And the alleged emu:

After clicking through the Flash website, I found that the website basically provides a link to two components: (1) A contest entry form, and (2) An on-line "diary". It's basically a piece of fiction, and is required to complete the "skill-testing questions" on the entry form.

The contest prizes are actually fairly impressive. The Grand Prizes are 3 "Canadian Adventures" worth up to $5000 per trip. There is a large variety of adventures, including a tour of an ostrich farm in Ontario (yes, and I really wish that I were making this up). There are also thirty backpacks to be won, worth approximately $200 each (reminding me that I'm in the wrong profession).

The on-line "diary" is an interesting piece of work. It's a diary of a cross-Canada trip (complete with cheesy music and everything), and it attempts to give subtle hints to the reader of the importance of voting. Here's one quotation, after a diary entry about tattoos:

...tattoos are a way of expressing yourself, like making music, debating with your friends, or choosing one brand over another.

Okay, that's innocuous enough. The subtext in this message is that "expressing oneself" can take different forms (such as filling out a ballot. Get it? Get it?). However, after reading more of the diary, I feel as if an anvil fell on my head:

...She thought that MPs have no power... Now that she’s got to know them better, she has a better understanding of what they really do. Her MP listened to her... Sometimes we think that just one person can't make a difference. But we're not so insignificant after all!

And yes, the diary does include the trite saying, "if you don't vote, you can't complain". Sigh.

Despite these criticisms, I believe that this marketing campaign is a good idea, and is better than the Chief Electoral Officer sitting on his hands. I think that this campaign deserves an "E" for Effort.

As I wrote in my previous post on the subject, talking about the *differences* that he claims I didn't address:

As for why this may affect younger voters more, the answer to me is simple: habit. Older voters tend to keep their old habits of voting and taking politics seriously, even when it doesn't deserve it. Younger people have less of such a habit. When politics wanes, so does the attraction of civic responsibility.

So in other words, I consider the focus on the decline of the youth vote to be an unnecessary distraction, since

1. There is no distinct youth vote; there is only new voter uptake.
2. The reasons for the decline in this uptake are not different from the reasons for older, more habituated voters dropping out.
3. The appearance of a difference in uptake as one moves down the generations is simply a result of the increasing lack of habituation of younger voters, due to 1 impeding 2.
4. The drop in uptake and habituation is due to the decline in role of government/decmocratic institutions in society, aided and abetted (or at least acceded to) by dominant political parties.

This topic warrants more discussion and thought. However, I'd urge Steve not to confuse the youth turnout debate with the declining turnout debate. And if Steve thinks that declining youth turnout is a separate issue (something I've seen no evidence of), I'd ask that he keep that separate as well.

Consequently, efforts to determine why young people don't vote should be replaced by efforts to determine why people in general don't vote--why participation overall is declining. And to this I have provided my own answer before; yes, a "partisan" answer, one that has to do with the content of politics itself. It's better than chasing after patronizing "youth vote" epiphenomena.

This is a platform long on generalities and short of specifics. To some extent that's true of all the party platforms, but it's especially notable here. In health care, for example, the plan is basically to create a plan and if you don't mind they'll figure it out after they are elected. So what you'd be voting for if you voted for the Liberals would be for Paul Martin and his ministers. You'd be saying, “whatever the Liberals come up with, I'm sure it'll be something I can live with.” Paul is asking you to trust him on this issue. The NDP, on the other hand, have said what they'll do. There's still a question of trust (do you think they'll do what they say they'll do) but at least they've said they'll increase funding to 25%, move patients outside the hospital as much as possible and reduce drug costs through a number of measures.

Most of the rest of the Liberal policy platform amounts to "a little bit of money for the following", or "we'll appoint someone to look into the problem", or "we've already done something about this and at most we'll maybe spend a bit more money on this."

In essence this is the policy platform of a party running on its' record. With the exception of Health Care (where the platform doesn't say what they'll do but the mutterings indicate partial privatization) the Liberals are saying they'll work something out, tweak things and make them work. "Trust us. We've done a good job for the last 12 years, we can do a good job for the next four." The problem with this, of course, is that those were the Chretien Liberals. After purging his government of them, it's a tad hypocritical to run on their record - and it's a tad dishonest as well - because they aren't in charge anymore.

The opinions of others may differ, but with the exception of what appears to be a very strong commitment to keep debt and deficit under control (which I believe, given Martin's record) I can't give this platform a thumb's up. There is no mention of the key drivers of health care cost increases (the aging population and drug costs) and the rest is either "same as before with some tweaking" or "we'll come up with a plan after you give us a mandate."

But, if you liked the Chretien Liberals and you think the Martin Liberals will rule the same then this platform is basically saying to you that that's their intention. So it comes down to a question of trust. Do you trust Martin? If so - the Liberals might still be for you.

But if I were you I'd demand some specifics on health care before dropping that ballot in the box.

See also " That Don't Look Like No Plan To Me", below on Points of Information.

The Liberals are slipping in the polls in Ontario. What does Martin do? He makes yet another stupid statement! Martin refuses to come forth and return money that was likely stolen by the Liberal Party through the sponsorship scandal. His former separatist Quebec lieutenant, Lapierre, does likewise in what seems to be a daily routine of his to say something stupid. What's the message we're supposed to take from this? That Martin and the Liberals want to steal money? Please Martin, you're going to lose if you keep doing this!

Speaking of losing, one of the best political commentators, in my opinion, Diane Francis is predicting a Harper win in this election.

[The Conservatives] are saying vote for us and you'll get a better deal and a better country.

By contrast, the Liberals are saying: Vote for us and we'll stop being corrupt and keep out of power those extremist, fascists from Western Canada.

Personally, I think she's jumping the gun, and I don't buy her argument that Ontarions tend to lie to pollsters and will shift their vote come election day—if so, why did the Reform and Canadian Alliance never pick up much more support on election day? Nonetheless, I think it's a strong statement of how poorly Martin is doing right now (whether this continues for another 31 days is an entirely different question).

Martin needs help and he won't get it from the Chretien Liberals he pissed of by shunning.

Paul Wells (link 1 an link 2) and Andrew Coyne (link) explain how Harper's success thusfar is largely because he hasn't taken any risks, something he can't keep up. Coyne's piece is particularly good.

