---

The following op-ed by Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher was published in edited form by the Globe and Mail on October 27, 2015; by TroyMedia.com on October 30, 2015; by the Waterloo Record on November 4, 2015, and by the Hill Times on November 9, 2015.

---

 “Last a while, you’ll have a chance to, I think, change a bit in politics, some good laws.”
Pierre Trudeau on the day he became Prime Minister

Data on how the Liberals won

You wouldn’t know it from the headlines, but the federal Liberals just received the lowest percentage of votes in the federal election to win the largest percentage of seats since 1867.  As a result, the Liberals should act like they are fully aware their minority miracle majority is very unlikely to happen again.

Jean Chretien’s Liberals were close in 1997 winning 51.5% of the seats with 38.46% of the popular vote, and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives even closer in 2011 winning 53.9% of the seats with 39.62% of the vote, but Justin Trudeau’s Liberals set the record by winning 54.4% of the seats with just 39.5% voter support.

And while it may seem like they have a comfortable 14-seat majority, with 14 seats won by a margin of 2.5% of total votes cast or less, and another 18 seats won by 2.6% to 5%, the Liberals should walk on egg-shells over the next four years.

Even a small percentage of NDP supporters who may have voted Liberal to stop the Conservatives switching back to the NDP, or Conservative voters who may have stayed home voting again, will change the results of the next election significantly.  The Conservatives still received 31.9% of the popular vote, and given the Liberals moved left in most policies in their platform, the NDP is likely to benefit from any erosion of support for the Liberals over the next four years.

The Liberals can take comfort in knowing they came second in 13 of the 22 closest races (all of which were won by 1.5% or fewer of votes cast), but a counterpoint is that the Conservatives came second in 6, and the NDP in 3, of those 22 ridings.  In those 13 ridings they came in second, the Liberals lost to the NDP in 8 ridings, the Conservatives in 4 ridings, and the Bloc in one riding.

The news is better for the Liberals in 20 other close races won by other parties by 1.5% to 5% of votes cast, as the Liberals came second in 19 of those races (and the NDP in 2).  In those 19 ridings, the Liberals lost to the Conservatives in 11, the NDP in 5, and the Bloc in 3 ridings.

Of the 71 races won by 5% or less of votes cast, the Liberals won 32 and came second in 32.  While it could happen, they would be bold to a fault to assume they will definitely offset losses in those 32 ridings in the next election with gains in those other 32 ridings.

According to Elections Canada, voter turnout increased 8% compared to 2011 – from 61.1% to 69.1% (the highest turnout since 1993).  That’s the largest change in voter turnout from federal election to federal election (positive or negative) since Canada became a country in 1867 (the next largest change was the 1917 to 1921 elections when voter turnout decreased 7.3% from 75% to 67.7%; the next largest positive change was the 1953 to 1957 elections when turnout increased 6.6% from 67.5% to 74.1%).

While the Liberals received many more votes than in 2011 – up from 18.9% of the popular vote to 39.5% — and seats, it will likely remain unknown exactly why.  Elections Canada should be able to provide an exact number of how many people registered to vote for the first time, but even if first-time registrants added up to 8% of all registered voters (the percentage that voter turnout increased) it would not mean they all voted.  Determining how many people voted for the first time would involve comparing all polling station registration sheets to sheets from past elections (as those sheets (along with mail-in ballots) are the only record of who actually voted) to figure out how many of the 8% were people voting again after not voting in the past few elections vs. people voting for the first time.

It would be great if Elections Canada examined these records as it is key to knowing whether youth voter turnout initiatives had any effect in the recent election.  If it determines the list of how many and who voted for the first time, Elections Canada could then survey those people to determine which new voters voted for which parties (although the results of that survey would still be questionable as some respondents would likely say they voted Liberal even if they didn’t in order to be seen to have supported the winning party).

In any case, no survey will accurately show how many NDP or Bloc or Green supporters voted for the Liberals strategically only (or mainly) to ensure the Conservatives lost vs. how many are now solid Liberal supporters.  Nor will any survey accurately reveal how many Conservative supporters voted for the Liberals (or didn’t vote) to ensure Stephen Harper would be pushed out as party leader vs. how many have switched to being Liberal supporters.

What is known is that given how slim the Liberals’ victory was, even a small percentage swinging back to those parties (or to one of those parties) or Liberal supporters staying home, will change the results of the next election significantly.

