Mr Kleb....Canadian Elections!!!

[Sir Winston]

I noticed that you wrote a post earlier today on your blog and how this was going to be your first chance to vote in a Canadian election since becoming a citizen. I was just curious what your impressions were of today's election.

John Oliver had a bit of fun with it last night, and some things struck me as interesting. First, the entire election only lasted 78 days, which to Canadians might seem like a long time, but would be welcome here in the states, where they drag on forever. The second thing I heard was that the Canadian debates were much more substantive and less salacious than the U.S. primary debates have been so far, although I have not watched any of the Canadian debates.

It appears that there is a mix of public and private election financing, although I'm not sure about all of the particulars. At any rate, it seems preferable to our private system, where members of Congress and presidential candidates spend anywhere between 30-70 percent of their time fundraising, and there are no limits to how much an individual can give to a Super PAC.

It looks like the Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau, is projected to win the most seats. It will be interesting to see how accurate the polls are compared to the U.S. polls (which were mostly correct in 2012) or the UK polls earlier this year (which greatly understated support for David Cameron and the Tories).

What have been the most pressing issues of the election? How long did you have to wait to vote?

[kimbersmom]

Great questions! I'm already tired of the 2016 US elections, lol.

[Mr Kleb]

I noticed that you wrote a post earlier today on your blog and how this was going to be your first chance to vote in a Canadian election since becoming a citizen. I was just curious what your impressions were of today's election.

Thank you for asking! I've been surfing among CBC, Macleans (a news magazine), iPolitics (political blog) and the Blue Jays game.

What have been the most pressing issues of the election? How long did you have to wait to vote?

I'll tackle the last question first. Faye and I voted shortly after 4 this afternoon and didn't have to wait at all.

The Big Issue has been change versus stay the course. (I will try very hard to be as fair as possible.) Stephen Harper and the Progressive Conservatives have touted their record on the economy, keeping taxes low, opening and expanding international trade, and a more 'muscular' foreign policy. Tom Mulcair's New Democratic Party and Trudeau's Liberals both dispute Harper's management of all these issues and add that his total inaction on climate change, his secrecy, his dismantling of government ministries, unilateral rule of Parliament, and significant trust/ethical issues make him unfit to continue as Prime Minister.

Harper's base has been an alliance of social and/or religious conservatives, small government advocates, economically lower-middle and lower class voters, and advocates of, um, 'enhanced, low tax' opportunities for business. Sound familiar? These groups make up about 30% of the electorate. Because the NDP and Liberals split the centre and left vote, Harper's strategy has been to hold the base and dangle enough tax credits at the middle class to eke out enough elected Members of Parliament to keep power.

Fairness switched off.

My opinion is that the Harper government has been awful. He's secretive, has used bullying tactics to run government, has been caught in at least two obvious lies (Google 'Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright'). Our mandatory long-form census, once lauded worldwide, has been replaced by a simple voluntary census which is an embarrassment. His handling of the Keystone XL affair has been poor at best - he once said 'We won't take no [from the US] for an answer.' Our governments' relations overall with the US are poor. He's relentlessly pushed the Trans Pacific Partnership as a good thing for Canada. Perhaps it is but there is deep unease, and long memories of how NAFTA is perceived to have ruined Canada's manufacturing sector. Harper has refused to meet with provincial premiers and treated First Nations (native or Indian) leaders with disrespect. My sense of world opinion is that Canada (hopefully only the government and not all Canadians) has lost much respect; we are no longer seen as evenhanded and fair-minded. Harper has resorted to despicable dog-whistle tactics including a stupid, pointless campaign to bar niqab-wearing women from taking the citizenship oath; this one backfired on him.

It appears that Mr. Trudeau has a strong minority; a majority is within reach. I hope Mr. Harper does the right thing and keeps his word to resign as party leader.

I'll post more tomorrow. It's getting late and I get up at 5AM.

[Tanya]

And it's a majority for the liberals - which is a bit of a surprise. When people decide they want change they can really go all out! It looks like the number of people who actually voted may be up quite a bit which is nice, good to see people voting (regardless of who they vote for). I do feel bad for the NDP though.

[Anna Scott]

Thank you Mr Kleb. I am not usually a political animal but your comments on Mr Harper seem to be spot on. Someone said that Canadians don't to elect a new government, they vote to get rid of an old one. I think this was very true in this case. I too feel badly for Mr Mulcare and the NDP. They took a real hit that might not reflect their true governing abilities. Seems that the one promise Mr Harper has made that he will keep is that he will now resign.

[Sir Winston]

Thanks for the reply, Mr. Kleb.

I believe I would support NDP or the Liberals if I were able to vote in Canada. It's hard to imagine that Harper had many fresh ideas to offer after having been in office for 9 years. Not to mention I'm pretty liberal on most issues.

I think that Trudeau's desire to invest in infrastructure, legalize marijuana and shift the tax burden so that it is more progressive are all good ideas, and I would like to see the U.S. follow suite. I've read that he supports TPP, which is where I'd disagree.

I think it's more than perception - NAFTA has been awful for the U.S. as well. My home county (where my entire family still lives) of about 50,000 lost 2,000 manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010 thanks to NAFTA and CAFTA - and those jobs certainly didn't go to Canada! The town's economic fortunes are just abysmal now. I got out and moved to a larger city but I'm concerned about the future of my parents and siblings. My view is that free trade with countries that have a similar standard of living isn't a bad thing, but there's no way American or Canadian workers can compete with labor in the developing world. Automation (which I concede is an inevitable consequence of technological advancements) has only compounded the problem.