Lastly, Andrew Coyne discusses how the media is focusing on Martin's every minor mistake as it did to Stockwell Day last time. The media, it seems, like to hit you on the little things when they don't like you. Coyne then then attacks Martin some more—I guess the media really doesn't like Martin.

Media coverage and questions of opponents reminded us that Martin was behind the initial cuts to health care, that he had failed to improve health care before despite similar money investment schemes, and that Premiers didn't think that the plan was adequate. Jack Layton and Stephen Harper then came out with their own health care plans. We have tried to fix health care before and we've failed. And there is clear disagrement on the approach to take. The average young voter is turned off by this haggling over details and approach. They think health policy should be simple and we should just fix the problem. This debate over details turns them off on politics.

Steve Smith then accepts then goes on to accept my other two arguments. However, he does raise a good point that voting by young people is lower now than it was in the past. He's right that my arguments don't explain this. But I wasn't trying to explain that—I was only arguing why voting is lower amongst young people compared to older people. The whole debate is why do young people vote in smaller numbers than the rest of society. If Steve wants to discuss the trend, that's an entirely different topic.

The first thing to note in answering this, however, is that all segments of the population vote less now than they did in the past. The decline in young voter turnout is just a reflection of a larger trend in decline of all segments of the population.

I think Steve does raise a couple of good points to explain this. His arguments that polling reduce the impetus for people to vote and that habit an duty are no longer strong motivators to vote are both well taken. However, I'd add that rising cynicism due to better knowledge of politicians actions has turned many people off from voting. As the media gets more exposure and better disseminates information to us, we have a better idea of the dirty side of politics and we see less of a reason to waste our time electing politicians who'll end up doing a poor job and wasting our money anyway.

This topic warrants more discussion and thought. However, I'd urge Steve not to confuse the youth turnout debate with the declining turnout debate. And if Steve thinks that declining youth turnout is a separate issue (something I've seen no evidence of), I'd ask that he keep that separate as well.

The Member for M. Mustafa Hirji posits that it is for three major reasons:
1. Young People prefer the world of moral absolutes to the shades of fuzzy gray on which electoral politics are founded.
2. Idealistic Young People are put off by the obvious cynicism of electoral politics.
3. Young People do not use many government services, nor do we pay for them.

To these postulations, Mr. Speaker, I offer the following refutations:
1. Election campaigns represent the only time in which the issues about which we care - poverty and gay marriage, to repeat the examples used by the Honourable Member - addressed. Election campaigns are a time of moral absolutes. Moreover, today's Young People are, if anything, *better* equipped to deal with the realities of politics, having been raised in a very cynical age.
2. There is undoubtedly something to this, and it's fair to say that many of the most idealistic people I know don't vote. However, this generation is hardly the most idealistic one to come along - why was voter turnout higher among Young People in the sixties? Politicians were no less corrupt, and Young People were certainly no more cynical.
3. This is true, and may be relevant. However, it's an argument that can be used to explain why Young People don't vote. It's not an argument that can be used to explain why children of the late seventies and early eighties don't vote, and that seems to be what's really up for debate - why *today's* Young People don't vote, while Young People of all previous generations have voted at much higher rates.

The arguments I made on my own blog (I offer my apologies to this House, Mr. Speaker, as I am unable to make links to individual entries work) are geared towards answering this question. In brief, the four explanations I offered were
1. Many Young People have never seen a change in government.
2. Polling makes voting seem redundant.
3. Young People lack the sense of duty that our elders had.
4. Contact with young politicians turns Young People off of politics.

The Honourable Member asks why polling would affect Young People disproportionately, to which I answer that voters who came of political age in earlier generations had already gotten in the habit of voting before polling came along and removed so much of the perceived purpose. Young People, by contrast, have never seen an election in which the results were in doubt, and see no reason to even acquire the democratic habit in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member further questions why, if our parents' generation rebelled against the argument of voting as a duty, why they are now voting more than us. The answer is that many of them never did - our parents' generation votes less than their parents' did. And, since our generation is getting mixed messages from our parents' generation, with some members of it urging us to vote and others showing little interest, it is predictable that members of our generation will take the path of least resistance and not vote, leading to even lower voter turnouts with each succeeding generation.

To close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the House's attention towards the figurative pudding, wherein the proof may be found. If the explanations put forward by the Honourable Member for M. Mustafa Hirji are the correct ones, we should see a pattern in which, in every election, Young People don't vote but in which as they age they take up voting. If his explanations are correct, Mr. Speaker, an individual's likelihood of voting in a given election is linked to that individual's age at the time of that election. This is not the pattern we see - eighteen to twenty-five year olds voted much more in the eighties than they do now, and more still in the sixties. My own explanations, Mr. Speaker, explain this, tying an individual's likelihood of voting in a given election not to that individual's age at that time, but to that individual's date of birth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Honourable Member: if his explanations are the correct ones, why has voter turnout been steadily declining among eighteen to twenty-five year olds? I urge him to consider the trend, and not merely the snapshot.

Alright. To rip off the immortal words of Zoot on the Muppets, what if you and I just get right down to it and fisk this little beauty, huh:

Yep. He sure has. No arguments there. It's one of his top priorities, along with democratic reform, the Innovation Agenda, urban renewal, aboriginal development, the Toronto Waterfront, and hanging out with Bono. Check.

Well, I'll take issue with Martin's characterization of the plan as "detailed" and "comprehensive", or even as a "plan", but okay. We'll let this one go for now. Check.

Now we get into the meat of the matter — let's read that again, with feeling this time: The plan calls for, yadda yadda yadda. This isn't actually a plan, which would set out what the proposals were, in at least some level of detail. Instead, this is a meta-plan, saying that "you know what, we'll plan that stuff later. We have no idea how to reform health care to decrease costs, but we'll hide that with smoke and mirrors and you'll buy it, because, well, we're the Liberal Party of Canada, and they're not.".

Go ahead, read the 10-page (devoid of any substance whatsoever) "plan" the Liberals put out. I'll wait for you.

