canada’s legislative branch by the executive. We have learned that it really was politically motivated, to stall and deflect the opposition from pursuing the Afghan detainee question. This ranks as the most serious assault on Canada’s democratic institutions since Confederation, along with the previous year’s prorogation of Parliament to avoid a confidence motion in the House. It was truly momentous, and not in a good way.

The Afghan detainee question did not go away, however, and led to the brink of another constitutional crisis. The government’s constant rear guard action to delay, stall and deflect Parliament’s legitimate request for access to information on this question finally led to an historic ruling by the Speaker of the House, reaffirming Parliamentary supremacy. It should never have been cast in doubt, and indeed was not by anyone except the current government. This was another momentous occasion, again not in a good way. Even after the ruling, the government continued to stall, bordering on contempt, and finally negotiated a protocol, as ordered by the Speaker, to give Parliamentarians access to sensitive security information. The issue then dropped off the radar as the three-party committee pored over thousands of pages of documents. The NDP, to their credit, refused to sign on to the protocol, fearing it would be used by the government for further obfuscation and delay. They may well have been correct in their assessment as it has been nearly one year since the committee started its review and it has not yet reported.

Michaelle Jean’s term as governor general ended, marked by the two prorogation crises. On the occasion, much was written in the news on the first of the two prorogations. I was struck by the comments of constitutional scholar Peter Russell, who was in the heat of the action, having been summoned by the Governor General to advise her on how to deal with the Prime Minister’s request.

Russell's revelation suggests the meeting that day was a negotiation in which the Governor General wielded considerable power.

"She made it clear these reserve powers of the Governor General may sometimes be used in ways that are contrary to the advice of an incumbent prime minister," Russell said.

"Because if the contrary was the case, any PM could, at any time, for any reason, not only dissolve Parliament, but prorogue it for any length of time for any reason. We wouldn't have parliamentary government. We would have prime ministerial government."

Well, if this was supposed to be a demonstration of the GG’s powers and an object lesson for the Prime Minister, it was clearly lost on him, as, one year later, he demonstrated that he could in fact prorogue Parliament, at any time, for any reason, for any length of time.

This disregard for constitutional restrictions on the power of the state was further evidenced by the security arrangements made for the G8/G20 summits in Toronto. A state of siege, the unannounced invocation of an old statute to suspend civil liberties and increase police powers during the summit, hundreds of unwarranted arrests and detentions, it was an ugly spectacle for the world to see but perhaps a true reflection of the state of the law in our country. It was the single largest mass arrest and “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history” according to Andre Marin, the provincial Ombudsman of Ontario, outstripping even the invocation of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970. Truly momentous.

If the first half of 2010 was a tragedy for constitutional government and civil liberties in Canada, the second half played out as a farce. First, using their usual modus operandi for these types of things - sneaking through changes unannounced under media blackouts - the Conservatives continued their vandalism campaign against time honoured Canadian institutions by cancelling the 2011 long form census. This is a decision so devoid of sense or reason that it borders on the theater of the absurd and would be hilarious if the consequences were not so dire. For the first time since Confederation, basic social and demographic information on which governments at all levels, business and civil society rely will not be available for 2011, breaking a century long time series.

In the second act, the scene moves overseas where we learn that Canada will be kicked out of Camp Mirage by the United Arab Emirates in a dispute over commercial landing rights for Emirates Airways in Canada, a diplomatic blunder of epic proportions really. Not only did it create a totally unnecessary conflict with the most moderate and westernized Arab nation in the world, it directly compromised the main air supply line for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, this government’s top foreign policy priority. In contrast, RIM announced in the very same week that it concluded an agreement with the UAE to avoid the banning of BlackBerries on its territory. Could we get Balsillie as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Or maybe the PM needs to read How to Win Friends and Influence People. Because, he doesn’t seem to get that influencing people is the very essence of diplomacy. Heather Scoffield summarized the PM’s approach to diplomacy brilliantly when she wrote “Prime Minister Stephen Harper will take full advantage of the G20 podium on Friday to poke a finger in the eyes of the other leaders”.

In the climax of our opera buffa, Canada is rebuffed in its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, the first time ever that this founding member and long-time uber-supporter of the UN fails to obtain a place at the Security Council table. This in spite of the charm offensive, or is it the offensive charm, of the Prime Minister and key ministers in New York, which they unfortunately had to interrupt to rush back to Ottawa for a scheduled vote in the House on the long gun registry, (another tragi-comedy, a government policy masquerading as a private member’s bill, which this time had a happy ending), returning just in time for the most humiliating foreign policy failure in Canadian diplomatic history.