What's worse is that labor unions (what's left of them) and workers generally have been betrayed by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on this issue. Despite claiming to be progressives, they're carrying water for conservative business interests. Like Clinton with NAFTA, Obama got no protections and little aid for displaced workers in this TPP deal. NAFTA, CAFTA, and our trade deal with China have created a huge trade deficit. We're hemorrhaging capital investments to other countries. Sure, you get cheaper consumer goods but many Americans can scarcely afford to buy them when wages have been stagnant for 15 years - a direct result of the intense downward pressure global labor markets are putting on American wages. And the environmental and labor standards included to help workers in the developing world are a joke. Child labor, forced labor, abhorrent working conditions, and violence against union organizers are rampant in many of those countries.

It's one of many ways that private money from corporations and the mega-wealthy have poisoned the political process. Both parties now bend the knee.

[Jeff]

I think that Trudeau's desire to invest in infrastructure, legalize marijuana and shift the tax burden so that it is more progressive are all good ideas, and I would like to see the U.S. follow suite. I've read that he supports TPP, which is where I'd disagree.

The biggest problem is the culture here in the U.S. I honestly prefer talking to Canadians and have a great many Canadians as friends. By reading this thread there is much logic and wisdom, there are valid reasons for opinions and they all bear merit to thoughtfully evaluate. Some of my Canadian friends and I have very good discussions on books, philosophy and several ideas. Canadians both abroad and those that live here, being so close to the border there are many Canadians that I work with that commute.

However, unfortunately the culture in the US is highly based in fear politics and sensationalism. This leaves unfortunately little room for common sense and thoughtful discussion. I honestly can not remember the last time I had a thoughtful and meaningful conversation about politics here in the US with another American. You have no idea how many emails I get per week forwarded to me from someone that so believes the fear and sensationalism in the email they have to forward it to everyone they know, yet the entire email is a lie.

I see more and more Pete's in real life. Not to his extreme but a lot jumping on the fear bandwagon especially now the election stuff is ramping up again.

[Mr Kleb]

Sir Winston you asked about campaign finance. Regulations here are (by US standards) quite strict. Interest groups - unions, business, single issue organisations - are particularly tightly regulated in contribution disclosure, and spending, after the writ drops (after the election is called). National parties, candidates, and riding associations (the party groups responsible for promoting their party and its candidate in a specific area, analogous to a Congressional district) are also regulated in disclosure and spending, particularly during an election. Individuals are restricted in how much they can contribute to parties and candidates. I think that interest groups cannot contribute directly to a party or candidate. While money does play a role here its influence is far less corrosive. For now.

As I said parties, candidates, and riding associations are more strictly regulated during a campaign. You may be interested to learn that they can be reimbursed by Elections Canada for a percentage of money spent during a campaign. The federal Conservative party started the campaign with an enormous war chest and I have heard that it's now in deficit.

Justin Trudeau has an ambitious, even visionary, agenda. Giving university graduates more time to repay student loans. Killing the F-35 procurement program (yay!) and redirecting the money to a more appropriate air defence plane and to shoring up our decrepit navy. Reopening dialogue with premiers and mayors. Running a deficit for the next three years to fund infrastructure improvements. Becoming an active participant in climate change negotiations beginning in Paris next month. Instituting a carbon tax, or a carbon credit (pay a tax on the carbon you use and receive a tax credit). Seating a cross-party committee to propose doctor-assisted dying legislation; last February our Supreme Court directed government to act on this. Revisiting and likely revising Bill C-51, which is alleged to be anti-terrorism legislation. There is more. I'm skeptical he can achieve all of this even with a majority. I'm also skeptical of his support for TPP and for Keystone XL. Yet in politics as in the real world you don't get everything you want.

Unions here, especially public sector unions, are battered and have poor optics. Rightly or wrongly they are seen as promoting sloth, wastefulness, poor service, and so on. When someone trots this trope out I reply that unions and union shops, have no monopoly on these qualities.

As Mr. Winston and Jeff point out, political discussion up here is largely very civil (though it can be spirited!). Though I know a few people who are impossible to engage in civil discussion for the most mart people agree to disagree and leave it at that. Mr. Harper and his Cabinet have ruled with a spirit of meanness, spite, and Fear of the Other for too long. It's good that that is done.

[Sir Winston]

Yet in politics as in the real world you don't get everything you want.

Isn't that the truth? I want Bernie Sanders to be the next president but realistically it'll probably be Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio taking the Oath in January 2017.

As Mr. Winston and Jeff point out, political discussion up here is largely very civil (though it can be spirited!). Though I know a few people who are impossible to engage in civil discussion for the most mart people agree to disagree and leave it at that. Mr. Harper and his Cabinet have ruled with a spirit of meanness, spite, and Fear of the Other for too long. It's good that that is done.

I always say that it's a selection effect. The polite, deferential people who decided the English weren't so bad headed north to Canada and the demanding, rabble-rousing radicals fought for the revolution and settled in the American colonies. Those traits continue to manifest themselves in our respective societies.

The Canadians have a more European style of government, whereas the Americans do their own thing. Each approach has its features and flaws. I think the American Bill of Rights and Constitution is a remarkable achievement. But institutionally I prefer parliamentary systems to presidential systems because they create less distortion of voter preferences and are more stable/less dysfunctional due to the fusion of legislative and executive authority.

[krosen]

All I can say is thank goodness for the results, it's about damn time, lol. Well now everyone knows how I voted :-)