The Liberals are proposing five prongs:

• Stable, predictable long term funding --- sure, like the "stable funding" that took the federal share of medicare costs from the "guarantee" of 50% that it started with to about 16% now, or the massive cuts that Paul Martin shepherded in the'90s?
• Working with provinces to measure waiting times, and then put money to cutting them --- we have a rocket scientist here! Of course it makes sense to monitor waiting times. That's why provinces are already doing this. So what's new here? $4 billion. Oh, the innovation!
• Training more doctors --- another Liberal brainwave. Will the wonders never cease? (Guess what, the provinces are already on it.)
• Come to an agreement with the provinces on home care and pharmacare --- these really should have been dealt with back when Medicare was being set up, but whatever. This isn't exactly innovative, considering that it was in your Red Book ten years ago.
• Enforce the Canada Health Act by ... not fining provinces!. Okay, whatever.

Let's continue: The Liberal party announced an additional $3 billion in funding to the provinces to meet these commitments.

Okay. So they announced it. But what does that really mean? BC spends 10.7 billion (42% of the provincial budget) on health each year; Alberta, 7.996 billion (37%); Québec, about 20.1 billion (37%); and Ontario, about 29.7 billion (37%). (Yeah, what's included in that number varies from province to province, but that's not the important thing here.)

Now, just adding up the numbers for the big four provinces, that comes out to 68.5 billion dollars, already being spent on health care. I'm guessing that adding the other provinces would push it up to just below 100 billion dollars, each year already being spent on health care by the provinces. Put in context, that $3 billion commitment the Liberals are making is meaningless — it gets swamped by the increases in costs due to new medical procedures, wage settlements with staff, and the aging of the Canadian population.

Sure, the Liberals may be committed to "fix[ing] Medicare for a Generation", but this plan sure isn't a lot of help.

If this is what a Martin government thinks a "detailed, comprehensive plan" constitutes, they're even more out to lunch than I thought. If I was grading this plan, it'd get a D, but the hype detracts from the plan's (few) merits. D-.

The early part of an election is about "framing" the election. It's about setting before the voters, a clear choice on all three of these. That requires having a clear message and getting that message through to the voters, usually through the media and paid advertising. If a candidate or party can make voters see the choice(s) in an election in a certain way, a way that's favourable to that candidate or party, then the candidate or party is likely to win. It's like a student getting the teacher to give him an exam with questions the student wrote—the student, having set the questions, knows what the right answer is.

All party leaders are currently trying to frame the election. Paul Martin wants the election to be about "Canadian values" in general, and health care in specific. His vision is of a Canada that is both prosperous and generous of spirit". He values social programs balanced with fiscal responsibility. And his record, and that of the Liberal Party, supports this. Paul Martin wants the question to be, What kind of Canada do we want? One with good health care and social programs balanced with fiscal prudence? Or a Canada like the US that has a poor health care system? You can see this approach laid out right from his opening speech.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, want the election be be about the Liberal's record. They are stressing accountability, waste, and bad fiscal management of the Liberals in their televison ads, in their press releases, and in Harper's speeches. Just take a look at yesterday's press releases: on values, Harper argues that the Conservatives have Canadian values like hard work, belief in community, and individual responsibility. [Canadians] are about being accountable for one’s actions, standing up for what is right, self-respect and respect for others. On the other hand, Paul Martin values corruption, mismanagement, and massive misuse of public funds and the Conservatives proceed to attack his stewardship of Canada Steamship Lines to show that Martin also cares little about Canada or the well-being of Canadians. That message has made its way into the news. The vision Harper is setting forth (at least so far) is of a Canada that will have good and credible government that will grow the economy in areas like the Martimes, will invest in health care, and will give Canadians tax cuts. Harper's question is, Do we want a government that wastes our money and is corrupt to the core? Or do we want a government that respects Canadians, manages the country well, is democratic, accountable, and instead of wasting surplus dollars, uses it in a balanced way, some of it going to priority areas like health care and the rest being given back to Canadians instead of wasted?.

(The other parties obviously have their own messages, but I'm not dealing with them now. I want to make a point about the Martin v. Harper dynamic.)

Yesterday was a key day for Paul Martin. He was going to lay out his vision for health care. It was a chance for him to promote his framing and to show that he had a platform conforming to "Canadian Values" with a vision that Canadians would like. Martin was supposed to have the headlines yesterday with good press.

Instead, it was a disaster.

First off, the Conservatives were able to compete for headlines by getting Bernard Lord's endorsement. This story was CBC's top story yesterday evening. Martin didn't get the headlines all to himself.

Next, Harper was able to get Martin on the defensive. On Monday Harper said, I am not someone who will raise taxes; I am someone who will invest in health care. Harper seemed to be bracing himself for attacks that he didn't have a strong platform while reiterating his tax cuts message. But, by doing this, Harper also implied that Martin, while also investing in health care, would raise taxes to do so or, at least, hold taxes steady. Harper also ridiculed the Martin platform as being, Tax me, I'm Canadian. Waste my money, I'm Canadian." .

The result? Take a look at this:

Martin avoided being pinned down Monday on whether his government would need to raise taxes to afford medicare. He was non-committal when asked several times whether his proposed funding boost would require tax hikes or new national health premiums.

He said only that his record as finance minister speaks for itself - that he lowered taxes over the nine years he held that office.

But he repeatedly declined to offer a clear, "No."

Harper has managed to get the media to suspect Martin may raise taxes! Even a Martin-hater like me didn't buy that. And then, the media, in what I'm pretty sure is a mischaracterization, is making Martin look like he's trying to hide a tax hiking agenda!

Martin is on the defensive. That's because the media has bought Harper's framing of the election: that the election is about the Liberal record of lying and about Liberal reckless spending and high taxes.

And to add insult to injury, take a look at yesterday's coverage of Martin's health announcement. Apparently the Premiers didn't like it and Harper got a few good soundbites, e.g. I say Paul Martin has no more credibility on health-care funding than he does over control of federal spending..

CBC's television broadcast was particularly harsh on Martin, and the CBC tends to be pro-Liberal.

It's still early in the election and a lot will change, but that Harper has been able to frame the election so early on before any major Conservative initiatives have been announced is worrying for the Liberals. The LIberals have used up their biggest announcement and Harper seems to be the one in control of the campaign instead.

