Sanford Fleming played a key role in the development of a satisfactory worldwide system of keeping time. The railway had made obsolete the old system where every major centre set its clocks according to local astronomical conditions. Fleming advocated the adoption of a standard or mean time and hourly variations from that according to established time zones. He was instrumental in convening an International Prime Meridian Conference in Washington in 1884 at which the system of international standard time – still in use today – was adopted.
Amen, Brother. Amen!
Andrew Coyne: We have the form of a parliamentary democracy, but not the substance
Last night in Ottawa, Post columnist Andrew Coyne and author John Pepall squared off in a debate sponsored by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. The resolution: Canada’s democracy is in crisis
I suppose the best way to answer the question — is Canada’s democracy in crisis? — is to ask: what would a democracy that was not in crisis look like?
You could probably get some consensus for the following: everyone gets a vote and every vote counts equally. Candidates, nominated by local party members, stand for election on a pledge to enact certain policies if elected. Members of Parliament, once elected, propose, debate, scrutinize and vote on laws, mind the public’s money and generally hold government to account. The government, for its part, must hold the confidence of the legislature at all times, or else it falls.
Crisis? What crisis? Our democracy is working fine and not at risk.
I am not happy with our politics. Governments at all levels are doing stupid things, bad things. And much that they should be doing, they are not doing. Our politicians are, many of them, a sorry lot, even some I have voted for.
Most people would agree with me that this is so, though not on the specifics: what governments have got wrong; what they should be doing; who are the political duds and which politicians deserve some respect. That’s what we should be talking about. Not some imagined crisis of democracy or, to put it less dramatically, democratic deficit.
Well, no, that’s too high a bar, isn’t it? What I’ve described is a democracy that works as it’s supposed to. If our democracy were only deficient in one or another item on that list — fair votes, meaningful elections, accountability to Parliament and so on — you might say it was unsatisfactory, but not “in crisis.” What makes the situation critical is that none of them apply.
Put simply, we no longer live under the system we think we do. We have the form of a parliamentary democracy, but not the substance; the rituals, but not the reality. It has declined to such a point that it has become, or is about to become, or threatens to become, something else.
Let’s follow the process from start to finish. Candidates are commonly not nominated by a vote of the existing party members in a given riding, but rather stage what are in effect putsches, stacking meetings with busloads of new recruits whose memberships as often as not have been purchased for them. That’s when they are not simply appointed, de facto or de jure, by the party leader. The leader will typically have been elected by the same process of mass membership sales or purchases — an electoral college that, uniquely in the democracies, vanishes the second it has done its work, leaving the leader accountable to no one.
The candidates may have thoughts on the issues, but it doesn’t really matter what they think, because all policy is set by the parties, which is to say by the leaders. And it doesn’t matter where the parties or the leaders stand, because at any given time they usually stand for the same thing, and because whatever they stand for today they will stand for the reverse tomorrow. Recent Canadian elections have set new standards for dishonesty: not just the usual calculated ambiguity, but flat-out lies, and not on minor platform details but often the central issue of a campaign.
The campaigns themselves are barely worth discussing: a blur of attack ads, photo ops, attack ads and news coverage heavily focused on polls, gaffes and inside-baseball discussions of strategy, mostly about attack ads. After which the votes are counted and we find we have elected a Parliament that looks nothing like what the voters cast their ballots for, with a distribution of seats, thanks to our wildly distorted system of representation, that bears no resemblance to the division of opinion in the country. Parties that concentrate their support regionally are massively favoured, electing many more members with many fewer votes than another party. In effect, this means each of their supporters has many times the votes of the other party’s. So much for one person, one vote.
Members of Parliament, it is by now well established, have no real role or responsibility but to stand up and sit down when told. They can’t vote except as the whips instruct, can’t speak or ask questions except as the whips permit. Perhaps one or another MP will be of a mind to rebel. Very well — good luck getting those nomination papers signed: by law, that’s the leader’s exclusive privilege.
Collectively, members of Parliament have very little ability to hold governments to account. They can’t get their questions answered, can’t get the documents they demand, can’t trust the figures in them when they do. Debates are now routinely cut off by a vote of “time allocation.” Committees increasingly meet behind closed doors, which is perhaps just as well, since their public hearings have become open farces.
The budget process has more or less completely broken down, the estimates released before the budget they are supposed to explain, each document expressed on a different system of accounts. Budget bills, meanwhile, have become the vehicle for passing the government’s entire spring or fall agenda — dozens of bills, of widely varying purpose — at one go. So even if debates or committee scrutiny still meant anything, they are now impossible, in the same way that it is now impossible to know what MPs meant by their votes on such disparate matters.
And on those rare occasions when a government is finally being held to account, when it is really feeling the heat — it prorogues. For months at a time. In some provinces of late, the legislature has taken to sitting for less than two months of the year. Even the confidence convention — the bedrock requirement that a government must command the confidence of the House — is under assault. Heading for certain defeat in a confidence vote in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper simply prorogued. Having losta confidence vote in 2005, former Prime Minister Paul Martin spent the next nine days trawling the opposition benches, offering jobs and other inducements that were not constitutionally in his power to bestow, until with the help of a timely floor-crosser he was able to win a do-over.
Is it any wonder, surveying this wreckage, that so many voters have tuned out completely? At the federal level, turnout has fallen from an average of roughly 75 per cent in the postwar decades to a little more than 60 per cent. Turnout in provincial elections is even worse; municipal turnouts, lower still. Recent federal byelections have seen turnouts of less than 20 per cent. “Majority” governments are now formed in this country with the support of barely one in five adult citizens — about the same as a century ago, before women were allowed to vote.
