Double Blind

An Angus Reid Survey has 47% of the people against scrapping the mandatory long form census, while 37% have supported the government.

The numbers, when you dig into them, are what I consider to be “50% partisan”, mainly that partisan affiliation is only partially and not fully correlated to whether you support the government’s decision.

One question that I think the survey should have asked, but they didn’t, is asking whether the person answering the poll in question has written the long form census, or not, instead of asking for political affiliation. It would be interesting to see what people filling in the long form census think of this question.

I notice with amusement that the Green Party of Canada apparently has a party constitutional requirement for a leadership race every four years. 2010 is a leadership year.

Apparently Elizabeth May is trying to get this requirement changed, but there are party members that are disagreeing with this and want to replace May.

I will say this (March 2009) and say it again (August 2009): As long as Elizabeth May is leader, the Green Party of Canada will never win a seat in Parliament.

Bernard Schulmann and Greg Morrow have some further thoughts on the issue – especially the Morrow article, which explains all of the mass resignations and staffing changes that have gone on in the party over the past bit. It has long since been clear that Elizabeth May is driving the party into the ground and that the only way that the party will continue receiving votes in elections is just through sheer inertia of the “Green” name as opposed to anything the organization is doing to attract voters.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had an interview with Reuters.

The political calculus in Canada is quite interesting for the second half.

The Conservatives only want an election if they have a reasonable chance of a majority government; otherwise status quo is good enough. Polling would indicate that a majority government is unlikely.

The Bloc Quebecois are always ready to fight, and don’t stand to gain or lose much in a federal election. They will be seen as opposing the Conservatives no matter what, so they are the most predictable force in the House of Commons.

The NDP are gearing up for an autumn campaign. Despite supporting the government in 2009′s summer debacle where the Liberals proclaimed “Harper, your time is up”, the NDP saved the country from another election – this was even despite the fact that their own messaging before this event was roughly “We are the real opposition and the only party to vote against the Conservatives”. NDP polling numbers have edged up slightly, but seemingly not enough to make a “breakthrough” into serious opposition territory – roughly 60 seats needed from their 37 present before they can even consider getting into official opposition. The NDP’s only issue is that a good chunk of these seats are in Conservative territory, except in Montreal, which makes the NDP’s only real viable expansion in Montreal.

The Liberals are in the grey zone. Their polling is quite weak except in the usual territories (Toronto, Montreal) although they seemed to have bottomed out in their core Central Canada urban constituencies. Ignatieff knows that if he doesn’t “win” the election (i.e. forming government) he is likely on his way out as party leader. So in the meantime, it is in his best interests to stall, although the rest of the party is negotiating behind his back various scenarios, including a coalition with the NDP.

Inevitably, an election for the second half of this year is up to the Liberals. It is unlikely the NDP will back down from a non-confidence motion in the house, unlike their very hypocritical move in 2009.

I am not sure why people take the perspective that Parliament is unproductive as being a bad thing.

It appears that Parliament is functioning as designed by not working.

If Parliament were only to pass a supply bill (to grant government funds for the fiscal year) and shut down for the rest of the year, the country would function nearly as well as it does today. In fact, usually when governments tinker around with legislation they are doing more damage than good, so I view a dysfunctional parliament as a feature of the minority government, rather than an adverse side effect.

It is to the advantage of opposition that Parliament does not pass legislation – if they are dead-set against the government passing legislation, they would want Parliament to not sit. So complaining that Parliament is not functioning is contrary to the (theoretical) goals of the opposition. Of course, in practice, the opposition’s (and governing party’s) goal is to win the next election, where “winning” is now defined as being able to form the next government and this mentality has corrupted any real focus of the government, which should be to drafting and passing legislation, regulation and policy that is for the well-being of the general Canadian population.

The case of Shavluk v. Green Party of Canada stemmed from John Shavluk’s pulled endorsement by the Green Party in the 2008 federal election. Shakluk’s claim to infamy, other than being a pro-Marijuana activist, was that he made some comments about a “shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters” which lead to his removal.

While this lawsuit has legal ramifications for all political parties, what is interesting is it gives a small glimpse at the vetting process the Green Party took up to the 2008 election – mainly none. This wasn’t a snap decision by any means – his nomination was endorsed well in advance of the election.

[6] Mr. Shavluk became a member of the Green Party after learning that the party platform endorsed the legalization of marijuana. He later decided to seek nomination as a candidate for the party in the next federal election. He submitted an application in March 2007. As part of this process Mr. Shavluk testified he went through a vetting process in which he provided a list of the forum sites on which he posted. He discussed his beliefs and his political activism.

