Ottawa Centre: "Didn't you hear us last time?"

I think it is fair to say that a lot of people across Canada are scratching their heads this week, wondering what the point of this election was--what it accomplished.  I suspect there are actually some answers to those questions, but they will probably take time to emerge.  In the long view, this election may be thought of as a significant one, perhaps as the time when it became obvious that the structural divisions that befuddled the right for the past 15 years have now taken firm hold of the centre-left.  However, in the short run all that is immediately evident is that the Canadian electorate rejected the opportunity to make any major changes to things, and instead voted quite firmly for the status quo.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Ottawa area, where every single riding returned an incumbent MP.  Within the region, Ottawa Centre wasn't satisfied merely to produce the same outcome as the previous election.  No, we apparently did our darndest to produce the same vote counts as for the previous election.  Take a look...

	2006	2008	Change
NDP	24609	25399	790	3.21%
Liberal	19468	16633	-2835	-14.56%
Conservative	15105	15065	-40	-0.26%
Green	6765	6348	-417	-6.16%
Marijuana	387	378	-9	-2.33%
Marxist-Leninist	69	95	26	37.68%
Communist	102		-102	-100.00%
Independent	121		-121	-100.00%
Rejected	324	266	-58	-17.90%
Total	66950	64184	-2766	-4.13%

Aside from a group of about 2800 Liberal voters who apparently chose to sit on their hands (the drop in total vote being remarkably close to the drop in the Liberal vote), the differences are in the noise.  Fewer than 800 votes changed hands (1.2% of valid votes cast), and they all went to the incumbent.

One could take that as a rebuke to the electoral process itself--or at least a rejection of the decision to call an election.  ("Damn it, we voted like this, and we meant it!  Now stop bothering us.") But the overall turnout remains pretty high in Ottawa Centre.  At 71%, it is well above the national average, at least.  So if Ottawa Centre voters are perhaps hide-bound traditionalists, they remain engaged hide-bound traditionalists.

Brian McGarry has a bad day

“Do you think Brian wears a toupée? I know that's a shallow question, but...” I was sitting with Nik Maak—author of the blog Kill Everything—in the auditorium of Glebe Collegiate. An Ottawa Centre all-candidates meeting had just wrapped up, and he was talking about Brian McGarry. Nik doesn't particularly like Mr. McGarry. I shook my head, and maybe mumbled something. But, before I could really answer, he was continuing. “If Gilligan and Mr. Howell had a love child, that's him. You know. He's kinda goofy, but kinda mean at the same time.” (Or maybe he said “stern”. I don't really remember.) I reflected on this for a moment.

“Yeah, and there's a bit of a physical resemblance, too” I admitted. “I guess that's why I think it's his real hair. He seems like the kind of guy who would grow hair like that.” It seemed unkind to be picking on McGarry—he hadn't had an entirely successful evening, after all. But he brings it on himself. His performance that evening practically demanded mockery.

Mike Cassidy happened to be sitting behind Nik. Before the meeting started, I overheard him say “He's really one of the more decent Conservative candidates...” It was clear he too was talking about McGarry. I'm not sure whether he meant in this election, or compared to candidates Cassidy had faced before. He had been leader of the Ontario NDP before Bob Rae. Like Bob Rae, he moved on to federal politics; but unlike Rae, he stayed with the NDP. He won Ottawa Centre in the federal election of 1984 by a margin of 54 votes. Presumably he's seen his share of Conservative candidates. But you also have to figure that if Mike Cassidy is being sympathetic to a Conservative, that Conservative isn't seen as much of a threat.

* * *

The format for this meeting was odd. There were the usual opening statements, then two prepared questions: one from a student; one from a community association representative. So far so good. The community associations and high school were hosting, so you'd expect them to give themselves some kind of panel questions. It was the way the floor questions were handled that was odd. There were no microphones. Instead, students collected written questions, which were then read by the moderator.

The goal, we were told, was to keep things moving quickly—to avoid wasting time at the microphones—so as to get to as many questions as possible. I'd come with a vague plan to ask a question about ACTA, but I didn't have anything written down. I was just going to wing it. So I tried, twice, to write something out while simultaneously taking notes. It didn't really work. So my question didn't make it into the pool.