Now look at the excitement he brings to his diatribes against Mark Antony:

VIII.[19] What law was ever better, more advantageous, more frequently demanded in the best ages of the republic, than the one which forbade the praetorian provinces to be retained more than a year, and the consular provinces more than two? If this law be abrogated, do you think that the acts of Caesar are maintained? What? are not all the laws of Caesar respecting judicial proceedings abrogated by the law which had been proposed concerning the third decury? And are you the defenders of the acts of Caesar who overturn his laws? Unless, indeed, anything which, for the purpose of recollecting it, he entered in a notebook, is to be counted among his acts, and defended, however unjust or useless it may he; and that [p. 1] which he proposed to the people in the comitia centuriata and carried, is not to be accounted one of the acts of Caesar. [20] But what is that third decury? The decury of centurions, says he. What? was not the judicature open to that order by the Julian law, and even before that by the Pompeius and Aurelian laws? The income of the men, says he, was exactly defined. Certainly, not only in the case of a centurion, but in the case, too, of a Roman knight. Therefore, men of the highest honour and of the greatest bravery, who have acted as centurions, are and have been judges. I am not asking about those men, says he. Whoever has acted as centurion, let him be a judge. But if you were to propose a law, that whoever had served in the cavalry, which is a higher post, should be a judge, you would not be able to induce any one to approve of that; for a man's fortune and worth ought to be regarded in a judge. I am not asking about those points, says he; I am going to add as judges, common soldiers of the legion of Alaudae;1 for our friends say that that is the only measure by which they can be saved. Oh what an insulting compliment it is to those men whom you summon to act as judges though they never expected it! For the effect of the law is, to make those men judges in the third decury who do not dare to judge with freedom. And in that how great, O ye immortal gods! is the error of those men who have desired that law. For the meaner the condition of each judge is, the greater will be the severity of judgment with which he will seek to efface the idea of his meanness; and he will strive rather to appear worthy of being classed in the honourable decuries, than to have deservedly ranked in a disreputable one. (Cic. Phil. 1.19-20)

The passion he brings to what seems to be a little bit of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"ism. And all to make the point, AFAICT, that if you let the lowly become judges, they won't be sufficiently independent. "O ye immortal gods!"

Why should private interests be subject to accountability when they have no duties under a democratic system? Politicians are held accountable for their execution of duties in governing a country. Individuals and third-party groups have no such duties; they can't be held accountable. And they shouldn't be held accountable for choosing to participate in political debate. What are we trying to do here: intimidate and scare off citizens and groups from being active? I hope not.

This is akin to the very narrow view of democracy that defines it as "people voting." Groups are accountable in proportion to their relative power to affect the affairs of the polity. Let's try a thought-experiment. Supposing we somehow achieve a situation where one person owns basically everything in the country. And we have an elected government constitutionally incapable of divesting that individual. Then is that person now accountable?

For politicians, we have a system by which we hold them accountable. But due to the way our society is set up, we do not as yet have a way to directly hold "non-politician" actors accountable. We may never. But since we can't, we have the moral right to take at least some steps to reduce their advantage.

Yes, and?

Guess what! The columnists of every newspaper in Canada use their free distribution to a large cross-section of people's homes to convince we readers to vote they way they want us to. . . And let's not forget the multitude of candidates and parties that try to convince us to vote one way or another.

There are many people trying to convince us to vote one way or another using the media. And many of these people are journalists and commentators—not political actors. Why should the NCC be treated any differently? They should have the chance to present their ideas too.

Print media consolidation and domination by particular viewpoints is a serious issue. The founding purpose of the Notional Pest was, after all, to be a Reform Party Pravda. Nevertheless, in theory the print news media is supposed to be relatively open to various points of view, and the power of individual columnists is relatively equal. Again, in theory. The people who subscribe to a newspaper also know what at least they think they should get when they receive the newspaper.

There is a qualitative difference between the print media and advocacy groups like the NCC. An advocacy group is designed specifically to put forth a particular viewpoint. During an election campaign, it functions effectively as a political party, except that it does not field candidates. It does not have to support the same kind of campaign infrastructure. If we want to reduce the effect that money has on the political process, it's fair to block party extensions like the NCC from spending as much as it wants in direct advocacy during an election. Perhaps in the future we may come up with some way reducing columnist-bias or something, who knows, but it's a start.

None of this, however, has any bearing on the basic principle behind this issue. You are simply asking why the government doesn't do more. It doesn't because it is too difficult. Nevertheless, as above it is within its rights, and the court agrees.

Remember, in 1988 third parties didn't buy votes or sabotage voting. They aired their views and convinced people. That's what democracy is about: people deciding what they think is right and acting on it. If third parties can advertise their views and show people that their current understanding is incorrect, then we've furthered democracy.

That's not the argument. The argument is that they used money to drown the opposition/buy mindshare.

Also, remember that what you think is a bad choice, others may think is a good choice. We shouldn't let anyone control the information available to voters or they'll be making a good/bad determination for the people. No one has a god-given ability to determine what is right or wrong 100% of the time. That should be the minimum standard for anyone to have the right to control what information we have when we make political decisions.

Who argued with this? Nevertheless, the NCC is trying to establish a form of control. It is trying to establish the power of its money even further than it already is. Proponents of this legislation are not trying to determine which messages are good messages and which are bad, but rather that money may skew access to mindshare. This is a strawman.

Nevertheless, I can't help but remark that those who are capable of spending the most money on election advertising are almost always those whose interests necessarily collide with the well-being of the average Canadian, following directly out of class issues.

Great! Then ignore anything not presented by the political elite. But some of us want to hear other opposing viewpoints. Politicians have an integral role to play in political debate, but they don't have a monopoly on good ideas. When you give people monopolies in certain markets, they tend to abuse it. Politicians will likely abuse a monopoly on speech as well.

And you are not prevented from hearing opposing viewpoints. You can go to the NCC web site, you can ask for NCC publications, and you can get books from the library on NCC-ish themes.

You are also making the highly questionable assumption that politicians will collude to generate a monopoly on ideas. The use of the collective term "political elite" is very interesting here. Do you really think that there is an "elite" who colludes to provide you with only a single message? Who is the NCC's own Stephen Harper then, chopped liver? If there is a cartel, then the NCC is an integral part of it, and it seeks to expand its role in this cartel.