[7] It was his testimony that the link to the Frost Cloud forum would have come up in a search of his postings although this should be viewed in some context. Mr. Shavluk was clearly a frequent communicator on internet forums. For example, he had apparently contributed over 1,100 postings to the Frost Cloud forum alone by 2006.

[8] Mr. Shavluk was the only person to apply for nomination to the Newton-North Delta riding in March 2007. He then went through a second process to secure the nomination in April 2007. The Green Party issued a press release dated May 17, 2007 acknowledging his success in winning the nomination.

[9] Ms. May testified that she was aware of Mr. Shavluk’s previous criminal conviction and his advocacy for the legalization of marijuana at the time of his nomination. She stated that she had some concerns and asked Ben West to work with Mr. Shavluk to have a solid response to why the party would support the candidacy of someone with a criminal conviction. It was her testimony that while as party leader she was prepared to support Mr. Shavluk’s candidacy including the criminal conviction, she emphasized that it was crucial that he disclose “chapter and verse” everything the media could raise. Mr. Shavluk assured her that he would.

[10] In September 2007, Mr. Shavluk received an inquiry from Sean Holman, of Public Eye Radio and Public Eye Online with respect to the 2006 Frost Cloud posting. The query was:

Just to be clear the two questions I had were:

1) What’s your personal opinion on 9-11?

2) One of your postings refers to the World Trade Centre as a “shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters” – why might that be? Do you think the World Trade Centre is a Jewish world bank headquarters?

Mr. Shavluk responded. In the result, there was no publication in the media concerning the posting at the time.

[11] Mr. Shavluk received a letter dated January 8, 2008 from the Green Party advising that the review of his candidacy by the party had been completed. The letter of endorsement of his candidacy signed by Ms. May as party leader was signed April 9, 2008. Mr. Shavluk decided to seek a position on the Green Party Federal Council and he was informed by e-mail dated June 6, 2008 that his candidacy for that election was approved by the party.

I’m sure the Green Party has improved their candidate nomination processes. Although the party fields 308 candidates just so they can suck up as much popular vote as possible (because they get the $2 per voter per year federal funding), many candidates that come in are marginal at best, which is one reason why a lot of people don’t take the Green party seriously – a lot of these fringe candidates do the party a lot more damage than the $5000/year they would bring in income to the Green Party by being a losing candidate on the ballot.

EKOS released a poll today showing the Conservatives would stand to lose seats in the next election. But one can easily tell a poll is flawed when they read the following:

As well, the EKOS projections show the Green Party winning four seats – one in Ontario and three in British Columbia, where party leader Elizabeth May has decided to run.

Three seats in British Columbia? Are these guys kidding?

My analysis on March 12, 2009, why the Green Party will not win a single seat in a Canadian election, still stands.

To suggest one seat is absurd enough, but to suggest the Greens will win four is hilarious.

On Wednesday June 2, 2010, the government introduced a bill to modify the copyright act. Declan over at Crawl Across the Ocean also has some comments on it.

I am waiting for the House of Commons staff to produce a good detailed legislative summary – they typically will do this for significant bills. However, I did skim the bill, and this is an improvement over the previous Bill C-61, which was aborted due to the federal election (not because of Parliament being prorogued as the CBC article stated!).

I do not think Bill C-32 will pass through the House, which is probably a good thing – status quo is currently the best option for Canadians.

I will know that a bill to modify the copyright act is correctly drafted if either both the “Joe Canadian” constituency and the “Entertainment/Media Industry” constituency either both strongly agree, or strongly disagree with it. If one constituency agrees with it and one disagrees with it, chances are the bill is stacked to one direction.

Right now, the feedback would suggest Joe Canadian (Michael Geist would probably fit into this category) is mildly against the bill, which is better than the previous incarnation of the legislation. The “entertainment/media” lobby is still gushing over it, so I suspect the legislation will need to be modified.

Even if the legislation is passed, the experience in the USA will suggest that people will still be downloading stuff willy-nilly. The only difference will be that the legislation will make more people technical criminals. In particular, making provisions that go against breaking digital locks is laughable considering that you can be sure that products will be flowing very easily over from China and other countries that continue to laugh at the very notion of copyright protection. This is going to be a classic case of “the tighter you squeeze your fist, the easier it will be to slip through the cracks.”

The $1 billion+ security costs for the G8/G20 conference leads to one conclusion: we should never host an event like this again.

It makes hosting the Olympics look cheap.

At least with the Olympics you have a hope of reclaiming some revenue through ticket sales. The G8/G20? Good luck.

Maybe the G8/G20 should be in Antarctica – it would likely be cheaper to shuttle and feed dignitaries there than to actually have to deal with all the security issues.