My question was going to be something like this: The Canadian government has been participating in negotiations to establish an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for the past year. This treaty process has been widely criticized as being secretive, and undemocratic. Although the content of this treaty is unknown, it is rumoured to require member nations to divert public funds into the enforcement of private Intellectual Property rights, on behalf of rights holders—a proposition that was recently rejected by the Departments of Justice and Commerce in the US. In fact, Senators Leahy and Specter, authors of a bill that would have implemented such a provision published an open letter last week decrying the secrecy and the breadth of these treaty negotiations. When two of the strongest proponents of IP enforcement regimes, as well as most proponents of IP liberalization agree that the ACTA process is severely flawed, is it not time for the Canadian government to consider opening it up to a little public scrutiny?

It's too long, of course. I was working on editing it. Oh well. The thing is, you can probably predict what answers the candidates would have given, anyway. Still, it might have been nice to get them on the record on the subject.

Nik had a question too. He had brought his in written form, so was ready to toss it right into the basket when the students came around. His question, more or less, was why should we take seriously candidates who don't care to engage the electorate? The pointy end of that stick was directed at Penny Collenette, as much as it was at McGarry. Both of them begged off several of the “all-candidates” meetings, over the course of this campaign.

The moderator said she'd received more than 75 submissions. By the time Nik asked about McGarry's hair, we'd heard 42 of them. Nik's wasn't one of them. Somebody else asked a question about Conservative secretiveness and gag orders on local candidates, though. McGarry's response was adamant: there was no gag order on him. He'd answer any question, any time, with honesty and integrity. How this was going to happen when he'd elected not to attend six of the eight scheduled debates or all-candidates meetings in the riding wasn't clear.

To his credit, his campaign office was the only one that responded directly to my copyright policy questions. The response didn't really answer them—it was a canned statement about how “the Conservative government consulted widely with Canadians and stakeholders and delivered a made-in-Canada approach that struck a balance between protecting the rights of consumers while respecting the rights of creators and copyright owners” and how “[i]f elected, Brian will certainly ensure that your opinions on this matter are heard clearly from within the Government.” But it was a response. (For the record, I also received an invitation to a Policy Parlour discussion from Jen Hunter's assistant. I guess you could consider that a response, too.)

I'm still picking on McGarry. I can't help it. In response to a question about how to make communities more livable, most of the candidates talked about financial transfers to municipalities; McGarry talked about having been a school board trustee. When asked about the decline of voter participation, McGarry quite earnestly announced that he wasn't going to fine people for not voting. (Nobody had raised this possibility.) When asked what platform items might have to be delayed in the event of a severe economic downturn, McGarry's response was “I know what you want me to say: cut the arts! Well no way.” He then went on to talk about cutting four-lane highways. And when asked about whether he'd been interested in politics as a child, he went off on some tangent about how he used to be a Liberal, and how it was a shame he couldn't be one anymore. But the absolute topper has to be the question about abortion rights, to which he answered that one should “celebrate life...in most cases.”

Time and time again, he kept saying things that were just plain weird. Things that left me scratching my head, wondering what he was thinking—why he would say that.

One thing I have to say, though: both Paul Dewar and Penny Collenette remarked on how respectful the evening had been. Collenette went so far as to call it a “new model for politics”. I suppose that as far as the candidates were concerned, it was reasonably respectful. But I didn't feel a lot of respect from the audience directed towards Brian McGarry. When he mentioned a hearing problem, while asking for a somewhat strange and hostile question to be repeated to him, there was laughter, and not the laughing-with-you kind. That seemed uncalled for.

After all, it clearly wasn't his day.

Illegal election advertising in Ottawa Centre?

While out for a walk this afternoon, I came across a number of makeshift signs for John Akpata of the Marijuana Party, like the one pictured here.  This one is on the north side of Albert St., at the intersection with Preston.  There are others around.  As can be seen in the photo, the signs appear to be leftover Greg Laxton signs from the 2007 Ontario election, with Mr. Akpata's name painted on them, apparently by hand.

Because the signs are hand-painted, there's some variation, but generally the Green Party name, and in some cases the logo, are pretty recognizable.  So much so that my first thought when I saw one of these signs from a distance was "Why is Akpata trying to pretend he's running for the Greens?"  From up close, it's easier to see that these are old Laxton signs from the Green Party of Ontario, not the federal party.  So my second thought was that this was quite resourceful, and a good way to re-use the material.  But my third thought was to wonder if it was legal.