Where are the Liberals most vulnerable?  Of the 21 ridings the Liberals won by less than 3% of the popular vote, 10 are in Ontario, 4 in Quebec, 3 in Alberta, 2 in B.C., and 1 each in Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador.  Of the 11 ridings the Liberals won by 3%-5% of the popular vote, 7 are in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, 1 in B.C., and 1 in New Brunswick.

While those 32 ridings are clearly vulnerable, some provincial vote-split totals also indicate areas where the Liberals could lose even more seats from relatively small shifts in voting patterns.  In B.C. where the Liberals won 17 seats, they received 35.3% of the popular vote compared to the Conservatives 30% and the NDP’s 26%.  In Ontario where the Liberals won 80 seats, and in Manitoba where they won 7 seats, they received about 44.5% of the popular vote compared to 35-37% for the Conservatives and 14-16.5% for the NDP.  And in Quebec where they won 40 seats, they received 35.7% vs. 25.4% for the NDP, 19.3% for the Bloc and 16.7% for the Conservatives.

So what should the Liberals do?

So what should the Liberals do?  First, act like they have a minority government – as happened with the Conservatives since 2011, nothing will motivate supporters of other parties more in the next election than being ignored by the Liberals for the next four years.

Second, democratize and clean up federal politics – nothing will turn off Liberal MPs and supporters more than being ignored by the Prime Minister’s office, and nothing will hurt the Liberals overall more than a series of ethics, secrecy and waste scandals.

The Liberals have promised 75 changes in 32 areas in the “Open, Honest Government” section of their platform, including changes: to decrease voter ID requirements; to strengthen the access to information system by making disclosure the priority and giving the Information Commissioner the power to order disclosure; to ensure merit-based Cabinet appointments including to the Supreme Court and Senate; to free and empower MPs and committees in a few ways; to restrict government advertising and party spending in between elections; to reform Parliament in a few ways, and; to ensure gender-based analysis of the effects of government policies.

Those promises, some of which lack key details, will make the federal government more open and democratic, but not more honest and ethical.  The Liberals made no promises in the areas in the key areas of honesty-in-politics, ethics, lobbying disclosure and restrictions, whistleblower protection or strengthening enforcement by watchdogs (such as the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner) or strengthening citizen group watching of government and big businesses.  And there is only a vague promise to close political financing loopholes.

The Liberal platform quotes the old saying that “sunlight is the world’s best disinfectant.”  However, the Liberals’ promised open government changes are also vague and, even if kept or strengthened, will likely not let enough light in to prevent major ethics or waste scandals.

What is currently legal is not considered by the public to be at all ethical – and trying to explain away future scandals won’t work as shown by the Liberals’ initial unsuccessful claim that it was just fine for their election campaign co-chair Dan Gagnier to send an email to TransCanada about how to position itself to lobby on pipelines after the election.

Only strong honesty, ethics and lobbying disclosure requirements and restrictions, that many surveys over the past 15 years have shown a large majority of voters want, will prevent this unethical virus that ruined the Conservatives from infecting the Liberals early and often.

Finally, the Liberals should keep one of their strongest and most significant democratic reform promises by changing the voting system – and ensure the committee that consults on the change is evenly split between Liberals and opposition party members to avoid the charge that they are trying to rig the system in their favour.

The Liberals might as well change the system now while they can control what will replace our current first-past-the-post system.  I am of course guessing the future, but the past 10 years of election results show that the current system could easily return the Conservatives to power four years from now or leave the Liberals with a minority of seats and the NDP only agreeing to support them if the voting system is changed in a way that helps the NDP.

Changing to a ranked ballot system, which Justin Trudeau said he favoured during the Liberal leadership race, likely favours the Liberals too much and could cause a strong reaction from supporters of other parties.  As a result, including some form of proportional representation in a new system would likely help Liberals, and the system overall.

If they act like they have a comfortable majority or dash the hopes they fostered and encouraged for real change, especially change in how politics is done, the Liberals will likely quickly lose the support they have finally won back after 10 years.

Duff Conacher is Co-founder of Democracy Watch and a Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa

All parties do best in Representative Government reforms, and worst in Honest, Ethical Government reforms – Greens lose marks for vague promises, Conservatives fail in two of five categories

Honesty, lobbying and whistleblower protection reforms missing in all party platforms

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, October 19, 2015

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2015 Democratic Reform Platforms (See the Report Card below).

The Liberals and NDP tied with a B – matching the best mark Democracy Watch has ever given in its Report Card – as they each promised about 75 democracy changes.  The Greens lost marks for vague promises in a couple of areas and so ended up with a B- grade.