The Local Government Elections Task Force Recommendations are released today.

The big recommendations are including an expense limit, and extending the municipal terms to four years.

I’ll go through the recommendations one by one with some opinion:

* Implement expense limits for all campaign participants (e.g. electors, elector organizations and 3rd party advertisers)

* Development of the expense limits should be guided by some key considerations:
o Expense limits should be high enough for campaign participants to mount reasonable campaigns and express their views, but not so high as to allow a few participants to dominate election discourse
o Expense limits need to work in different‐sized communities (i.e. formula cannot be based only on an amount per number of electors or population)
o Expense limits for elector organizations should have a neutral effect on decisions to create elector organizations or not (i.e. formula should be based on the number of candidates supported)

I disagree with this decision. The reason, as I pointed out earlier in my own submission to the task force, is that expense limits would increase the bureaucratic burden for candidates (how will you audit expenses?) and promote incumbency protection.

I also completely reject the rationale given by the task force, as they present it as follows:

(page 22) The task force believes that expense limits could increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates; encouraging candidate participation; and reducing the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns. Expense limits are expected to be more effective than contribution limits in promoting accessibility. Unlike contribution limits, expense limits reduce the need for large contributions, yet they do not limit the democratic discourse and the variety of voices that can be heard in an election.
…
(page 37) Arguments for expense limits for local government election campaigns include: such limits would enhance accessibility and fairness, by ensuring that rising campaign costs do not erode the ability of ordinary citizens to run for office; limits encourage participation as candidates, thereby allowing all points of view to be expressed in local elections (not just those of candidates with greater means); expense limits are in place in B.C. provincial elections; limits may reduce the need for large donations and the accompanying possibility of undue influence; and limits encourage candidates to pursue grass roots approaches to building support instead of relying on more expensive advertising.

Contrary to this conventional wisdom, spending limits do not promote accessibility. Just as an example, look at the last federal or provincial election, where parties dominate despite the fact that there is a spending limit.

Limits do not encourage candidates to participate, and “all points of view to be expressed” are not curtailed because of spending limits. The media will always concentrate on those people that have a realistic chance of winning an election and this will be the case no matter how much or how little money is spent.

This decision will present a barrier for candidates, rather than promoting the “accessibility” that it claims to bring. Introducing restrictions never promotes accessibility.

What’s even worse is that there will be many ways to skirt around these rules, via elector organizations, campaign organizers, and third party groups to effectively raise the floor. Also, having media control (which is considered to be “free advertising”) becomes more important when there are money limits.

My recommendation to combat the accessibility rule is simple: let people spend whatever they can freely raise (either on their own, or from third parties) but be very strong on the disclosure – large contributions should be reported in near real-time. This will do more for accessibility than any spending limit.

Finally, the recommendations mention nothing about individual vs. corporate/union contributors, although it is given text on page 35 of the report. Implementing an individual-only contribution to candidates would have done far more than implementing expense limits. The federal election model has clearly demonstrated this.

* Ban anonymous contributions

This is fine, although even Elections Canada has a $20 limit (mainly used as a “fudge factor” when you can’t account for your revenues properly, but this is usually less than 1% of the total take-in).

* Do not implement general contribution limits or restrictions

This is status-quo, which is correct given the recommendation to not introduce tax credits on candidate donations.

* Require all election advertising to disclose who sponsored (paid for) the advertising
* Sponsorship information should be in English and the language of the advertisement
* Make it an offence to publish ads without required sponsorship information
* Explore establishing some automatic (administrative) penalties in relation to election advertising (e.g. for failing to comply with the proposed requirement for advertising to include sponsorship information)

These are simple compliance rules that will enable people to determine how the ad they are looking at is paid for.

* Establish that third party advertisers must register and must disclose what they spent on ads and who contributed to them (possibly for advertising expenditures over a certain threshold)
* Prohibit advertising by unregistered third parties
* Explore establishing some automatic (administrative) penalties for failure to comply with third party advertising rules, such as exceeding expense limits or failing to file a disclosure statement.

Sounds good in theory, but this is another bureaucratic web of compliance that will have to be established to actually enforce these provisions.

* Continue to regulate people or organizations (currently referred to as “campaign organizers”) that undertake election campaigns that support (or operate in place of) a candidate or elector organization’s campaign and conduct political activity such as collecting campaign contributions.

Campaign organizers are effectively third parties.

* Apply “third party advertising” rules for election campaigns to referendums by requiring:
o individuals and groups taking out referendum‐related advertisements to register
o advertisements to include sponsorship information
o disclosure of contributions received and expenses incurred by registered third party advertisers to be made after the referendum

This is harmonizing referendum spending rules with candidate election rules. Again, bureaucratic compliance needs to be established, incurring costs and hassle.

