In April, the Harper government fell because they were found in contempt of Parliament. Never before in our history had that occurred. It came on the heels of five years of parliamentary obstruction and obfuscations.
Winning office on a promise of openness, accountability, and transparency, Mr. Harper's government is widely acknowledged to be one of the most secretive and inaccessible in Canadian history.
Harper ignored his own fixed election date call in 2008, prorogued Parliament twice, made a mockery of his own Accountability Act, made a joke of Access to Information laws, and presided over an unprecedented increase in government spending on flagrantly partisan purposes featuring large cheques with the Conservative Party logo on it.
Harper's government ridiculed independent officers of Parliament, such as Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and fired heads of arms-length Crown Agencies that refused to tow the line. We lost a seat with Canada's name on it -- to the bankrupt Portugal, no less -- at the United Nations Security Council, diminishing our standing in the world.
And to top it all off, the five year spending spree of the Harper government has left Canada with record deficits and debt and a bloated government.
Sixty-three per cent of Canadians eligible to vote did so, and only 40 per cent of voters elected a majority government on May 2. Many cast ballots for people that they had never heard of and whose qualifications and experience they never bothered to consider, much less investigate.
During the campaign, there were numerous reports of Conservative Party candidates who did not show up for debates. In others, I personally saw incumbents receive one-liners via their Blackberry from campaign handlers in the audience, or stick religiously to their prepared scripts.
In the days following his election triumph, Stephen Harper did something else he promised he wouldn't: He appointed three defeated candidates to the Senate. Two of them had left the Senate only two months before to run for aseat in the Commons, promptly lost, and were immediately reappointed to the Red Chamber.
In the constituency where I ran, nine people stood as candidates. Besides the main parties, the global Green, Marxist and Libertarian "movements" were represented, as were four other single-issue candidates.
The NDP and Green parties did not have a chance of winning, but ran candidates so they could benefit from the perverse incentive of $2.00 per vote subsidy they receive. All of them were given equal time in all-candidate meetings. Voters clearly did not vote for the candidates with their names on the ballot -- notwithstanding their relative fitness for office -- but for the leader and the party they represent.
So next week, our House of Commons -- the paramount institution of our democracy -- will greet new Members of Parliament that had never stepped foot in their ridings, are not fluent in the language of a vast majority of their constituents, have never held a full time job, and who wouldn't know a public policy if their lives depended on it.
The media and others hailed the new configuration of the House of Commons as "refreshing" or finally representing the true make-up of the country.
Canadians often lament the fact that quality people do not stand for public office. Yet they chose to defeat Michael Ignatieff, Martha Hall-Findlay, Gerald Kennedy, Ken Dryden, among many other outstanding Canadians.
If we believe that in a robust democracy we get the government and Parliament we want and deserve, then we should have every reason to feel very content with our collective judgment. But I don't hear anyone cheering with glee at the make-up of our new Parliament. In fact, I detect a degree of detached discomfort and melancholy in the result.
We know that this federal election is far from being a shining illustration of a healthy democracy in action. No one can pretend that it comes close.
Mr. Veniez is a Vancouver-based businessman and was the Liberal Party of Canada's candidate for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country
Follow Daniel D. Veniez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danveniez
Mark Bourrie: Canadian History Just Bunk to Make a Buck
CON John Dunbar Weston 28711
NDP Terry Plat 14812
LIB Daniel Veniez 14103
Perhaps it is Mr. Veniez himself who was running so the Liberal Party "could benefit from the perverse incentive of $2.00 per vote subsidy they receive." More sour Liberal grapes from a failed candidate from a party that still hasn't learned from its defeats that you have to earn your votes, you're not entitled to them!
Senate term limit
Senate by vote
Gun registry
If passed all BETTER for Canada, losing votes, not pandering to get votes, but what is good for Canada/ I think its great, perfect no, but great.
I think its great, he will get even more that 40% in 4 years, he wont call an election like Chrentien, everytime he looked good in the polls.
