Hi Amanda,

Thank you for your response. To respond to your points -- I didn't write that "we lack sufficient evidence to conclude that Canadians are displeased with their political institutions." I wrote that "it is true that Canadians have shown concern about how the federal government operates in many, many surveys and consultations in the past 20 years" and that "several surveys on specific reform issues over the past 20 years have shown a clear desire for changes -- such as the Ekos Research surveys on citizen engagement conducted annually from 1995 into the early 2000s, etc." So we agree that it is clear that a large majority of Canadians are concerned about their political institutions and want changes.

I also agree with you that we have not seen the "kind of grand changes that are required to actually improve levels of political engagement". But I did not claim we had won those kind of changes. All I wrote was that recent changes were not paltry and have been transformative in other ways. It would be overly long to give all the details, but here are a few:
- before 2004, the Conservatives and Liberals received 60-70% of their annual donations from big businesses, and the NDP received the same percentage from unions; now they have to obtain those funds from individuals, which has demonstrably made the parties more responsive to the concerns of individual voters;
- before last year, lobbyists did a lot of the fundraising for, and campaigning for, federal political parties; now those activities are illegal, which has ended a century-long, unethical favour-trading system that skewed government decision-making in favour of the wealthy private interests who hired those lobbyists, and;
- before 2004, the federal government regularly misled about the surplus-deficit position and the future cost of programs, now the PBO regularly reveals this misleading, which of course increases accountability (and while the PBO has been under-funded, he has not been marginalized as his reports are regularly and prominently covered by the national media (as much as the Auditor General's reports are)).

On your next point, we will have to agree to disagree because I think there is evidence that a concern for democracy motivated voters in the most recent election (although again, as I said and as you point out, it was not (and never has been) the only motivation for voters). But while the NDP did not give details, it did have the central pro-active message that if elected they would focus on fixing Ottawa, and they won 12.5% more votes. In contrast, the Liberals only criticized the Conservatives, but did not clearly pledge that they would do better (either in their ads or in their platform) -- this was similar to how the Conservatives campaigned in 2004. Yes, the Conservatives won with a democratic reform platform as weak as the Liberals, but they won only 2% more votes.

Finally, I agree with you that electoral reform and loosening party discipline are needed, transformative changes, but I don't think changing Question Period will be similarly transformative, mainly because I believe that changes cannot prevent it from being a combative, rhetoric-filled, spin time in the House, even if voters are allowed to ask questions as the Liberals proposed in their election platform. I think the best that can be hoped for is that blatant misleading, libel, slander and heckling are stopped through the passage of an honesty-in-politics law -- see for more details: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdFeb2411.html

and see details about other needed Parliamentary reforms, and how to make them, at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdOct0210.html

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca

This article is an interesting and largely accurate canvassing of the barriers to democratic reform of the federal Canadian government (barriers that also exist in every Canadian provincial government), but I think some points don't hit the mark (pun intended :) .

First, while it is true that Canadians have shown concern about how the federal government operates in many, many surveys and consultations in the past 20 years, the "studies" link on the first page of the article links to a public consultation process conducted by Compas/Frontier Centre for Public Policy on behalf of the federal government, a process that had many, many flaws -- see for details: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMar2907.html

In fact, a serious, comprehensive, detailed, and methodologically sound public consultation on democratic reform of the federal government has never been completed (although, again, several surveys on specific reform issues over the past 20 years have shown a clear desire for changes -- such as the Ekos Research surveys on citizen engagement conducted annually from 1995 into the early 2000s, etc.).

Second, the changes that have been made in the past 10 years to the federal government are hardly "paltry" as the article claims (having pushed for and won most of the changes, I of course find this description very questionable).

The following changes have been clearly transformative: eliminating corporate and union donations and limiting individual donations to parties and most political candidates (there are loopholes in the rules that allow secret, unlimited donations by anyone or any organization to nomination race and party leadership candidates); requiring disclosure of all donations (except the secret donations allowed as noted above); establishing per-vote public financing of parties (the most democratic part of our political financing system, now under threat because of the Conservatives' undemocratic position on the funding); strengthening lobbying ethics rules, and; establishing the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And with just a few more key changes and the appointment of a dedicated Integrity Commissioner, the federal whistleblower protection system that was established in 2007 will also have transformative effects.

Third, the article claims that democratic reform "fails to win elections". Actually, there is significant evidence that a strong democratic reform platform wins during election time. The central platform plank of "Governing with Integrity" helped the Liberals win in 1993 and the Reform Party's "reform Ottawa" agenda helped it win significantly more seats in 1993 and in 1997; the promise of a Federal Accountability Act with more than 50 changes to clean up Ottawa was the promise that most helped the Conservatives win in 2006 (according to Elections Canada's and others' post-election surveys), and the NDP's focus on the pledge to Fix Ottawa clearly helped them win more seats than ever in 2011 (and also more seats in 2008).