Much ink has been spilled analysing the detailed why’s and the wherefore’s of this stunning defeat, but fundamentally, it was a repudiation by the world community of not only the style but of the very substance of our foreign policy under this government. A foreign policy built on hard rather than soft power, Canada as a warrior nation. In the Prime Minister’s own words:

He said if Canada wants to be taken seriously on the world stage, it has to rebuild its military’s ability to act decisively at home and globally. Flanked by Defence Minister Peter MacKay and rank and file members of the Canadian military, Harper said the spending plan will ensure Canada can meet its commitments.

“Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player,” he said. “You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to.”

I am afraid this is exactly what has become of Canada’s international presence as a result of the foreign policy of the current government.

The year ended like most classic farces, with servants running hither and tither, tripping over themselves, and saying the most outlandish, hilarious things. Like, Dimitri Soudas on ministerial responsibility in the context of the government’s order to bar political aides from testifying before Parliamentary committees:

“We’re not in the United States here, where the American Congress calls people, grills them and does whatever they want,” Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister’s communications director, said Sunday on CTV’s Question Period.

“We are in Canada here, and our constitutional principle is very simple. It is ministerial responsibility. Ministers are the ones who are accountable for the policy, the operation and the decisions made by their staffers.”

Except when the staffers in question have been found to systematically tamper with and impede access to information requests, that is. In such cases, ministerial responsibility somehow stops lower down and the staffer takes a bullet for the boss. Or Senator Michael Fortier’s understanding of ministerial responsibility in the case of irregularities in the disposal of Crown real estate worth $1.5 billion:

"The minister's not the CEO of the department. I'm there sort of like a non-executive chairman. That's always how I viewed my position in the department."
So where does the buck stop?
"The buck stops everywhere, in terms of the responsibility and before Parliament," said Fortier.

Or Minister of Public Safety Toews in the case of the young Chinese man who entered Canada disguised as an old man, complete with life-like full head mask, à la Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible:

He said that aside from the silicone mask, there was nothing unusual about the case, which came to light after CNN obtained a copy of an internal alert by the Canada Border Services Agency.
"In this particular case, as a result of a leak to a news agency it became public knowledge," Toews said.

Or Minister of Defense MacKay, to whose brain power combined with Minister of Public Works and Government Services Rona Ambrose the procurement of the F-35 fighter jet has been entrusted:

"It is the central nervous system of the aircraft itself, while our pilots are the hearts and brains," said MacKay.

Someone should tell Peter that the brain is the most important part of the central nervous system. At least, he’s not the Minister of Health.

Or Minister of Foreign Affairs Cannon, on the UN Security Council debacle:

“Let me clarify that: I don't want to indicate that we did or did not get support from the United States. I want to make that clear,” the minister said.

And finally, the Prime Minister, on the seal hunt:

"It is a disgrace that they're treated this way in some countries based upon no facts or information whatsoever, so we strongly object to the decision," said Harper.

Hahaha, making decisions based upon no facts or information whatsoever. Stop it, that’s too funny. This guy is killing me.

Well, here’s wishing all of you a Happy New Year in 2011. I certainly hope it will be a less momentous year, for all our sakes.

In Flanders Fields

Whatever one may think of the military and those who enter it, those who complete their service whole deserve our appreciation, those who leave it hurt, broken and disabled deserve our support and the survivors of those who never came back our undying condolences for their loss. Whether or not we support the missions they undertook, it was on our behalf that they served, in two World Wars, in Korea, in UN Peacekeeping and other missions, such as in Bosnia and more recently in Afghanistan. Remembrance Day is upon us and so it is a good time to reflect on whether we, as a nation, are upholding the sacred trust that was passed to us from failing hands in Flander Fields, these many years ago.

You see, I can speak of these things with feeIing, and some knowledge, having spent the first sixteen years of my career in the public service of Canada with the Department of Veterans Affairs, an entirely fitting vocation for a young pacifist. In the early seventies, I was a Correspondence Clerk, or a letter writer, for the Canadian Pension Commission, the agency that administered the Pension Act, under which disability pensions were awarded to veterans. At that time, the report of the Wood Committee formed the basis of a government White Paper in 1969 under Trudeau, which led to a major revision of the Pension Act in 1971. Two changes were of particular importance: one that established that in inconclusive cases, the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, the second that any veteran whose application for pension had been denied at any time prior could resubmit an application under the revised Act. The Royal Canadian Legion took this up with gusto and put on a wide ranging information campaign. It resulted in a flood of applications, swamping the Commission's ability to keep up. Processing times for new applications stretched to three years, prompting many anxious enquiries. This to say that I have read and replied to literally thousands of letters from veterans or their widows and know firsthand what the ongoing link between the veteran and the Department really means. It is, in and of itself, a form of on-going recognition: you will never be forgotten, we will always be there for you.

This is why I was pained and shocked to learn that under the new Veterans Charter, passed in 2006, the disability pension, which was a monthly benefit, indexed annually and continuously adjusted for evolving levels of disability, with additional amounts paid for spouses and dependent children, was changed to a one-time lump sum disability award. Here is your money, Charley. Goodbye.