Yup, that's undoubtedly true. And likewise the Liberals hope to use a "gag law" to prevent criticism of the status quo political elite by keeping the not-political elite out of the public debate.

But just because people have these incidental bad motives does not make the policy itself necessarily bad. Free third party advertising is good policy; it just is supported by some people for bad reasons.

But no one is being kept out of the public debate. Their influence is merely more equitable. The second paragraph I don't understand, but if you're referring to the "incidental bad motives" of the NCC, I suggest that those motives are not incidental but part and parcel of their desire to have unrestricted campaign spending.

So you think stealing should be ok for the poor?

I think sealing should be forbidden, we should have programs to help the poor, and we should attach the root causes of poverty.

I think you missed the point of the little quotation. It was more of a "some are more equal than others sort of thing." The NCC claims that it is fighting on behalf of free speech for all of us; but the fact is, their ostensible understanding of free speech is insufficient, just as mere equality under the law is an insufficient equality. What does free speech matter when one side saturates it?

Likewise, I think speech should be free, we should find a way to involve the poor into the political discourse, and we should attack the root causes of poverty.

The other way around would make people equal by pulling some people down; I much prefer to push people up.

Very nice sentiment. Do you realize that they are both the same thing? That whenever they are sold as different, "pushing people up" is usually a plea for the status quo?

You could have the NCC fund its opponents too rather than scale back its media operations, I guess. I think this is would be a very difficult system to design and enforce.

Free political speech comes with consequences and with responsibility and with limits. We have obscenity laws and the like. We do tend to believe that every viewpoint should have a place for it to be expressed (at least I do), but there's no absolute right in Canada that expression should be always without consequences. ... but indeed speakers can be and are held accountable for the contexts in which they say it.

The purpose of freedom of speech is to ensure that a message can be voiced and made part of public debate. Restrictions of freedom of speech, and definitely political speech, restrict only the manner the message is given; not the content of that message. Obscenity laws restrict how something is being presented; not what is being presented. This distinction is key. It ensures that if anyone has a message, it can be voiced; it just has to be voiced in a way that does not hurt others, etc.

In order for a message to be voiced and become part of the political debate, it must reach a wide audience. What spending limits such as this "gag law" attempt to do is to restrict spending to the point that a message cannot be brought out to a wide audience. Like a content restriction, a spending restriction prevents the message from being voiced; not just the medium or presentation of that message. The "gag law" prevents people from having access to ideas that might help them make a more educated decision during an election. As such, these spending restrictions hurt our democracy.

In particular, private interests should not be exempt from democratic accountability to the polity as a whole.

Why should private interests be subject to accountability when they have no duties under a democratic system? Politicians are held accountable for their execution of duties in governing a country. Individuals and third-party groups have no such duties; they can't be held accountable. And they shouldn't be held accountable for choosing to participate in political debate. What are we trying to do here: intimidate and scare off citizens and groups from being active? I hope not.

It is important to note who the NCC is. ... Its entire purpose is to use financial power of its backers in order to direct the debate in the hope that it can induce the public to vote against its own interests ... Stephen Harper was its Class Warrior (tm). So its accountability has to be seen in that light.

Yes, and?

Guess what! The columnists of every newspaper in Canada use their free distribution to a large cross-section of people's homes to convince we readers to vote they way they want us to. The TV is full of pundits who try to influence how we vote. And let's not forget the multitude of candidates and parties that try to convince us to vote one way or another.

There are many people trying to convince us to vote one way or another using the media. And many of these people are journalists and commentators—not political actors. Why should the NCC be treated any differently? They should have the chance to present their ideas too.

So now we reach the empirical issue. Many people on the "anti-" side of the free trade election in 1988 ... feel exactly the opposite, that the 1988 election was bought. But whether or not this is true, one has to wonder: if it doesn't matter to the outcome of an election, why is the NCC so passionate about being allowed to spend as much as it likes? Why go through all this trouble? ...

The truth is, it isn't the outcome of the election itself that is the only thing at stake; asking whether third-party election spending influences election results is only asking one-third to one-half of the question. Elections are a time of at least slightly higher political awareness on the part of the public. Third parties may not always directly influence an election---but they can and do set the tone for what is discussed and start the next mandate off on a particular foot. Even when the NCC-backed candidate loses, the winner has, in a sense, lost ideological ground to the NCC.

Agreed. The point of third party advertising is to get other issues into play that the political elite otherwise would not put into play. The idea is to broaden debate and through the evaluation of more numerous conflicting ideas get a better understanding of the truth.

Remember, in 1988 third parties didn't buy votes or sabotage voting. They aired their views and convinced people. That's what democracy is about: people deciding what they think is right and acting on it. If third parties can advertise their views and show people that their current understanding is incorrect, then we've furthered democracy.

And to the argument that people might "wrong" choices because of persuasion by these third parties, I say let it happen. People in a democracy have the right to make stupid choices and bad choices—it's part of the package. It isn't for us to prevent bad choices by keeping some ideas from the voters; that isn't preventing people from making a bad choice but rather it is preventing them from making an educated choice. I don't think we have any right to trick people into making certain choices by withholding important information from them.

Also, remember that what you think is a bad choice, others may think is a good choice. We shouldn't let anyone control the information available to voters or they'll be making a good/bad determination for the people. No one has a god-given ability to determine what is right or wrong 100% of the time. That should be the minimum standard for anyone to have the right to control what information we have when we make political decisions.

But if politicians per se are the enemy, then democracy really is meaningless, because there is no democracy without politicians. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would have ruled in favour of a moneyed few over citizens like us. I would rather have people seeking to represent our interests set the agenda during an election than have the astroturf likes of the NCC do it.

Great! Then ignore anything not presented by the political elite. But some of us want to hear other opposing viewpoints. Politicians have an integral role to play in political debate, but they don't have a monopoly on good ideas. When you give people monopolies in certain markets, they tend to abuse it. Politicians will likely abuse a monopoly on speech as well.

As for a moneyed few controlling speech, I'd prefer everyone had the opportunity, but I'd rather get the good ideas from the rich and the politicians, than just the politicians. We can work on how to include the not-so-rich and the poor into political discourse. Though I'm not sure the not-rich are shut out—if they band together, they might have some ability to advertise.