* Do not implement public financing (tax credits or rebates for campaign contributions or campaign expenses)

Good decision.

* Require campaign finance disclosure statements to be submitted no later than 90 days after general voting day
* Require campaign finance disclosure information to be published online and made centrally accessible though Elections BC
* Develop standard campaign finance disclosure statement forms
* Require local governments to use best efforts to provide notice of the remaining 30 day late filing period to those candidates who have not filed at the end of initial filing period
* Make the rules for disclosing volunteer and candidate “in kind” contributions consistent with the provincial rules

I know the disclosure of major donors before voting day occurs is a pipe dream, so notwithstanding that, the above recommendations are well constructed.

* Establish a separate Act dealing with campaign finance rules in local elections

This will make it easier to separate out the financing rules with the other legislation concerning local government elections.

* Provide local Chief Election Officers with additional powers for enforcement during the campaign; for example, to:
o enforce rules against election‐day advertising (e.g. provide clear authority for Chief Election Officers to enter on private property to remove unauthorized campaign signs on election day)
o seek injunctions in order to enforce rules, such as stopping unauthorized advertising
* Clarify the status of the local Chief Election Officer by statutorily establishing that position as impartial

Sounds good.

* Override Offence Act limitation for investigation of an alleged local elections offence, extending it to one year instead of the current six months
* Specify that the one year period starts from when the alleged contravention is brought to the attention of local elections administrators enforcers

Very good.

* Require candidates to make a solemn declaration when filing nomination papers, attesting that the candidate understands the requirements for running for office; for example, requirements to:
o appoint a financial agent
o open a separate bank account for campaign finances
o file a campaign finance disclosure statement within 90 days
o meet eligibility criteria

Useless, but will not hurt.

* Establish a key role for Elections BC in enforcing campaign finance rules in local elections, focusing on:
o Publication and compliance review of campaign finance disclosure statements;
o Provision of guidance on campaign finance rules during elections;
o Response to campaign finance queries and complaints after elections;
o Management of preliminary investigations and, when required, referral to the appropriate law enforcement bodies.
* Continue a role for local government in enforcing campaign finance rules, focusing on local Chief Election Officers as frontline contacts and responders on certain compliance issues that arise during a campaign.
* Build mechanisms to clearly define the responsibilities and relationships of those involved in campaign finance enforcement; support collaborative development of training and education materials, standard forms and provision of guidance; and provide Elections BC and local governments with the authority they need to effectively fulfill their roles.

Good, but having local government issues prosecute violations on people that are their elected bosses is a very bad organizational structure. Basically the only involvement of local government should be conducting the actual election and collecting forms relating to financing and such. Any enforcement functions must go to a higher level beyond the reach of local government elected officials.

* Extend the term of office for local elected officials to four years

I mildly disagree with this decision. The primary reason given is harmonization with some other jurisdictions in Canada (which have increasingly been moving to 4 year terms) but another reason given is “voter fatigue”. I completely disagree with voter fatigue as a reason – if people aren’t interested enough to vote in an election which affects them (and local government elections very much do so yet they are the least voted in), it really is the issue of the non-voters. One would think that voting every three years is not much of a burden, but you could easily imagine that “voter fatigue” can be cited as an excuse to not having elections at all.

You can even make a good argument to running local elections every year, but electing 1/3rd of the council or seats in a staggered arrangement (good for 9-person councils), but the existing 3-year system is a very good balance.

Implicitly in this decision is to harmonize a 4-year term limit to being between the scheduled provincial election dates (currently scheduled for 2013 and every four years after). The only issue with this synchronization is that it is entirely possible that an election can be called earlier than the fixed date (as witnessed by the federal fixed election date law, originally for October 19, 2009, but the election was called for October 14, 2008) and the event that a minority government is elected in BC (which will likely result in an earlier election). Fixing the municipal election schedule because of the provincial election schedule is an invalid reason.

The task force (page 24) did mention they would advise considering changing the election date to October if the UBCM agrees to it in 2010, which I also agree should be done and is a minor, but positive step that will make campaigning a bit easier. I wonder if the guys up in the far north (e.g. Fort St. John) put up campaign signs in November, or whether it’s impossible to drill wood into the ground because it’s minus 20 degrees outside with 6 hours of usable daylight.

* Do not establish a corporate vote
* The Task Force recommends exploring non‐electoral approaches to addressing the concerns of businesses. Local governments and businesses have shared interests in ensuring a competitive property tax climate to encourage investment and support a sustainable, strong and diversified tax base for communities. The Task Force recommends that the UBCM, the Province and business groups work
together to recognize the issues expressed to the task force, and to encourage effective local ways to engage with business, further strong relationships and foster a competitive business climate.

