Last night the Inglewood Community Association hosted another all candidates debate for the riding of Calgary Centre, and something truly remarkable happened: everyone showed up. Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Thana Boonlert for the Greens, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, and yes, Joan Crockatt for the Conservatives. There was even an independent seeking signatures to be approved as a candidate for the riding.
It's still a bit appalling to me that we're pleasantly surprised when politicians actually turn up for public forums to answer questions on their platforms. Still, I've already written an entire post largely dedicated to that topic, so instead I'm going to focus on the positive and just break down the debate's highlights.
The Nitty-Gritty
So to begin with, the format was a little bit...confusing. As I understood it, it went like this:
1. Candidates each had 2 minute introductions, in order of last name.
2. The Inglewood Community Association had pre-canvassed neighborhood residents for debate questions. They had selected 8 questions total. For each of these, a candidate would be randomly selected to answer.
3. The twist was, each candidate also had 2 yellow cards. With these cards, they could indicate their desire to respond to a question after the randomly selected candidate. Once a candidate "used up" their cards, they were done talking (unless randomly selected once more).
4. Following this initial Q&A, there was a short break. During the break, debate organizers collected questions from the audience and sorted through sixty-five (65!) of them to select four (4...).
5. Once again, candidates had yellow cards and could use them to jump in on someone else's question.
6. Finally, candidates each had 2 minute closing statements, in reverse order of last name.
There were some advantages to the card system. It forced candidates to think strategically about the questions they wanted to answer, and when. The order of questions was predetermined, but the randomization of responses meant you were never sure who would get what question when.
The problem with this, however, is that it meant we didn't necessarily hear everyone's thoughts on the issues. This was especially apparent in the final pre-made question, which went to Joan Crockatt, on ISIS recruitment. Other candidates were not able to respond, as they had used their cards, which meant Crockatt effectively had the floor on this issue unimpeded
I think that it was an interesting idea with a good aim, but could use a little fine-tuning.
Winners and Losers
From the get-go, this was a debate between Liberal challenger Kent Hehr and Conservative incumbent Joan Crockatt. These two are the experienced politicians, the veteran debaters. They also came equipped with the largest groups of partisan supporters in the room; determined pockets of people that were easily identifiable by their applauding the slightest motion their candidate made.
Still though, I can safely say there were at least SOME undecided voters in the room (including myself) and I can safely say that they narrowly outnumbered each single partisan group (though not, by my reckoning, the sum total of all partisans).
So, who did it seem that these undecided voters were siding with?
Crockatt, I must say, gamely defended her government, and came equipped with a dazzling array of tax break programs and statistics. She was well-prepared, willing to take flack and boos on some subjects from left-leaning partisans, and spoke clearly and, by my count, had the fewest verbal stumbles. She also was riding well on the announcement from her government that the finances will be back in surplus this year.
I think the format also worked in her favour; as an incumbent, Crockatt is in the position of defending her government's record, and as any government that has ruled for a decade in Canada, that is never a fun place to be. The natural ebb and flow of approval for the ruling party is always tempered by time. But, with the format set up in the way it was, she could simply ignore those questions not well suited to her or her party's interests: C-51 oversight, environmental responsibility, and climate change.
Hehr would likely have welcomed the opportunity to attack Crockatt directly on these issues, but as it was, his statements on these points (excepting C-51, for obvious reasons) felt a little bit more like him putting forward his party's position rather than an opposition to the government.
The only point of direct conflict between the two main contenders, at least in the first half, came early on, on the point of seniors housing. Crockatt was first up on the question, and responded that the issue is technically a provincial issue (which is more or less accurate), and went on to espouse her government's record of tax breaks for seniors. Hehr challenged her by stating that her government's attempt to blame things on the provinces is symptomatic of an attempt to blame others and to argue with premiers rather than meet them. It was one of the only times we saw a direct challenge between the two in the first half.
The second half, however, became more interesting. As these questions came from the audience, they were especially partisan in their style. And they kicked things off with a doozy: a question on Transgender Rights.
The question went to Kent Hehr. As someone who was largely responsible for the creation of Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta, this is an issue that is right up Hehr's alley. He proudly touted his voting record in the Alberta Legislature, then pivoted to slam Crockatt over voting against C-279 (an act to amend Human Rights Act in favour of Trans rights). The applause was deafening, by far the biggest reaction of the night.