When these right-wingers talk about "free speech" watch out, because there's an agenda behind it. They mean freedom for the NewsCorps and GE's of the world to blast their right-wing ideology to the public unchallenged. Everyone else can stand on the corner and hand out leaflets. That's their idea of "free speech."

Yup, that's undoubtedly true. And likewise the Liberals hope to use a "gag law" to prevent criticism of the status quo political elite by keeping the not-political elite out of the public debate.

But just because people have these incidental bad motives does not make the policy itself necessarily bad. Free third party advertising is good policy; it just is supported by some people for bad reasons.

They must work for those goals before the majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.

This is analogous to the way in which folks like the NCC wish to liberate us from our slavish adherence to the Political Illuminati Elite

So you think stealing should be ok for the poor?

I think sealing should be forbidden, we should have programs to help the poor, and we should attach the root causes of poverty. Likewise, I think speech should be free, we should find a way to involve the poor into the political discourse, and we should attack the root causes of poverty.

The other way around would make people equal by pulling some people down; I much prefer to push people up.

It is important to note who the NCC is. It is neither National, nor has much to do with Citizens, nor is it a Coalition of said citizens. Its entire purpose is to use financial power of its backers in order to direct the debate in the hope that it can induce the public to vote against its own interests (aside: William Watson wrote a couple of years ago in the Notional Pest that more than half of Canadians get more out of the tax pie than they put into it). Against its own interests, and in the interests of the NCCs robber baron backers. Stephen Harper was its Class Warrior (tm). So its accountability has to be seen in that light.

Second, there is no evidence that third party election advertising hurts the political process. As shown in numerous studies in “Changing Dynamics in Election Campaign Finance: Critical Issues in Canada and the United States” (Jennifer Smith and Herman, Bakvis. Policy Matters. Vol. 1, No. 4. July 2000.), third party advertising has no clear effect in swaying voters. In fact, the most clear evidence of influence is that of the National Citizen Coalition hurting candidates they backed in the 1997 election! Third party advertising works only minimally in shifting opinions. Rather it seems to work in concert with other factors. Attempts to limit election advertising by third parties are not supported by any evidence. Rather, they are justified only on fear. I have a hard time using fear to justify limits on fundamental freedoms.

So now we reach the empirical issue. Many people on the "anti-" side of the free trade election in 1988 (like me, and I haven't changed my position) feel exactly the opposite, that the 1988 election was bought. But whether or not this is true, one has to wonder: if it doesn't matter to the outcome of an election, why is the NCC so passionate about being allowed to spend as much as it likes? Why go through all this trouble? Are these savvy businessfolk simply throwing their money into a black hole? What does it say about their business skills?

The truth is, it isn't the outcome of the election itself that is the only thing at stake; asking whether third-party election spending influences election results is only asking one-third to one-half of the question. Elections are a time of at least slightly higher political awareness on the part of the public. Third parties may not always directly influence an election---but they can and do set the tone for what is discussed and start the next mandate off on a particular foot. Even when the NCC-backed candidate loses, the winner has, in a sense, lost ideological ground to the NCC.

Anti-poverty and environmental groups lined up against the NCC on behalf of the government on this one, because they understand it as well as the NCC: that the NCC aims to exclude them from the discussion by drowning them out, as it did at least once before. These laws attempt to impose some kind of limit on this.

What the restriction on third party advertising does is make expression during elections something for the political elite—politicians benefiting from subsidizations—and not for the ordinary citizen. It requires that we the citizens decide on politics based on only what the political elite feels we should see and hear. We are expected to decide on the politics of this country based only on the information that politicians feel we should have. I think this puts way too much power into the political elite. The right should be for us to have information, not for the political elite to restrict it from us. The ruling in Harper v. Canada sadly sides with the political elite over citizens like us.

Ooooh, the political elite *shiver*. Contempt for politicians is often well-deserved by their individual behaviour, so I understand the temptation, particularly prevalent in certain parts of the country, to collapse into a form of faux populism of the manipulative/deceitful variety once practiced by Preston Manning and the like and still espoused in a muted sort of way by the Reform-a-tory mutant hybrid. But if politicians per se are the enemy, then democracy really is meaningless, because there is no democracy without politicians. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would have ruled in favour of a moneyed few over citizens like us. I would rather have people seeking to represent our interests set the agenda during an election than have the astroturf likes of the NCC do it.

As someone on this babble thread put it,

When these right-wingers talk about "free speech" watch out, because there's an agenda behind it. They mean freedom for the NewsCorps and GE's of the world to blast their right-wing ideology to the public unchallenged. Everyone else can stand on the corner and hand out leaflets. That's their idea of "free speech."

P.S. To quote Justice Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court, "money is not speech." By limiting money in the political process, the law maximizes speech for everyone, not just the ones who can afford it, and thereby crowd out everyone else's speech.

Or as "Anatole France" put it,

They must work for those goals before the majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.

This is analogous to the way in which folks like the NCC wish to liberate us from our slavish adherence to the Political Illuminati Elite.

Vision is something that all Canadians can understand. We all have an opinion of where we want the country to go. We can all evaluate different choices and select one most compatible with our values. What we ordinary people cannot determine are the specifics of policy and strategy that will get us to that vision. Most of us don't know the intricacies of economics, international relations, health care, fiscal forces, trade issues, etc. We aren't competent for the most part to deal with these questions. Those are questions for experts.

The fundamental problem with Canadian elections is that, in effect, we elect an executive branch. That is, we elect the group that will be responsible for the minutia of policy and strategy. And it is impossible for us to vote without giving some thought to the competence of the group we are electing to handle policy and strategy. To be sure, if in this election Mr. Martin comes out with a grand vision, no doubt much of the campaign will be spend discussing Adgate, the gun registry cost overruns, and the like. The Conservatives and the NDP will attack Mr. Martin on his competence as a manager of the government; not the vision he plans to implement.

More broadly though, we'll be forced to choose between a pro-Medicare Conservative Party, a pro-Medicare Liberal Party, and a pro-Medicare NDP (I'm excluding minor parties for simplicity). However, each of these three parties has a radically different approach to making Medicare good. Elections will degrade down into discussing details of which policy is better when most of us don't have the ability to intelligently decide on the details.