I think that the title of your article is a little misleading. What your article should address more is how we are represented in our votes. Even though only 40% of Canadians want Mr. Harper as our Prime Minister, he was granted a huge majority...that shows that there is something up with our current electoral system and I'm sure that many Canadians would agree with me. Part of the problem is that many people want to vote for the leader of the country rather than their elected official. Such was clearly the case with the Liberal party in this recent election, or rather, lack of wanting him as Prime Minister. I'm also with many of the others who have commented in saying that rather than blaming democracy, the Liberal Party really needs to evaluate themselves as a party. The Liberal Party has been flailing since the days of Chretien and they don't link that with an internal problem, but rather an external problem. One cannot fix its problems until it acknowledges them. Take the defeat as a defeat and grow from it.
Of course if Mr Veniez had any political acuity at all he would not, as a Liberal, have run in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, which is a diehard Big Money Establishment riding with no chance at all of either the Grits or the NDP winning....
Bitching about problems in Ottawa is an old way of avoiding having to talk about problems in BC, pretty much stock-in-trade for any BC-based politician (at least those not on the government benches).
C'mon Huffington Post, give us real political commentary from Canada, not just recycled CBC items and MP-mouthpiece orations like this one.
He is a federal politician commenting in a blog about federal politics. Not exactly staggering.
Staggering that you don't know any of this. What gets me all too often is the tone of moderate apologism finding reasons to not look at any of this, or rationalize it into the done-deal category the BC Libs want it to remain....in your case I detect a whiff of the wet-blanket thing. No big deal, nothing to see here, folks....not a federal matter.
Like hell it's not a federal matter. If the prevention of crime by provincial governments is not policeable by Ottawa.....who are we supposed to go to? The Queen? The ICC? Take it to a US congressional hearing?
I'd like to see ONE federal politician stand up and raise all this in the Commons. Just one. I'm not expecting it to be a Liberal.......
I'd forgotten about the 2006 win there, and yes long ago it was a Liberal cabinet seat during the Trudeau years (Ron Basford I think,,,,at one time Austin Sinclair too I think). The North Shore does have a Liberal tradition but in recent decades, particularly provincially, it's a bastion of the hard right/big money crowd, particularly with Whistler thrown into the mix (Squamish and the Sunshine Coast have a decidedly more orange union and eco-left tinge).
The reason for my strong language is because of ongoing frustration with the evasiveness and apologisms as to anything to do with BC Rail et al, which includes federal silence - from all parties - on matters such as the suspect parachuting of a judge (with prime ministerial approval and cooperation) during the most politically-charged trial in BC's entire history, the conduct of ACJ's Dohm and Mackenzie and likewise the unexplained catapaulting of her from obscurity to ACJ (also with prime ministerial approval and cooperation) and other justice matters related to this case - a Special Prosecutor appointed contrary to legislation, with deep personal and political contacts with both the Office of the A-G and the Liberal Party itself). Add in RCMP unwillingness to act on matters arising during the preliminary hearings, the unprecedented publication bans, the rearranging of court schedules without notice, inaction on the destruction of evidence by "someone" in the Premier's Office (no investigation, no contempt or other charges)
They are in reality 'Free Enterprise' Conservatives, no affiliation with or similarity to the federal
Liberals.
Did you notice the conspicuous lack of contact between provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals attending the leadership convention...a charade only.
With all due respect, If Liberals lost to candidates who were barely present in their riding during the campaign, says something about the LIberal campaign to me.
Your not wrong...it's disgusting that Harper reappointed failed Tory candidates to their Senate positions. And that's just one example. But I fail to see how Liberals are going offer an alternative
when all I'm seeing is complaining that smacks of sour grapes.
Time to stop blaming everything and everybody else....I want to see a vibriant Liberal party in Canada but it's not going to develop in an atmosphere of "it's everybody else's fault we lost" thinking.
As for the young candidates, you can't blame them for stepping up at all, but it sure shows the confused state of the Canadian voter.
like it or not. Time for Liberals to suck it up, get to work and rebuild the party. The Conservatives
crawled back from a two seat shellacking in the 90's. Stop whining Liberals, toss out the deadwood,
lay low for a few years and work to build trust and relevance.