Following Jillian Ratti's echoing of Hehr's work, Crockatt took out a yellow card to respond. She started off with a fatal mistake: saying that the trans issue is complex. The boos, while not as loud or sustained as the preceding applause for Hehr, spoke volumes. It is never wise, on any issue, to prevaricate about the bush. Her position was further damaged by her own attempt to deflect the voting record back onto Trudeau, pointing out that the Liberal leader also did not vote for the bill. There are only a couple of problems with this argument. 1) Trudeau was absent. Crockatt was present, and voted against C-279. To say these actions are equivalent is simply false. 2) Even if Trudeau HAD been present and voted against it, to say that "he is just as bad as me" is still an admission of fault.
Indeed, for this question and perhaps this question only, I have to give the debate to Hehr. Were it not for this major gaffe, it might have been an even fight, as Crockatt gave decent answers on the economics issues and flood mitigation (though if one listened carefully to the latter, there was a great deal of vagueness on specific measures compared to Hehr's promise of the Liberals' infrastructure spending. This didn't seem to resonate with the crowd though) - two chief concerns of the community of Inglewood. However, her position on C-279 and her recent problems with Pride Calgary still seem to hold in the memories of residents in Calgary Centre, and they were only exacerbated by one of her supporters (I'll come back to this momentarily).
While Hehr would be my overall winner, however, I have to give special attention to a dark horse first-timer of Thai ancestry. Thana Boonlert is young and inexperienced, but I have to say I was very, very impressed by how much he improved over his previous debate appearance in Britannia. He was personable, engaged, and more developed in his strategy. He positioned himself carefully as an alternative to the big hitters rather than a second banana. I still don't think he garnered much support in the room, but I applaud Boonlert's effort and I hope this election only marks the beginning of a potential political career.
Line of the Night
I know it'll seem like I'm spreading the love around equally, but I have to give my one-liner of the night to NDP candidate Jillian Ratti. Sincerely, I did not think she had this kind of quick wit in her. I had mentioned before that a Crockatt supporter in the audience hurt the incumbent's position on Trans rights. Let me paint you a picture.
Having just taken a hit from Hehr on C-279, Crockatt then had to endure a further rebuke from Ratti. But no sooner had Ratti opened her mouth, than a woman yelled out "very proud of you, Joan!"
To be clear, that's: very proud of you for limiting trans rights, standing up for traditional family, etc. etc., to read between the lines.
Over the ominous murmurs of the crowd, Jillian Ratti grinned broadly, and proclaimed: "My first heckler, I'm a real politician!"
That, deservedly, got the biggest laughs of the evening.
In Closing
Whatever your opinions on the candidates, this debate was fantastic. Turnout was BIG. It was standing room only in the Inglewood Community Hall. I ballparked the crowd at 200, but I'd be prepared to edge that up to 250. I don't know if there are further community debates planned, but I sincerely hope all the candidates continue to turn up to every conversation whenever possible. What this debate showed is that when there is a real conversation with real opposition, the public is interested.
Kudos to the Inglewood Community Association for hosting, and thank you to Avnish Mehta for taking on the challenging task of moderating.
Onwards to October 19th!
It's still a bit appalling to me that we're pleasantly surprised when politicians actually turn up for public forums to answer questions on their platforms. Still, I've already written an entire post largely dedicated to that topic, so instead I'm going to focus on the positive and just break down the debate's highlights.
The Nitty-Gritty
So to begin with, the format was a little bit...confusing. As I understood it, it went like this:
1. Candidates each had 2 minute introductions, in order of last name.
2. The Inglewood Community Association had pre-canvassed neighborhood residents for debate questions. They had selected 8 questions total. For each of these, a candidate would be randomly selected to answer.
3. The twist was, each candidate also had 2 yellow cards. With these cards, they could indicate their desire to respond to a question after the randomly selected candidate. Once a candidate "used up" their cards, they were done talking (unless randomly selected once more).
4. Following this initial Q&A, there was a short break. During the break, debate organizers collected questions from the audience and sorted through sixty-five (65!) of them to select four (4...).
5. Once again, candidates had yellow cards and could use them to jump in on someone else's question.
6. Finally, candidates each had 2 minute closing statements, in reverse order of last name.
There were some advantages to the card system. It forced candidates to think strategically about the questions they wanted to answer, and when. The order of questions was predetermined, but the randomization of responses meant you were never sure who would get what question when.