This is funny; the first recommendation was a foregone conclusion, but the second bullet point is futile.

* Clarify that volunteers who receive no direct monetary compensation are not considered to be “employees” for the purposes of determining eligibility to run for, and hold, elected office while continuing to volunteer

Fine.

* Strengthen commitment to collaborative local elections education
o Establish a more formal process for guiding development of elections education
o Involve more participants ‐ organizations such as LGMA, UBCM, Elections BC, Ministries of Education and Community and Rural Development and LGLA.
o Ensure all involved commit staff and/or financial resources to education and advice

Good.

* Provide education and advice
o On new topics resulting from implementation of Task Force recommendations (e.g. third party advertising rules)
o For new audiences (e.g. candidates’ financial agents, third party advertisers, other campaign participants)
o In new ways (e.g. webinars, “candidate schools,” advice line for election administrators on general voting day)
* Enhance education and advice in a phased approach
o Focus first on materials to assist in understanding of new rules, roles and responsibilities for the 2011 elections
o Expand to cover other issues based on feedback from 2011 elections

Good.

All in all, the big recommendation was the implementation of spending limits. There were some parameters the task force mentioned to take into consideration (i.e. not a simple “dollars per voter” metric) and it will be interesting to see what the ministry staff can come up with. I guarantee it will do nothing to promote accessibility.

While catching up on my readings (skimmings) of the Parliamentary transcripts, I noticed that Health Canada made a ruling that allows non-cola soft drinks (i.e. not Pepsi/Coke) to have caffeine at up to 150ppm, which is 25% less than the 200ppm allowed for cola beverages.

While I don’t have any strong thoughts about this, my mild thought is that this is a bad decision.

That said, I have consciously tried to reduce my soft drink intake over the past few years so this doesn’t not really affect me, but normally you could rely upon a non-cola beverage on the road to be not caffeinated. Now you have to read the labels to find out if the drink you’re holding is caffeinated which slightly increases the annoyance. Typically the only time I go out of my way to buy a soft drink is when I’m on a long road trip, and I stop off at a gas station to fill up, and have something “in-hand” to just keep my mouth moist on the road. I usually do not prefer drinking caffeinated beverages on the road since it screws up the energy/sleep cycle throughout the day.

That said, in the USA, some non-cola soft drinks have been caffeinated, most notably Mountain Dew. I sincerely hope they don’t muck around with my favourite root beer.

And just as an FYI:

While small amounts of caffeine are not a concern for most Canadians, over consumption of caffeine can cause insomnia, headaches, irritability, dehydration and nervousness. Health Canada recommends that healthy adults do not exceed 400 mg of caffeine per day. This amount equals about three 8 oz cups (237 ml) of brewed coffee per day.

For other groups, the effects of consuming caffeine can be more severe. Research has shown that too much caffeine for pregnant and breastfeeding women can harm the baby. Pregnant women who consume too much caffeine are at a higher risk of miscarriage and can give birth to babies with a lower birth weight. Pregnant or breastfeeding women and women who are planning to become pregnant should consume no more than 300 mg of caffeine per day. This amount equals a little over two 8 oz (237 ml) cups of coffee.

Children are also more sensitive to the effects of caffeine. Too much caffeine in children can cause increased anxiety, restlessness and insomnia. Based on average body weights of children, this means a daily caffeine intake of no more than 45 mg for children aged 4-6; 62.5 mg for children aged 7-9; and 85 mg for children aged 10-12. These recommended maximums are equivalent to about one to two 12 oz (355 ml) cans of cola a day.

Health Canada has not developed definitive advice for adolescents 13 and older because of insufficient data. Nonetheless, Health Canada suggests that daily caffeine intake for this age group be no more than 2.5 mg/kg body weight. This is because the maximum adult caffeine dose may not be appropriate for light weight adolescents or for younger adolescents who are still growing. The daily dose of 2.5 mg/kg body weight would not cause adverse health effects in the majority of adolescent caffeine consumers. This is a conservative suggestion since older and heavier weight adolescents may be able to consume adult doses of caffeine without suffering adverse effects.

In the grand scheme of things, caffeine is probably the second most tested drug on the planet in terms of world history. Alcohol was the first. Everybody knows what happens with alcohol consumption, and everybody knows what happens with caffeine consumption. If there was some sort of long-run effect of chronic caffeine intake that caused horrific results (other than crashing and burning for a day when your source of coffee ran out) then we would know about it.