What we need to do is separate the decision on vision and on managerial competence. First we should choose a vision. Then the managerial competence of those who wish to implement that vision will be evaluated. That would give us the best of both: the best vision and the best managers of government.

Unfortunately, our government structure forces us too choose between vision and managerial competence when we vote (and sometime we don't even have a good choice on either side). I believe that this is why we never see vision in politics. It is lost in the discussion about details.

The Liberals, of course, get very worried whenever people mention the word "vision", because their line of sight extends only as far as "so, what do we need to promise in order to get elected again?". On the other hand, the Conservatives (and the Reformers/Alliance before them) get worried about "vision" for a completely different reason — every time they try to distinguish themselves slightly from the Liberals, they get slammed as being either wannabe destroyers of Medicare, wannabe destroyers of "Canadian culture", or wannabe destroyers of the social welfare net. On the gripping hand, the NDs get into their isolationist bubble, wanting to simultaneously help save the world, while preventing the developing world from being able to develop, and try to ignore the unique fact that we have a culturally-similar neighbour that won't go away, no matter how much the NDs want to close their eyes, cover their ears, and sing "nananana, I can't hear you" until the elephant grazes somewhere else.

What I want to see is a bold vision, setting out where Canada will be in twenty years' time; how peoples' lives will be fundamentally altered for the better; and explaining exactly how we get there. I don't want to see vague generalities and promises that the would-be government'll magically come up with a plan to save us all. Show me the vision, make it compelling, and argue for why we need to take that path. I don't care about all the little road markers along the way — show me the destination, and I'll believe.

I don't care about whether you promise you'll be able to come to an agreement with the premiers about fixing Medicare: we all know that you want to, but how will you. I want to know that you have a vision of how Canada will be internationally successful in providing opportunities for its citizens in twenty years (and turning our backs on the world, or even the US, isn't the way to do that). I want to know that you have a vision for how Canada will relate to its elephant, how we will be able to work with it, even if we don't always agree.

We used to have an idea of where we wanted to go as a society (not that I believe in societies qua societies, but that's a matter for another post altogether). We used to believe in bold plans, and being able to carry through on them.

Show me the big picture, convince me that it's right, and you've got my vote.

The NCC should be accountable for its spending to those that gave it the money to spend in the first place. Not to people like Marc or me who have no affiliation with the NCC. It's none of our business to control what the NCC thinks or says about politics. Likewise, the SU webboard exists for the SU to facilitate whatever discussion it wants. It has no requirement to pander to other motives. However, free expression in Canada is a right; that means that the airwaves, print media, etc. of Canada exist for all of us to use. The right is for free use of these media; not for control of the discourse by those who don't like it.

Second, there is no evidence that third party election advertising hurts the political process. As shown in numerous studies in “Changing Dynamics in Election Campaign Finance: Critical Issues in Canada and the United States” (Jennifer Smith and Herman, Bakvis. Policy Matters. Vol. 1, No. 4. July 2000.), third party advertising has no clear effect in swaying voters. In fact, the most clear evidence of influence is that of the National Citizen Coalition hurting candidates they backed in the 1997 election! Third party advertising works only minimally in shifting opinions. Rather it seems to work in concert with other factors. Attempts to limit election advertising by third parties are not supported by any evidence. Rather, they are justified only on fear. I have a hard time using fear to justify limits on fundamental freedoms.

Third, what is most fundamentally wrong with restricting third party advertising is that it hurts free expression. In a democracy, we, the citizenry, are called upon to evaluate policies and candidates and vote accordingly. Fundamental to any kind of critical evaluation, as I'm sure a Philosophy graduate like Marc knows, is that a wide variety of ideas and perspectives should be examined and the best idea selected or synthesized from that group. This kind of evaluation requires a free exchange of ideas. And that is what free expression is supposed to provide in elections. It is to facilitate a trading of ideas and perspectives so citizens like us can figure out what is good policy and who or what we should vote for.

Marc has highlighted the need for this sort of open-minded evaluation of other perspectives in the past. (See link 1, link 2, link 3, and link 4). The first, third, and fourth links show what happens when people don't approach issues with an open-mind.

What the restriction on third party advertising does is make expression during elections something for the political elite—politicians benefiting from subsidizations—and not for the ordinary citizen. It requires that we the citizens decide on politics based on only what the political elite feels we should see and hear. We are expected to decide on the politics of this country based only on the information that politicians feel we should have. I think this puts way too much power into the political elite. The right should be for us to have information, not for the political elite to restrict it from us. The ruling in Harper v. Canada sadly sides with the political elite over citizens like us.

While the gag law isn't the end of democracy in Canada, it certainly is a major blow to it. It is ensuring that we the citizenry act on the guidance of the political elite, not of each other. Tuesday was not a good day for democracy in Canada.

Huh? Basically, it has to do with the nature of RRSP's. In RRSP's, we don't pay tax on our money now. Instead, we get a tax deduction, plus we defer taxes on our savings until a certain point (say, the age of 65). In an RLSP, one pays the taxes now (we don't get any tax deduction). However, once the money enters the RLSP, it can then accumulate without being double-taxed. Hence, the RLSP is kind of a "backwards RRSP". In summary, the biggest benefit and the biggest drawback of the current RRSP is the "tax deferral".

So what? So, if we're in a lower-income bracket, our taxes are relatively low. If we saved so effectively in our RRSP that our retirement funds were comfortable, we'd then jump up to a higher tax bracket. The tax that was "deferred" ends up costing us more in tax.

But what if we didn't save much, but still opened up an RRSP? What if we listened to everyone from our bank to our accountant to our grandmother, who insisted that "everyone must have an RRSP"? Well, we would have some (small) retirement funds. However, we may have been better off not saving at all! Consider the following CBC Backgrounder:

Those on very low incomes should also be aware that... payouts after an RRSP has matured are fully taxable. So those payments may result in a clawback of the Guaranteed Income Supplement given to low-income earners. So RRSPs may not be the best choice for those at the lowest end of the income spectrum.

I'd continue, but then I'd simply be regurgitating arguments made by other people.