The problem with this, however, is that it meant we didn't necessarily hear everyone's thoughts on the issues. This was especially apparent in the final pre-made question, which went to Joan Crockatt, on ISIS recruitment. Other candidates were not able to respond, as they had used their cards, which meant Crockatt effectively had the floor on this issue unimpeded
I think that it was an interesting idea with a good aim, but could use a little fine-tuning.
 |
| Special thanks to Cameron Perrier (@CP_stylebook on Twitter) for snapping this picture of the debate questions! |
Winners and Losers
From the get-go, this was a debate between Liberal challenger Kent Hehr and Conservative incumbent Joan Crockatt. These two are the experienced politicians, the veteran debaters. They also came equipped with the largest groups of partisan supporters in the room; determined pockets of people that were easily identifiable by their applauding the slightest motion their candidate made.
Still though, I can safely say there were at least SOME undecided voters in the room (including myself) and I can safely say that they narrowly outnumbered each single partisan group (though not, by my reckoning, the sum total of all partisans).
So, who did it seem that these undecided voters were siding with?
Crockatt, I must say, gamely defended her government, and came equipped with a dazzling array of tax break programs and statistics. She was well-prepared, willing to take flack and boos on some subjects from left-leaning partisans, and spoke clearly and, by my count, had the fewest verbal stumbles. She also was riding well on the announcement from her government that the finances will be back in surplus this year.
I think the format also worked in her favour; as an incumbent, Crockatt is in the position of defending her government's record, and as any government that has ruled for a decade in Canada, that is never a fun place to be. The natural ebb and flow of approval for the ruling party is always tempered by time. But, with the format set up in the way it was, she could simply ignore those questions not well suited to her or her party's interests: C-51 oversight, environmental responsibility, and climate change.
Hehr would likely have welcomed the opportunity to attack Crockatt directly on these issues, but as it was, his statements on these points (excepting C-51, for obvious reasons) felt a little bit more like him putting forward his party's position rather than an opposition to the government.
The only point of direct conflict between the two main contenders, at least in the first half, came early on, on the point of seniors housing. Crockatt was first up on the question, and responded that the issue is technically a provincial issue (which is more or less accurate), and went on to espouse her government's record of tax breaks for seniors. Hehr challenged her by stating that her government's attempt to blame things on the provinces is symptomatic of an attempt to blame others and to argue with premiers rather than meet them. It was one of the only times we saw a direct challenge between the two in the first half.
The second half, however, became more interesting. As these questions came from the audience, they were especially partisan in their style. And they kicked things off with a doozy: a question on Transgender Rights.
The question went to Kent Hehr. As someone who was largely responsible for the creation of Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta, this is an issue that is right up Hehr's alley. He proudly touted his voting record in the Alberta Legislature, then pivoted to slam Crockatt over voting against C-279 (an act to amend Human Rights Act in favour of Trans rights). The applause was deafening, by far the biggest reaction of the night.
Following Jillian Ratti's echoing of Hehr's work, Crockatt took out a yellow card to respond. She started off with a fatal mistake: saying that the trans issue is complex. The boos, while not as loud or sustained as the preceding applause for Hehr, spoke volumes. It is never wise, on any issue, to prevaricate about the bush. Her position was further damaged by her own attempt to deflect the voting record back onto Trudeau, pointing out that the Liberal leader also did not vote for the bill. There are only a couple of problems with this argument. 1) Trudeau was absent. Crockatt was present, and voted against C-279. To say these actions are equivalent is simply false. 2) Even if Trudeau HAD been present and voted against it, to say that "he is just as bad as me" is still an admission of fault.
Indeed, for this question and perhaps this question only, I have to give the debate to Hehr. Were it not for this major gaffe, it might have been an even fight, as Crockatt gave decent answers on the economics issues and flood mitigation (though if one listened carefully to the latter, there was a great deal of vagueness on specific measures compared to Hehr's promise of the Liberals' infrastructure spending. This didn't seem to resonate with the crowd though) - two chief concerns of the community of Inglewood. However, her position on C-279 and her recent problems with Pride Calgary still seem to hold in the memories of residents in Calgary Centre, and they were only exacerbated by one of her supporters (I'll come back to this momentarily).