These instances of winning an election, or at least many more seats in the House, are the only times any party has significantly increased its support during a federal election in the past 25 years (other than the Bloc, which has won for other, clear reasons).

In contrast, in the 2000 and 2004 elections the Canadian Alliance - Conservatives' platforms did not focus on democratic reform and government accountability, nor did the Liberals' platforms in 2004, 2008 or 2011, and the parties lost support or (in the case of an opposition party) did not gain significantly each time.

I'm not saying that these parties' democratic reform platforms (or lack of such platforms) were the only reasons they won or lost elections, but the pattern is clear -- a strong democracy platform moves voters.

Finally, democratic reform will always remain a theme in all governments at all levels of Canada because some politician or party or government official will, unfortunately, continue to practise dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative or wasteful politics as usual. So, despite the fact that the barriers noted in the article will all continue to exist (especially to some reforms) as those with power continue to resist increased accountability, windows of opportunity for change will also continue to open.

In fact, all of the major federal good government laws that were changed in 2006-2007 by the Federal Accountability Act have to be reviewed by a House committee within the next year or so (under the statutory 5-year review required in each law), so each of those reviews will present opportunities to close at least some of the 100 undemocratic and accountability loopholes that still exist in the federal government. See details at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/SummaryOfLoopholes.html

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca

While the NDP's good government "Fix Ottawa" section of its platform sets out a few key measures such as voting system reform, restricting the PM's power to prorogue Parliament and to appoint party hacks to the Senate (and abolishing the Senate in the long term), and establishing a fair and transparent process for funding citizen groups, the platform does not contain the measure to fine MPs for not attending the House.

As a result, no one should believe that the NDP will actually push for this measure -- if the party was serious it would have put the promise in writing in its platform.

As well, this rather minor change will do nothing to fix the federal government's actual serious problems, which are that dishonesty, secret, unethical lobbying, secret donations, excessive secrecy, unethical decisions, patronage and crony appointments, wasteful spending, unfair snap elections, are all effectively legal, in part because of loopholes in laws, and in part because of lapdog good government commissioner who either don't do their jobs properly, or don't have the powers to do their jobs effectively, and in part because MPs are controlled by their party leaders' power to cancel their nomination as a candidate in the next election and to appoint or remove them on House committees.

If any of the parties promised a strong honesty-in-politics law, and to close all these loopholes and correct these flaws, along with giving voters the right to vote none-of-the-above, then they would be really worth supporting.

Not that the Liberal and Conservative party platforms are any better, but Canadians deserves better from all of them, especially from the party with the word "democratic" in its name.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.dwatch.ca
Organizer of the http://CoffeeParty.ca movement

If the Globe and Mail/Radio Canada report is true that Prime Minister Harper's spokesperson Dimitri Soudas contacted Montreal Port Authority board members to urge them to hire a specific person as the head of the MPA, then in Democracy Watch's opinion Mr. Soudas violated the federal Conflict of Interest Act.

Section 4 of that Act prohibits Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials from doing
anything in any situation "that provides an opportunity to further this or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or
friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests."

Section 8 prohibits these people from using "inside information" and section 9 prohibits them from using "his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person" to further private interests as set out above.

Section 21 of the Canada Marine Act, under which the MPA operates, makes it clear that the MPA's board of directors hires its staff -- the federal Cabinet has no role.

Therefore, in Democracy Watch's opinion, Mr. Soudas acted improperly by trying to use his influence to have a specific person hired by the MPA board.

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson should investigate Mr. Soudas, and Democracy Watch calls on her to do so, but Commissioner Dawson has made it clear in the past that she will not investigate complaints filed by members of the public, and will not self-initiate investigations, no matter how clear the evidence is that a violation of the Act has occurred.

She has made this clear by failing to investigate many complaints, including the complaint Democracy Watch filed with her early last May that the actions of a couple of Conservative Cabinet ministers, and several Cabinet staff, who assisted former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer violated the rule in the Conflict of Interest Act that prohibits giving preferential treatment to anyone and any organization. See the complaint at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMay0610.html

And Commissioner Dawson has made this clear by her inaction and incredible. law-defying rulings concerning many other situations (she has never found a Conservative in violation of any ethics rule). See details about the Ethics Commissioner's very negligent enforcement record at: http://dwatch.ca/camp/RelsOct1510.html

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.dwatch.ca
Organizer of the CoffeeParty.ca movement http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

Democracy Watch has been leading the campaign for the past 18 years for changes to constrain the Prime Minister and Cabinet's power, so it is heartening to see this book on it way to bookshelves soon.