Not only that, but the lump sum is a paltry amount compared to the pension that would have been payable over the lifetime of the veteran. For example, in the case of 100% disabled veteran, say a quadriplegic, the one time disability award would be $276,000, whereas a disability pension would have amounted to $2,895,000 over the lifetime of the veteran and his spouse (assuming they were both 28 at the time of discharge, with a life expectancy of 72 and 78 years, respectively.)

This is because the disability award is meant to recognize and compensate only for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability, such as pain and suffering, whereas the disability pension provided compensation for both the severity of the disability and its impact on earning capacity. Under the new Charter, other benefits are available to deal with economic impact such as the Earning Loss benefit, the Permanent Impairment Allowance, Rehabilitation costs, but these are subject to other application processes and are conditional on participation in the Rehabilitation program and going through other hoops under the Financial Benefits program. Even if all available programs are accessed, the total benefit available is still nearly $300,000 less than the disability pension, and no survivor benefits. (It's even worse for a moderately disabled veteran, say 40% disability: pension = $646, 000; disability award, all available benefits accessed = $214,000, barely one third of the pension amount).

Why make it harder for veterans to get the full compensation they deserve? According to Veterans Affairs "clients receiving large monthly disability pensions did not have any incentive to transition to civilian life."

Well, as I have related above, I have read and replied to thousands of letters from veterans and their widows and transitioning to civilian life was not an issue. Veterans with service related disabilities were for the most part proud, self reliant types who worked to the full extent of their limited capacities, and beyond. A blind medical examiner, a double amputee Minister, a one-armed statistical clerk: they all drew a pension, a fitting thank you from Canada, and kept on serving. If we want to help veterans reintegrate civilian life, it should not be done on the back of their pension entitlement. I am afraid this is more "homo economicus" thinking, using money to incentivize everything. Anyone who has served knows that there are other, more powerful motivations in life.

Our newer, younger veterans are definitely getting a raw deal under the new Veterans Charter. Yesterday, a new Veterans Ombudsman was appointed. Hopefully, he will continue to take up the cause as vigorously as his predecessor. Today, November 6, veterans are taking to the streets in protest. This is a very, very rare occurrence and if it has come to that, you know that something is wrong. All of us should be protesting and telling our political leaders it doesn't matter under whose watch these changes to the Veterans Charter were introduced. Just fix it.

Scrap the National Household Survey?

I left off on my last post suggesting that if the voluntary National Household Survey is to go forward, it should be completely decoupled from the Census. (The recent court challenge brought by the Canadian Council for Social Development provides faint hope for another possible outcome, and I will comment on this in a future post).

But, assuming that the content previously collected in the census long form is now to be collected on a voluntary basis, what would be the best way to proceed if this proposition were to be considered coolly and rationally, instead of in the rushed, under the gun, last minute manner that was played out after Statistics Canada was punk'd by the government last spring? The NHS as currently planned has problems numerous and deep, to the point of being fatally flawed. Running it as part of the census operation, in the weeks immediately following the census, puts the census itself at risk. I am convinced that it will be much more difficult this time to get the cooperation of Canadians even for the mandatory census. I think we can safely predict that thousands will refuse to fill out the Census, even if it is mandatory, and openly challenge the government to coerce them to do so, under the threat of fines or jail, knowing full well that the Prime Minister and his cabinet support their resistance. It will take all of Statistics Canada's skill and energy, over a much longer period than usual, to get a good outcome just for the basic Census. Throwing the voluntary NHS into the mix as part of the Census operation will only compound the problem and risk a meltdown of the whole system. (As an aside, when Statistics Canada was ordered to bring forth a voluntary option for the long form content, I imagine they thought that this one, the NHS, was too outlandish ever to be selected by Cabinet: more response burden, less reliable data, more expensive - a loser all down the line.)

So, move the NHS as far away from the Census as possible for the sake of preserving the integrity of the census itself. There is no deadline for the NHS, and, unlike the census, no requirement that it be held at a given time. Since 1986, post-censal surveys, linked to the Census, but operationally distinct from it, have been conducted many months after the census. For example, in the case of the 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey, data were collected from August to October 1991, several months after the 2001 Census Day, which was June 4, 1991. More recently, data collection for the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities took place from October 2006 to January 2007, nearly six months after the 2006 Census. So, there should be no problem shifting the NHS back in time so that it is well clear from Census data collection. Even though there may be a lag in reference dates between the Census and the follow up survey, this has not caused any quality issues for post-censal surveys in the past nor should it pose any problem for the NHS now.