While Hehr would be my overall winner, however, I have to give special attention to a dark horse first-timer of Thai ancestry. Thana Boonlert is young and inexperienced, but I have to say I was very, very impressed by how much he improved over his previous debate appearance in Britannia. He was personable, engaged, and more developed in his strategy. He positioned himself carefully as an alternative to the big hitters rather than a second banana. I still don't think he garnered much support in the room, but I applaud Boonlert's effort and I hope this election only marks the beginning of a potential political career.
Line of the Night
I know it'll seem like I'm spreading the love around equally, but I have to give my one-liner of the night to NDP candidate Jillian Ratti. Sincerely, I did not think she had this kind of quick wit in her. I had mentioned before that a Crockatt supporter in the audience hurt the incumbent's position on Trans rights. Let me paint you a picture.
Having just taken a hit from Hehr on C-279, Crockatt then had to endure a further rebuke from Ratti. But no sooner had Ratti opened her mouth, than a woman yelled out "very proud of you, Joan!"
To be clear, that's: very proud of you for limiting trans rights, standing up for traditional family, etc. etc., to read between the lines.
Over the ominous murmurs of the crowd, Jillian Ratti grinned broadly, and proclaimed: "My first heckler, I'm a real politician!"
That, deservedly, got the biggest laughs of the evening.
In Closing
Whatever your opinions on the candidates, this debate was fantastic. Turnout was BIG. It was standing room only in the Inglewood Community Hall. I ballparked the crowd at 200, but I'd be prepared to edge that up to 250. I don't know if there are further community debates planned, but I sincerely hope all the candidates continue to turn up to every conversation whenever possible. What this debate showed is that when there is a real conversation with real opposition, the public is interested.
Kudos to the Inglewood Community Association for hosting, and thank you to Avnish Mehta for taking on the challenging task of moderating.
Onwards to October 19th!
I attended a debate on Wednesday night. Well, I say "debate" but what occurred on the stage (or rather, in front of it, since it wasn't wheelchair accessible) at the B'nai Tikvah Temple in Calgary's neighbourhood of Britannia would be more accurately described as a series of tiny stump speeches. This could be viewed as a flaw in the format - there was no type of rebuttal system set up, merely a series of questions from both the Calgary Leadership Forum who organized the debate, and allotted time from the candidates to answer - but really the candidates themselves were very unwilling to challenge each other. Again, we could view this as a flaw in the candidates themselves - three were brand new to politics, and obviously very nervous to be there - but really there was very little that these candidates disagreed on (with the obvious exception of the Libertarian Candidate).
So what happened?
You may have already heard, but the Harper Government has issued marching orders to all of its candidates instructing them that they should avoid debates and the media for the duration of the campaign. These marching orders were issued literally the day before this particular debate was to take place. Until that point, the incumbent for the riding of Calgary Centre, Joan Crockatt, had in fact confirmed her attendance. Confirmed, it must be stressed, after being given three alternative dates to choose from. Yet at 4pm the previous day, the Calgary Leadership Forum was contacted by the Crockatt campaign team and informed that the incumbent would not be in attendance. The reason given? Her mother's 88th birthday celebration. In Lloydminster.
Far be it from me to be judgmental, but I would suggest that such an occasion could perhaps have been slightly anticipated and planned around accordingly.
Regardless, the remaining candidates - Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, Thana Boonlert from the Greens and William Hatch for the Libertarian Party - all showed up, taking valuable time out of their campaign schedules to talk about the issues facing our country. And, lest we forget, so too did about 100-150 constituents, taking time out of their personal lives to hear from the people who are vying for their votes, one of whom, ultimately, will also represent their voices in the house of commons. You can well imagine the dismay of those gathered that the incumbent did not deign to grace them with her presence.
For my own part, such dismay was only compounded when Kent Hehr, currently the favoured choice to unseat Joan Crockatt, also informed me he would not be attending any further debates that she did not attend.
You see, in Hehr's view, an evening such as the one that occurred on Wednesday could be better spent doorknocking and shaking hands with constituents on a one-on-one basis. Expanding on this position, the Liberal candidate suggested that debates were frequented by the same crowd time and time again (and in small numbers), while doorknocking would be reaching an audience that is not already onside to his platform (and in far greater numbers).