I don't think it is.  The Canada Elections Act requires that election advertising indicate who authorized it, and these signs do not.  (The statement of authorization by the Green Party of Ontario is obviously invalid, and I don't think anyone is intended to believe otherwise.)  So, depending on whether these signs were placed by someone acting on behalf of Mr. Akpata (or the Marijuana Party), or by a third party, they would seem to be in contravention of section 320 or 352 of the Act.  In either case, whoever put them up would be potentially "liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both." [Canada Elections Act, section 500(1)]

One of the reasons for this requirement is that there are spending limits for election campaigns.  If election advertising can't be traced to its source, it would be impossible to actually monitor campaign spending.  So while I strongly doubt that Mr. Akpata or the Marijuana Party have the means or the intent to try to violate the spending rules, it's not a trivial matter.  Other people or groups potentially do.  So it's possibly a shame that this kind of creative re-use of waste materials can't be encouraged, but the law must apply equally to all.

UPDATE: I asked Mr. Akpata for comment.  His response, in part, was: 

i am not responsible for the signs.  i did not do this, nor did i encourage nor comission any person to do this.  apparently some person took it upon themselves to show support to me as a candidate.  i will be forwarding this to blair longley "leader" of the marijuana party to see what if any action i should take.

Agree-a-thon in Ottawa Centre

Ottawa Centre is a fairly diverse and politically active riding, as these things go. So at election time, it tends to put-on a fair number of different all-candidates debates--including some that one might call special interest debates. Last night, at the Ottawa Public Library, there were two. The first--arguably the main event--was hosted by Capital Xtra and EGALE, and dealt with Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Trans/Queer issues. The second was hosted by PSAC, and focused on issues of interest to public servants.

I'm not gay, and I haven't worked for the public service in many years, but I thought it might be of some interest, and I didn't have anything else in particular to do that evening. So I grabbed my netbook, and headed over to the library. I thought about trying to liveblog it, but I wasn't sure my battery would last the three hours, particularly with the wireless on, so I just took some notes instead. (Actually, I don't even know if there is wifi in the auditorium, anyway.)

In hindsight, that's probably just as well. Brian McGarry, the local Conservative candidate, declined the invitation to participate. Reportedly his wife is ill, so it might not have been part of the broader pattern of Conservative candidates declining to engage with the electorate during this campaign. And arguably it doesn't matter--in its entire history, the riding of Ottawa Centre has been held by a Conservative for a grand total of five months (Robert de Cotret, PC, who won a by-election in 1978, and then lost the seat again in the general election of 1979). But regardless, his absence removed most of the debate.

Instead, what took place was mostly an agree-a-thon between Paul Dewar (NDP, incumbent), Jen Hunter (Green Party), and Penny Collenette (Liberal Party). There were some themes that emerged in the candidates' responses to the questions, and some general patterns. But the details are perhaps not all that interesting. (If anyone does want the details, my raw notes are here.) The general pattern was this: Paul Dewar was the most familiar with the issues; Penny Collenette did more Harper-bashing, and seemed to be working from a script more of the time (at one point seeming to apologize for having an independent thought); Jen Hunter was clearly not working from a script, but might have benefited from one.

Which is not to say that the candidates always agreed on the policy questions--they didn't. For example, when asked about their positions on maintaining (or increasing) funding for HIV/AIDS research, Dewar gave a straight commitment to increase funding levels to at least $100 Million/year, and to fund new vaccine work from a separate pool not to be counted against that sum; Collenette stated there was no specific dollar figure in "her" platform for HIV/AIDS research funding, but that there was an overall $500 M/year commitment to increased research funding across the board; and Hunter said that prevention was a priority for the Green Party, and apologized for not having anything more specific to say on the subject. But on the question about abortion access, and attempts to enshrine fetal personhood within the law the candidates really had nothing to disagree about. Where they differed on that response had mostly to do with how much indignation they put into it.