The second problem will be getting any cooperation at all from Canadians to fill out this voluntary survey. Moving it several months after the census will help, but all those who resisted filling out the census proper will almost surely refuse to complete the NHS. Many of those who agree with the government's point of view that these questions are intrusive or outright silly will gladly take advantage of its voluntary nature and refuse to respond. Among those who disagree with the government's decision to discontinue the mandatory long form, a not uncommon reaction will be to show their displeasure by boycotting the NHS. And those who simply find it burdensome, who are too busy, or who feel that they have already done their civic duty by completing the mandatory census, will just let it slide. So, I believe the controversy surrounding this decision, and the confused and mixed messages coming from the government have poisoned the well and have made it nearly impossible to achieve even the modest 50% response rate that Statistics Canada now expects.

The third problem is the sheer size of the thing. One third of households: over 4 million questionnaires! That's crazy. You can get reliable estimates of social characteristics of the population for all Census Metropolitan Areas, representing over 85% of the Canadian population, with a sample of 25,000 (see the General Social Survey). The Labour Force Survey, which provides estimates of employment for all CMAs, economic regions and EI regions, uses a sample of around 54,000 households. The Canadian Community Health Survey uses a sample of 65,000 respondents annually to produce detailed health variables for 121 subprovincial health regions. How can they do it with such small numbers, orders of magnitude smaller than the planned sample size for the NHS?

Three reasons. First, the sample sizes for these surveys do not support estimates for small areas, such as city blocks, census tracts (which are like neighbourhoods) and small rural communities. The expectation, or rather the hope, is that the very large sample size of the NHS will support the production of this type of small area data (which is the main strength of the mandatory census). Second, these surveys acheive higher response rates than what is anticipated for the NHS. The sample for the voluntary NHS consists of one in three households because a response rate of no better than 50% is expected, yielding about the same number of usable responses as the 1 in 5 sample did for the mandatory census. Third, these surveys do not fear non-response bias (i.e. where the characteristics of non-respondents are systematically different from those of respondents, thus skewing estimates to represent only respondents and not the whole population). This is because, up until now, they have been able to compare their estimates of these characteristics to a benchmark, the mandatory census, and to correct for any biases they find. This is what the NHS will not be able to do, regardless of its sample size. So in summary, the very large sample size was chosen so as to support the production of small area data, it was bumped up by 50% to account for high expected non-response but in the end the resulting data will nonetheless contain unmeasurable biases that will make it suspect. Why try to produce small area data if you can't stand behind the results? Actually, why try to produce estimates for any area if you can't stand behind the results? It makes no sense.

And that takes us to the last, and most serious problem with the NHS as currently planned, non-response bias. All surveys are subject to non-response bias. In the case of sample surveys like those mentioned above (GSS, LFS, CCHS), the presence of bias can be detected by comparing their estimates to the census estimates, which is taken as an accurate benchmark, and correcting for any bias detected. How do we know that the Census itself does not contain non-response bias. Actually we don't, but because it is mandatory and response rates of 97% or 98% are achieved, any bias is so small as to have no practical effect on the estimates. So the census can confidently be used as a benchmark to detect and correct for biases in other sample surveys. As previously mentioned, this cannot be done for the NHS. With response rates of 50% or less, the potential for non-response bias is huge but without a benchmark against which to compare, such as the mandatory census, the biases cannot measured or corrected. The only remedy for this would be to have a data source with a 98% response rate, for the same population for the same reference period, a practical impossibility. (In addition, the NHS estimates containing unknown and unmeasurable bias cannot serve as a benchmark for other sample surveys, as the census did, leaving surveys such as the GSS, LFS and CCHS, and all other household sample surveys, high and dry). So this leads to a major impasse. Why conduct a massive survey, burdening one third of Canadian households, and costing $110 million, to produce data no one can trust?

So what's to be done? The long form variables are very valuable to data users, as demonstrated by the near unanimous outcry against the government's decision. So it's not a question of just scrapping the NHS and leaving it at that. If I was blue skying about what to do for a replacement, I think I would give up on the small area data. That is specifically the price of abandoning the mandatory nature of the census. It is what the mandatory census can give you that no other vehicle can. If this was not made clear when the decision was taken, it should have been. But what is done is done and there is no way to make it better. So aim for a sample design to support quality data at a higher level of geography. Maybe all CMAs and CAs and some broad rural areas per province. Then, I would try to reduce expected non-response. Divorce it from the census and the name "National Household Survey", which is now like response kryptonite. Break it down into manageable, less burdensome, content modules and spread it out over time, thus exercising the longer term strategy of using the census infrastructure for sample surveys. Then, I would try to deal with response bias by running a split panel for each content module, with a mandatory and a voluntary component, allowing the survey to essentially benchmark itself.

In the end, while still not as useful was the mandatory census, such an approach would provide more useful, usable data than the NHS as currently planned, for less money, less response burden and less damage to the national statistical system.