The Conservatives failed to make any promises in two of the five categories measured by the Report, and had overall poor marks and ended up with a D grade.  This is a big change from their 2006 election platform when they were first elected – in that platform the Conservatives promised 60 democratic reform and government accountability changes in their so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, and earned them a B grade.

However, the Conservative’s weak platform is consistent with their weak performance in the area of democratic reform in the past few years – they only kept 29 of their original 60 promises, and weakened ethics and open government rules in 2006, and they have been involved in many secrecy and ethics scandals.

All parties did best in the area of promised Representative Government reforms, and worst in the area of promised Honest, Ethical Government reforms.

Clear and strong honesty-in-politics, ethics, lobbying, whistleblower protection reforms, and reforms to strengthen enforcement by watchdogs (such as the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner) and citizen group watching of government and big businesses, were missing from all the parties’ platforms.

“While the federal Liberal and NDP democracy and government accountability promises resulted in a B grade, some of their promises lack details and promises are missing in key areas of honesty, ethics, lobbying, whistleblower protection and overall enforcement and penalties,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa. “They will have to keep all their promises, and also do more, to make the key changes needed to give Canadians the fully democratic and accountable federal government they deserve, and that many surveys over the past 15 years have shown voters want.”

“Voters should be skeptical of politicians’ promises, and even if the Liberals and NDP made all the changes they promised everyone in politics and government would still be allowed to lie to voters, politicians would still be allowed to make money from their decisions, secret lobbying would still be legal, wealthy individuals would still be allowed to use money to have unethical influence, whistleblowers would still not be effectively protected, and enforcement and penalties would still be too weak to stop wrongdoing,” said Conacher.

Many surveys over the past 15 years have shown that a large majority of voters do not trust politicians, and want honesty, ethics, lobbying, open government and other reforms to stop politicians from abusing their power.  Hundreds of thousands of messages have been sent to federal party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for the 100 changes needed to ensure fully democratic and accountable federal government and politics.

Democracy Watch and the coalitions it leads will continue to push for all 100 key changes.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

---

Unclear, unwritten “constitutional conventions” caused crisis in 2008 – another crisis can be prevented by media asking GG and leaders where they stand now

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, October 13, 2015

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch launched its Stop Unfair Post-Election Actions letter-writing campaign that calls on Governor General David Johnston and federal political party leaders to issue public statements before election day agreeing to 7 fair post-election rules that will prevent a crisis like the one that happened after the 2008 election.

Governor General Johnston, unelected and unaccountable, has the very important powers to decide after the election:

• which party will be given the opportunity to try to govern first;
• when Parliament will open and can be shut down;
• whether MPs support the government or whether a vote of non-confidence has occurred, and;
• whether and when another election will happen.

However, especially if no party wins a majority of seats in Parliament in the election, Governor General Johnston — who was chosen by Prime Minister Harper and has in the past protected PM Harper and protected the Conservatives — has no clear, public rules that he has to follow when he makes these key post-election decisions. Instead, Canada has unwritten constitutional “conventions” that can easily be abused.

The 7 fair post-election rules Democracy Watch proposes are clear and broadly supported by constitutional scholars. Public approval of the rules by the Governor General and party leaders will ensure clear, fair decisions by all after the election.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

“The Governor General and party leaders can prevent post-election constitutional crises by publicly approving key rules before election day,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa School of Political Studies. “The post-federal-election situation is potentially doubly dangerous because we don’t have clear, public rules for the Governor General and party leaders to follow, and the Governor General was chosen by Prime Minister Harper and has worked for and made very questionable decisions in the past that protected the federal Conservatives.”

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for the Governor General and the party leaders to refuse to approve the 7 fair post-election rules, and it is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to prevent unfair post-election shenanigans that abuse powers and violate the public trust and the democratic will of a majority of voters,” said Conacher.

Before he became Governor General, David Johnston was chosen by Prime Minister Harper to review the corruption scandal involving former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and German arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber. Johnston made a very questionable recommendation that a very serious and important part of the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal should not be investigated in a public inquiry (and, as a result, the Oliphant Commission did not investigate that part of the scandal).

With his recommendation, David Johnston protected Prime Minister Harper’s mentor, Brian Mulroney, from investigation, and protected PM Harper and the Conservatives from being even more tainted by the scandal.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

---

Democracy Watch’s Stop Unfair Post-Election Actions campaign page