To be sure, I do believe there is something to this. The crowd at the B'nai Tikvah Temple was definitely friendly to centre-left ideas (or at least, if they were opposed, they did not take pains to vocalize it). I did recognize some people from previous campaign events I had attended. But many others I did not. Factually, I know that people were in attendance who had never been to a local debate (having invited some of them myself). And perhaps most damningly, I know my own mind and my mind is not yet made up. Would another debate such as the one I saw on Wednesday change it one way or another? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would I attend such another debate? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I realize that I may be in the minority in my indecision. A poll from Insights West suggests that as many as 92% of Conservative supporters will not change their minds before election day. That figure may well be one of the strongest indicators that debates, as Andrew MacDougall observed in the Toronto Star, are "a highly partisan experience where people pack the rooms."
Still I can't help feeling that if our elected officials - ostensibly, the people who lead us and guide the direction of our country - do not actually lead, then we can only expect the system to get worse and worse. Indeed, it seems as though the local candidates are merely taking a page out of the playbook of their leaders. Thomas Mulcair has made it clear he will not attend debates that Stephen Harper is not part of, and has already pulled out of one such conversation. With the frontrunner in the polls and the incumbent PM not in attendance, how many people will tune into a debate between Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May (and maybe, if we're truly blessed, Gilles Duceppe)?
I should be clear that Kent Hehr's stance did not, from our brief conversation, appear set in stone. For that matter, it remains unclear if any further debates would be forthcoming. There are numerous non-partisan organizations in the city that very likely would want to hear what the candidates have to say about the issues (Calgary Economic Development, perhaps?). Organizing a debate is a thankless chore, however, and when candidates fail to show it becomes that much harder to raise volunteers and generate interest. It is my sincere hope, however, that if a debate does seem to be forthcoming, that ALL candidates, including Mr. Hehr and Ms. Crockatt, will attend.
A long time ago, I wrote a short play about a funeral that nobody shows up to. The funeral workers, however, are compelled to place the floral arrangements, dress the body, and set up the open casket. They do this because it is a ritual to them, a habit. Yet without any attendees, their gestures may ultimately be devoid of all meaning. Certainly the deceased man is not able to appreciate the work they are doing.
So in an election where none of the candidates show up, what exactly are we all doing? We can dress up the corpse of our country's democracy all we like, and run through the motions, but if the people running for office are ignoring the whole ritual, what meaning does our own participation in the election process have?
There's an old adage that repeating a process and expecting a different result amounts to insanity, but I put it to you: having a conversation with nobody present is the true definition of crazy.
So what happened?
You may have already heard, but the Harper Government has issued marching orders to all of its candidates instructing them that they should avoid debates and the media for the duration of the campaign. These marching orders were issued literally the day before this particular debate was to take place. Until that point, the incumbent for the riding of Calgary Centre, Joan Crockatt, had in fact confirmed her attendance. Confirmed, it must be stressed, after being given three alternative dates to choose from. Yet at 4pm the previous day, the Calgary Leadership Forum was contacted by the Crockatt campaign team and informed that the incumbent would not be in attendance. The reason given? Her mother's 88th birthday celebration. In Lloydminster.
Far be it from me to be judgmental, but I would suggest that such an occasion could perhaps have been slightly anticipated and planned around accordingly.
 |
| GordonMcDowell via Compfight cc |
Regardless, the remaining candidates - Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, Thana Boonlert from the Greens and William Hatch for the Libertarian Party - all showed up, taking valuable time out of their campaign schedules to talk about the issues facing our country. And, lest we forget, so too did about 100-150 constituents, taking time out of their personal lives to hear from the people who are vying for their votes, one of whom, ultimately, will also represent their voices in the house of commons. You can well imagine the dismay of those gathered that the incumbent did not deign to grace them with her presence.
For my own part, such dismay was only compounded when Kent Hehr, currently the favoured choice to unseat Joan Crockatt, also informed me he would not be attending any further debates that she did not attend.
You see, in Hehr's view, an evening such as the one that occurred on Wednesday could be better spent doorknocking and shaking hands with constituents on a one-on-one basis. Expanding on this position, the Liberal candidate suggested that debates were frequented by the same crowd time and time again (and in small numbers), while doorknocking would be reaching an audience that is not already onside to his platform (and in far greater numbers).