See Democracy Watch's list of changes needed to Parliament's operations, and federal politics generally, at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/SummaryOfLoopholes.html

I question one point by Mark Jarvis -- "The failed fixed election dates law makes clear the inadequacy of legislative amendments to reform constitutional conventions when the powers of the Governor General are not restrained or removed."

In fact, in response to Democracy Watch's court challenge of Prime Minister Harper's September 2008 snap election call, the Federal Court of Appeal did not rule that legislative amendments were not effective in changing the rules for the actions of Parliament or the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Governor-in-Council). The court's ruling only stated that legislative amendments must use the clearest, specific and explicit wording in order to be legally valid rule changes.

So, changing the Parliament of Canada Act is another possible way to restrict the Prime Minister's actions, and change the operations of Parliament, in key ways. It is likely that the courts would take into account how many MPs supported the changes when deciding whether the changes created a new constitutional convention, and so a broad agreement by a large majority of MPs should be sought before any changes are made.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca
Organizer of the CoffeeParty.ca movement http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

See Democracy Watch's February 2011op-ed, from which some parts of this article are drawn, about how an honesty-in-politics law and enforcement system could work in a timely and effective way, without involving the courts or lawyers, not only for election promises but also for misleading statements in between elections, at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdFeb2411.html

and see many more details on Democracy Watch's Honesty in Politics Campaign page at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/honestydir.html
and on http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca
Organizer of the CoffeeParty.ca movement http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

Very unfortunately for them and all Canadians, the Liberal Party's federal election platform ignores many loopholes and flaws in the federal good government system. So they clearly do not want to high the issue of good government in the campaign.

Even if the Liberals were elected and kept all their promises, it will still be legal in federal politics: to be dishonest and
excessively secretive, to lobby secretly and unethically; to make secret, unlimited donations to some types of political candidates; for Cabinet ministers and government officials to make decisions in which they have a financial interest, and; for Cabinet to make patronage and crony appointments and to call unfair snap elections.

As well, whistleblower protection will remain too weak, and lapdog good government enforcement agencies and the Senate will continue to be ineffective and unaccountable.

MPs will also still lack key powers, will still be too dependent on their party leader for their job, and many will not be very
representative of voters in their ridings.

If the Liberals think that voters will trust them with power again without them making titanium-clad promises to ensure they will exercise power with integrity, they are only fooling themselves.

Canadians deserve better than how the Conservatives have governed in the past five years, and how the Liberals are promising to govern.

Both parties still have plenty of time left this election to give Canadians what they deserve, and if they want power they better make more, and stronger, good government promises.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.dwatch.ca
Organizer of the CoffeeParty.ca movement http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

The first-past-the-post vote counting system that Canada uses almost always gives majority power to a party that won a minority of votes. So, if you think about it, it is clear that the ballot box is a completely ineffective accountability tool for dishonesty in politics (especially when all of the parties are making false promises).

And of course we can legislate morality, we do it all the time (as detailed in the article, many laws require honesty and penalize lies).

You may be thinking, as many people do, that the saying "you can't legislate morality" was intended to mean that you can't pass laws that set moral standards. However, the statement was intended to mean that even if you pass such laws, not everyone will follow them.

But that is not a reason to fail to pass an honesty-in-politics law, because if it is designed properly it will discourage most people in politics from lying, and that will make things better. No law will ever make things perfect, but such a law will definitely makes things better (just like all the other laws that prohibit lying have made things better).

To see a summary of all the many other loopholes in the federal Lobbying Act, and Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd's very weak enforcement record, go to: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdOct0410.html

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

The scandal involving Conservative Cabinet minister Bev Oda is yet another example showing the clear need for an honesty-in-federal-politics law that applies to everyone and allows for complaints by anyone to an independent, non-partisan watchdog agency such as the federal Ethics Commissioner.

If the Conservatives had a majority of seats in the House of Commons, they would have stopped the current parliamentary process aimed at penalizing Minister Oda for her misleading statements. And the process is tainted by partisanship because a Liberal Speaker of the House will decide if Oda is guilty, and opposition MPs will decide whether she will be penalized.

If Minister Oda made her false statements outside of Parliament, for example during an election campaign and including some false election promises, the current process would also not be happening because MPs can only penalize misleading statements made before committees or in the House.

In fact, many ministers and MPs from all political parties, as well as their staff and government officials and lobbyists, have in the past escaped being penalized for false statements because of majority governments, or because of where they made their statements.

Given that dishonesty in politics is the main thing turning off voters, and a main reason for the drop in voter turnout, we clearly
need a strong, comprehensive, independently enforced honesty law so that people involved in federal politics will no longer get away with misleading Canadians.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca http://www.CoffeeParty.ca