Some of the policy differences that did exist were relatively subtle--on marijuana, Hunter spoke in favour of outright legalization, while the other two only offered decriminalization (and Collenette only for small quantities, with no definition of "small"). Others were arguably more substantial--on access to education, Collenette offered increased access to student loans (without a means test on parental income); Dewar offered a flat $1000/year grant for all undergraduate students; and Hunter offered automatic debt forgiveness for students who graduate. (Nobody asked for costing on any of these positions; it wasn't that kind of crowd.)

Naturally, there were some amusing moments of political theatre, too. One I enjoyed came when Hunter remarked about looking at things from the perspective of an opposition member "facing a sea of blue". Dewar and Collenette both visibly cringed, and at least one of them said "No!" out loud. (Hunter paused, then said "Well, not in Ottawa Centre. I get that! The audience laughed, appreciatively.)

One strange moment came relatively late in the first debate: Collenette, in response to a question about criminalization of HIV transmission asked if it was true that transmission rates were spiking among young women. "If that's true, it would be terrible to criminalize it," she said, or something to that effect. One of the panelists (Nicholas Little, I think) jumped on this, asking why only for young women and not gay men? Collenette got a little flustered, saying that wasn't what she meant but that as a woman it resonated that way for her and "sometimes we get to speak for ourselves, as women". Dewar essentially came to her rescue, jumping in with something reasonable that I didn't write down. Then Collenette asked the panel how many convictions there had been. They didn't know, but this kicked off something of a back and forth discussion amongst the candidates, the panelists and the moderator. It was all very collegial, and more than a little odd for a campaign debate.

Speaking of gaffes, it would be remiss of me not to point out that when an audience member asked a question about the SPP, Collenette not only didn't know that those negotiations had been kicked off by the Martin government, she didn't believe it and argued with the questioner about it. Dewar had a bit of a defensive moment when talking about voting in favour of the Conservative Tackling Violent Crime Act. Hunter didn't exactly have gaffes, she just wandered into non sequitur pretty frequently, got cut off for exceeding her time allotment, and generally seemed a little disorganized.

The quote of the night came from Penny Collenette. "The Liberal Party doesn't have a position on anal sex" is not a sentence one hears in most political debates.

The second half of the "debate" was, if anything even less controversial. All three candidates more or less fell over themselves to praise the quality of the Public Service. There were some differences of policy. Dewar was firmer against outsourcing and contracting out. The other two, while agreeing that there needed to be a core of permanent full time (and presumably unionized) public servants, figured there needed to be some degree of flexibility in staffing. But they all agreed that the present government was bargaining in bad faith, and that contract negotiations needed to be more respectful. There seemed to be something of a contest going on about who could use the word "respect" the most.

Dewar didn't harp as much as he might have on the fact that it was a Liberal government that was behind the major cuts during the Program Review of the 90s, but he did bring it up. He was also the only one with visual aides. Hunter had the "huh?" moment, when she responded to a question about selling off government buildings with a discussion about tele-work. And they all got in a few digs at McGarry for not being there to defend the government's record.

5 Questions (for candidates) about Copyright

Recently there has been some discussion on a mailing list I'm a member of about questionnaires to solicit candidates' positions on copyright reform, now that the election campaign is officially underway. After contributing my suggestions, I noted that I should probably just go ahead and send my questions off to my local candidates, regardless of what the other participants in the conversation decided to do. So I did. Here's what I sent, minus a short introduction:

1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court of Canada that "[i]n order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, [fair dealing, among the other exceptions in the Act] must not be interpreted restrictively." [CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13]?
2. Do you believe that Canada should implement and ratify the WIPO Internet treaties (the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty)?
3. If the answer to 2. is "yes", do you agree that the Article 11 WCT obligation (and similar obligation under Article 18 of the WPPT) can, and should, be satisfied without imposing a blanket prohibition on tools and/or technologies that may have both infringing and non-infringing uses?
4. Do you believe that the current private copying regime for audio recordings defined by Part VIII of the Copyright Act, including the associated levy and collective society is basically fair to both rights-holders and users of recordings?
5. Do you believe that a creator's right to control their creation includes the right to control or limit a consumer's private enjoyment of property?

I don't really view any of these questions as no-brainers. While one can treat them as a simple yes/no scorecard, there's plenty of room for interesting discussion within these parameters. So I'm curious to see what, if any, response I get from the candidates.