To be sure, I do believe there is something to this. The crowd at the B'nai Tikvah Temple was definitely friendly to centre-left ideas (or at least, if they were opposed, they did not take pains to vocalize it). I did recognize some people from previous campaign events I had attended. But many others I did not. Factually, I know that people were in attendance who had never been to a local debate (having invited some of them myself). And perhaps most damningly, I know my own mind and my mind is not yet made up. Would another debate such as the one I saw on Wednesday change it one way or another? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would I attend such another debate? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I realize that I may be in the minority in my indecision. A poll from Insights West suggests that as many as 92% of Conservative supporters will not change their minds before election day. That figure may well be one of the strongest indicators that debates, as Andrew MacDougall observed in the Toronto Star, are "a highly partisan experience where people pack the rooms."
Still I can't help feeling that if our elected officials - ostensibly, the people who lead us and guide the direction of our country - do not actually lead, then we can only expect the system to get worse and worse. Indeed, it seems as though the local candidates are merely taking a page out of the playbook of their leaders. Thomas Mulcair has made it clear he will not attend debates that Stephen Harper is not part of, and has already pulled out of one such conversation. With the frontrunner in the polls and the incumbent PM not in attendance, how many people will tune into a debate between Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May (and maybe, if we're truly blessed, Gilles Duceppe)?
I should be clear that Kent Hehr's stance did not, from our brief conversation, appear set in stone. For that matter, it remains unclear if any further debates would be forthcoming. There are numerous non-partisan organizations in the city that very likely would want to hear what the candidates have to say about the issues (Calgary Economic Development, perhaps?). Organizing a debate is a thankless chore, however, and when candidates fail to show it becomes that much harder to raise volunteers and generate interest. It is my sincere hope, however, that if a debate does seem to be forthcoming, that ALL candidates, including Mr. Hehr and Ms. Crockatt, will attend.
A long time ago, I wrote a short play about a funeral that nobody shows up to. The funeral workers, however, are compelled to place the floral arrangements, dress the body, and set up the open casket. They do this because it is a ritual to them, a habit. Yet without any attendees, their gestures may ultimately be devoid of all meaning. Certainly the deceased man is not able to appreciate the work they are doing.
So in an election where none of the candidates show up, what exactly are we all doing? We can dress up the corpse of our country's democracy all we like, and run through the motions, but if the people running for office are ignoring the whole ritual, what meaning does our own participation in the election process have?
There's an old adage that repeating a process and expecting a different result amounts to insanity, but I put it to you: having a conversation with nobody present is the true definition of crazy.
 |
| Fire At Will [Photography] via Compfight cc |
"So they paid the expenses, not the taxpayers? I really don't get the fuss."
That's a comment on At Issue's Youtube video, "Nigel Wright's Testimony." Now, you're probably thinking: "A Youtube comment? REALLY?" And you'd be right. Typically speaking, Youtube comments rank up there with with a full-frontal lobotomy in terms of advancing the collective intellect of the internet. In this case, though, I think this comment illustrates the point I'd like to make today.
Doubtless you've at least heard of Mike Duffy and the Senate Expense Scandal. You might not necessarily be keeping up with it, but the name knocks about in the vernacular of our political discourse like a bb in a tin can, unavoidable and annoying.
You may have even heard that this is ostensibly a Big Deal, with nice big capital letters, and the timing of the Duffy Trial (again, with nice big capital letters) could be potentially devastating to the Harper re-election campaign.
Here's why I think that's very, very, unlikely.
For starters, you'll notice that I've taken great pains to acknowledge the fact that most Canadians don't thoroughly understand the entire Senate Expense Scandal issue, let alone the specifics of the Mike Duffy trial. And it IS Mike Duffy's trial, not, as some might think, a trial of Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's Office, or even the Prime Minister himself. To be sure, all of these parties are involved, and the political and personal fallout for each could be (but probably won't be) disastrous. Let's assume, however, that a sizeable group do understand the mechanics of what exactly is alleged to have happened. Which is, essentially:
1. Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau (appointed by Harper) and Mac Harb (appointed by Jean Chrétien), in 2012 claimed travel and living expenses to their offices for which they were not eligible, according to senate guidelines for spending.
2. Following an audit, Duffy, Wallin and Harb all repaid ineligible expenses.
3. Harb retired in 2013, while Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau were all suspended from the Senate without pay.
4. Currently, Harb, Brazeau and Duffy are all facing charges related to expenses they were ineligible for. Harb faces one count of breach of trust and one count of fraud. Brazeau faces the same charges. Harb's court date has been pushed back in light of the length of the Duffy trial. Brazeau's has been slated for March 29, 2016 (he is currently on trial for unrelated sex assault charges).