Now, an RLSP isn't the solution for everyone. It certainly won't help Canadian households that are hovering around the poverty line and that likely do not have savings at all. Other policies are needed for these groups. But an RLSP can be an incentive to lower-middle-class folks, who aren't benefited from current RRSP policies.

I'm not sure if the CPC is the best choice in 2004 (and don't get me started on their gasoline tax "solution"). But their RLSP plan definitely has good potential. The plan still raises a few questions, though. What will be the cost of this program? While there isn't a tax-break up front, which doesn't cost the government anything (compared to RRSP's), can Ottawa afford to lose potential savings revenue in the future?

And, is the RRSP/RLSP debate simply avoiding the issue? Could the problem be that Canadians just aren't saving enough? Are we all simply following the renowned economists (and old Canadian rock band) Trooper for their investment philosophy?

We're here for a good time (la la la la), not a long time (la la la la)...
So have a good time, the sun won't shine every day...

As stated in the CNN article I referenced earlier, the trouble in Iraq is especially damaging to Bush's hold on the women's vote. Bush's success with the women, especially soccer moms, was key to his win in 2000. And with it unlikely that Bush can pick up the Black or Hispanic vote this time around what with his underfunding of minority schools and his opposition to affirmative action, Bush is going to need the women's vote again. Rumsfeld is a liability to doing this.

Moreover, the whole Iraq affair seems to have gotten out of hand. It is not going away. It cannot be pushed from the headlines. Congress is forcefully asking questions. Kerry is demanding that Bush take responsibility for the problems. And all the Bush administration is able to do is come back with words. Sooner or later, Bush will have to show that he's doing something to solve the problem. And unloading Rumsfeld will do this in a big way.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld has failed in every major strategic decision he has made. Some of his decisions this past include the following:

• Rumsfeld did not have a plan for controlling the occupation. Iraq has become a disaster in the past year, one the US is having trouble controlling.
• Rumsfeld did not have enough troops to hold Iraq so troops have not been able to go home from duty. Troops are tired, angry, and too few in number to control Iraq.
• Rumsfeld disbanded the Iraqi army exacerbating the problems of controlling the country and sending out a large number of armed, trained, and angry soldiers to the unemployment lines; some of these people are now attaching US forces making the army's life difficult.
• Rumsfeld refused to allow low ranking Bathists to remain employed by the government; this has left the government poorly-staffed and has increased the number of angry citizens out on the streets.
• Rumsfeld failed to improve the situation in Iraq and bring it to a state where it might become a liberal democracy.
• Rumsfeld's war has become hugely expensive.
• Rumsfeld (at least, officially) hid information from the President.
• Rumsfeld allowed the prisoner abuse problem to happen under his watch.

Rumsfeld has been the source of most of the administration's problems in the last little while. Who better to sack in order to deal with these problems than the source of all these problems. Sack Rumsfeld and Bush can argue he's addressing all the problems in Iraq. If Bush keeps thanking Rumsfeld for all the fine work he's done as illustrated above, Kerry's going to have some great fodder come election time. I can just see it:

After making a disaster of Iraq, hiding information from the President, and allowing prisoners to undergo humiliating abuse, George W. Bush thanked Rumsfeld for all his good work and said that America owes Rumfseld a great debt of gratitude. As President, I will not reward those that make major mistakes, cause problems, and embarrass this country.

I don't think Bush will let Kerry make that argument.

Mr. Jones asked who can replace Rumsfeld. While I agree that Wolfowitz is no solution, several people could fit the bill. John Warner of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Richard Armitage of the State Department, or if Bush wanted to get a former opponent, John McCain of the Armed Services Committee, or former Secretary of Defense William Cohen (I see these two as long shots). I'm sure there are plenty of people capable of being Defense Secretary. If not, the US is in much worse trouble than I thought.

Lastly, I agree that any confirmation hearing would get ugly. But do you think Congress will stand by and not investigate? If anything, having a confirmation hearing and and investigation running parallel will make the headlines sufficiently incoherent to diminish their effect. To be sure, there will be trouble. Bush won't get an easy ride over this. But that's why he needs to sack Rumsfeld--to make the ride to re-election a little easier.

Okay, now for my rant. While things are looking up for Air Canada due to an incredibly kind Deutsche Bank and GE Capital Aviation Services, Air Canada is still one step away from liquidating, shutting down, and turning their electronic tickets into virtual pixie dust.

But enough about the happy news. It now seems hopeful that Air Canada can come out of bankruptcy protection. It was pretty dubious in April 2004. Over the past month, however, there were increased calls for the federal government to "do something" to assist the bankrupt airline. These calls included a reduction of airport fees and taxes. If Ottawa is going to "help" Air Canada, one will likely see this approach, and/or a few changes to the Competition Act.

However, others have floated the (admittedly, non-serious) idea: a re-nationalization of Air Canada. This argument isn’t anything new. An article from 2002 discusses the "importance" of protecting the "national interests" of airlines:

The federal government cannot ignore Air Canada pricing strategies and its service policies toward less-populated regions. The government must ensure public interest takes precedence over the greed of airline management, which is as concerned about the stock price as the quality of service to its customers.. .In short, as essential as Air Canada is to the country, it shouldn’t be given free rein. (M. Coté.)

True, this probably wouldn't be Canada if people weren't complaining about air travel. Remember the debate over Onex? The Canadian government probably didn’t handle the Air Canada/Canadian Airlines merger as smoothly as it could've, causing market and labour uncertainty.

But Air Canada is facing tough competition, and it isn't just from WestJet. It seems that when today's economy is focused on North-South continental travel, an airline that covers West-East routes is more and more irrelevant. Furthermore, with massive post-9/11 bailouts of the US airline industry, will Ottawa have to follow the lead of Washington DC?

I think that the Air Canada situation is pretty bleak. Even if they were to come out of bankruptcy protection, their current cost structure is horrific. After all, Air Canada did lose $1.9 million last year, and has a pretty depressing balance sheet (2003 Annual Report, 2 MB PDF file).

But, I don’t think that "nationalizing" Air Canada is the answer. Perhaps traveling WestJet/Jetsgo/Southwest is. WestJet’s flight attendants are perkier, anyway.