Bogus nominations, skewed elections, powerless parliaments, disappearing voters. Let me invert my opening question. If that is not a system in crisis, what is?
As an English language teacher much given to public service, I have decided to donate my new collective noun for politicians to the public weal:
A gaggle of geese.
A pride of lions.
“AN ENTITLEMENT OF POLITICIANS.”
New Parti Québécois leader Pierre Karl Péladeau confirmed that Canada is not a real country when he called Canada an “imaginary country” this week. This confirms this little-known fact, which first came to light when Lucien Bouchard, Premier of Quebec stated, “Canada is divisible because Canada is not a real country,” on January 27, 1996.
Contrary to what a certain shopkeeper in Napadogan, New Brunswick will tell you [yes, I am talking about you, Mel Berehowsky of Four Corner’s Beaver Copulation Observation Platform, Gift Emporium and Natural Healing Centre], beaver excrement does not make a “fine organic 2-in-1 shampoo, exfoliant and conditioner.”
Left-wing, right-wing, it makes no difference. Almost every elected government, confronted with even the slightest “terrorist threat”, responds by attacking the civil liberties of its own citizens. And the citizens often cheer them on.
Last week, the French government passed a new bill through the National Assembly that vastly expanded the powers of the country’s intelligence services. French intelligence agents will now be free to plant cameras and recording devices in private homes and cars, intercept phone conversations without judicial oversight, and even install “keylogger” devices that record every key stroke on a targeted computer in real time.
It was allegedly a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks that killed 17 people in Paris last January, but the security services were just waiting for an excuse.
Indeed, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that the law was needed to give a legal framework to intelligence agents who are already pursuing some of these practices illegally. France, he explained, has never “had to face this kind of terrorism in our history.”
Meanwhile, over in Canada, Defence Minister Jason Kenney was justifying a similar over-reaction in by saying that “the threat of terrorism has never been greater.” Really?
In all the time since 9/11 there had never been a terrorist attack in Canada until last October, when two Canadian soldiers were killed in separate incidents. Both were low-tech, “lone wolf” attacks by Canadian converts to Islam—in one, the murder weapon was simply a car—but the public (or at least the media) got so excited that the government felt the need to “do something.”
The Anti-Terror Act, which has just passed the Canadian House of Commons, gives the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the right to make “preventive” arrests in Canada. It lets police arrest and detain individuals without charge for up to seven days.
The bill’s prohibitions on speech that “promotes or glorifies terrorism” are so broad and vague that any extreme political opinion can be criminalized.
In short, it’s the usual smorgasbord of crowd-pleasing measures that politicians throw out when they want to look tough. It won’t do much to stop terrorist attacks, but that doesn’t matter as the threat is pretty small anyway.
France has 65 million people, and it lost 17 of them to terrorism in the past year. Canada has 36 million people, and it has lost precisely two of them to domestic terrorism in the past 20 years.
In what way were those lives more valuable than those of the hundreds of people who die each year in France and Canada from less newsworthy crimes of violence like murder?
Why haven’t they changed the law to stop more of those crimes? If you monitored everybody’s electronic communications all the time, and bugged their homes and cars, you could probably cut the murder rate in half.
The price, of course, would be that you have to live in an Orwellian surveillance state, and we’re not willing to pay that price. Not just to cut the murder rate.
The cruel truth is that we put a higher value on the lives of those killed in terrorist attacks because they get more publicity. That’s why, in an opinion poll last month, nearly two-thirds of French people were in favor of restricting freedoms in the name of fighting extremism—and the French parliament passed the new security law by 438 votes to 86.
The government in France is Socialist, but the opposition centre-right supported the new law too. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in Canada is seriously right-wing, but the centre-right Liberals were equally unwilling to risk unpopularity by opposing it. On the other hand, the centre-left New Democrats and the Greens voted against, and the vote was closer in Canada: 183 to 96.
And the Canadian public, at the start 82 percent in favour of the new law, had a rethink during the course of the debate. By the time the Anti-Terror Act was passed in the House of Commons, 56 percent of Canadians were against it. Among Canadians between 18 and 34 years old, fully three-quarters opposed it.
Maybe the difference just reflects the smaller scale of the attacks in Canada, but full credit to Canadians for getting past the knee-jerk phase of their response to terrorism. Nevertheless, their parliament still passed the bill. So should we chalk all this up as two more victories for the terrorists, with an honourable mention for the Canadian public?
No, not really. Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and all the other jihadis don’t give a damn if Western democracies mutilate their own freedoms, as it doesn’t significantly restrict their own operations. The only real winners are the security forces.
Is there a law in the Great White North stating that if you want to work for the Government of Canada or even one of its Crown Corporations or offshoots that you have to be a middle-aged battleaxe incapable of smiling?
Just saying. Sorry
ladies. If you don’t like it, change.
A word of advice: It’s called “SERVICE Canada.” Read the name again.
Toronto is Canada’s largest city. The word itself derives from a native word meaning, “A Tim Horton’s on every corner every three blocks.”
[and damn it, no, it’s no typo up there, the iconic coffee/doughnut chain does NOT use a hyphen in its name]
John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first Primie Minister, (1867–1873; 1878–1891), became known as the Father of Confederation. Sir John was as well known for his wit as his love of booze, enough to have been visibly drunk for many of his debates in Parliament.
During one election debate, Macdonald was so drunk he began vomiting while on stage. His opponent quickly pointed this out,saying, “Is this the man you want running your country? A drunk!”
MacDonald’s reply? “I get sick … not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent.”