5. Mike Duffy's trial is currently ongoing. He faces 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. The key difference here is the bribery charge. It is alleged that Duffy accepted, in essence, a "bribe" from the Prime Minister's Office. This bribe took the shape of a $90,000 cheque issued to Duffy, the purpose of which was to repay the outstanding expenses and ostensibly to spare the Conservative Party of Canada the embarrassment of having a senator in the caucus that could not (or would not) repay the money.
6. As things stand now, the argument that the Duffy defence team is mounting is that the PMO pressured Duffy into accepting the cheque, which would likely mean Duffy is off the hook on the charge of bribery. Herein lies the argument which, theoretically, should damn the Harper Conservatives.
7. And now, more on why I think that doesn't matter.
Were you able to follow all of that? I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure I'm missing some of the more nuanced parts of how this all works, but I still consider myself reasonably well-informed when it comes to politics. And it's STILL confusing as hell. Try explaining this to somebody on their way into a voting booth and you'll just end up stepping all over your feet.
But more than that, I just don't think this is going to shake diehard Tory voters loose, for a few reasons.
Firstly, there is the amount of money. In the grand scheme of things, $90k pales in comparison to the federal budget. If the thrust of the argument is to be that taxpayer money was abused by the Senate, the figure must encompass all of the Senate's expenses, totaling in the millions. None of that is going to come out through this trial, and honestly even if it did it still doesn't match up against the money that was spent on, for example, the government's Economic Action Plan advertisements (in excess of $100-million). From this perspective, the trial is not likely to affect voting intentions whatsoever.
Secondly, there is the question of if the Conservative Party of Canada repaying the money counts as "taxpayer money being wasted." This goes to the core of that Youtube comment I posted earlier. Strictly speaking, the Conservative Party of Canada's money is raised for the purposes of campaigning and promoting party interests. It is raised through private donation, not through taxation, and it can be spent however the party feels is appropriate. As such, there is no actual cost to the taxpayer when the party spends funds from its own coffers. However, the morality of spending that money on a government official's expense account is, to say the least, questionable.
Which leads my to my third and most important point. Even if the Canadian public accepts that this is, indeed, a situation of corruption and bribery, the Tory diehard voter doesn't care. No, really. The number one election issue, according to the polls, is the economy. Corruption doesn't even rate high enough to show up in most cases. The closest we come is a concern of government overreach, as in the case of Bill C-51, but allegations of bribery don't even register in the minds of voters.
Why is this?
Partly it may well be that voters of every stripe have come to accept that our government always comes with a level of corruption. The Sponsorship Scandal, Premier Redford's own expense troubles, and the Ontario Power Plant Scandal all still linger in the memories of voters nationwide. Coupled with this cynicism, however, is a belief that as long as the government is doing one thing right, than all manner of sins can be forgiven. So just what IS the Harper government doing right for their faithful voters?
For an answer to that question, one need look no farther than the Rob Ford phenomenon. Taxes, taxes, taxes, went the drumbeat of Toronto's former mayor. I will keep your taxes low. Never mind that the money wasn't there to be given out, what mattered was that it was a simple, straightforward message that struck a chord with the basest impulse of voters: I get to keep my hard-earned money. It's the same way with the Harper Conservatives. In recent days, the party has come out with new platform planks aimed at echoing the message that your money is yours to spend: greater RRSP contributions, a cheque in the mail for having children, etc. etc. etc.
Vote buying, cries the opposition. Promises with no plan. Shameful pandering. Maybe so. Unfortunately, it also works. Tory voters will continue to vote Tory, scandal or no scandal, because the Tory message of "money in your pocket" WORKS. I sincerely think that anything short of the Prime Minister going to jail will not affect Tory diehard voting intentions, and I'm not even sure that would do the trick (I'd make an especially callous observation here about the hypocrisy of Vic Toews, he of the famous "with us or the child pornographers" line, and how he knocked up his babysitter, but...well, I guess I just did make that observation).
So what's the takeaway from all this? Is this trial all for nothing? No, of course not. If you believe that justice matters, then this trial matters. But where the election is concerned? Opposition parties and voters hoping that this will be the proverbial nail in the coffin for the Harper Conservatives are sadly mistaken. My suggestion to them is that they are better off focusing on establishing their own message and ensuring that they become the natural progressive option to unite around. Anything less, unfortunately, will be beaten back to the drumbeat of "taxes, taxes, taxes."