Going (pro)Rogue

With a recent election overshadowed by Obamamania to our south, the Canadian government decided to draw some attention to itself with a recent parliamentary crisis. In that election, the Conservative Party earned more seats than any other single party, but not enough to command a majority of the 308 seats in the House of Commons. Still, they were asked by the Governer General, to form a minority government with Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. This is what normally happens, and what everybody expected (read: took for granted) based on the distribution of seats after the election. Typically for a minority government to last, they have to play nice with the other parties to reach compromises in order to get a majority of votes in the house. Mr. Harper somehow didn't realize he didn't have a majority and pushed an economic statement that was sure to not sit well with the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois members that make up the majority of the seats in parliament. They didn't like it, decided "hey, we're in the majority, if we band together we topple this government and try to replace it with a coalition made up of the majority of MPs". This was to happen Monday in a vote of confidence on Harper's ability to lead.

So, less than two months after a federal election, and even less time sitting, Harper saw the writing on the wall and decided instead of letting government, you know, govern (during this worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, yadda, yadda) to take his ball and go home, suspending parliament (called proroguing) to buy time to figure a way out of this mess. The Governer General agreed to his request this morning. So until Jan. 26, this parliamentary showdown has been averted, as well as the ability of parliament to do anything. But it has made for interesting times, one of the most interesting parts being the revelation of how few Canadians understand how their government works. Hopefully this has been an opportunity for learning. Larry Moran at Sandwalk has been following what he calls Conservative Lies more closely, and hopefully we can also clear up some misconceptions here at the Bayblab. First an explanation of our parliamentary system (from a Sandwalk commenter):

Let me refresh your memory as to how a Westminster-style Parliamentary system works. The people of Canada do NOT elect a government; they elect members of the House of Commons. The members of the House choose the government. By tradition, the legal Head of State (the Governor-General, in our case) asks the leader of the party with the most seats in the HoC to form a government; that is, to form a cabinet to try to pass laws.

If the majority of the members of the HoC lose confidence in the ability of the minority, they have the right to express this through non-confidence votes or votes against bills that deal with government's ability to spend money.

In this case, the Prime Minister must ask the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election (remember, the GG is our head of state, and the only one who can call an election). The GG has the legal option to ask another party or parties to form a government, if he or she feels that this party or parties has the confidence of the majority of the HoC (for instance, if a majority of the legally elected members of parliament got together and forged a formal agreement...).

This proposed coalition is absolutely in keeping with Parliamentary law and tradition. It has been forged by people who have been legally elected by the people of Canada. Of course, the GG is completely within her rights to call an election at the request of the Prime Minister. She will have to decide whether it is in Canada's best interest to hold the 4th election in 4 years, and second election in 3 months, or if it is in Canada's best interest to bring in a duly-elected government that has the pledged support of the majority of the HoC, and has proposed specific measures to rectify certain issues currently facing us.

Some of the misconceptions that have been repeated during this debacle:
I voted for Stephen Harper for Prime Minister.
In Canada, a federal election is a series of local elections. Unless you live in a specific riding you never cast your vote for Harper (or Dion, Layton, Duceppe). Yes, many people vote based on party affiliation and pretty much all the time the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats but the reality is that you vote for a parliament, not a governement.

The Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition...
The Bloc Quebecois would not be part of a coalition governement (they would have no cabinet positions, for example). They have simply agreed not to bring down a proposed coalition government within 18 months (which some reservations, I would imagine). Furthermore, the accusations of the coalition 'being in bed with separatists' are divisive, offensive appeals to emotion. It suggests that the duly elected officials from Quebec shouldn't have a role in government and that votes from that province shouldn't carry as much weight as from the rest of the country.

A coalition government is undemocratic
Which is more undemocratic: a broad, cross-party agreement between elected MPs who represent the majority of Canadian voters, or shutting down government and locking them out? A coalition government (common in many other democracies where minority governments are the norm) or a PM going (pro)rogue?

Read the coalition agreement here and their economic plan here [pdf]

Science and polittics: Canadian elections

While the world watches the run-up to the US election in a background of near economic collapse few noticed that Canadians will also go to the polls this fall. Canadian's themselves seem to be paying attention to the south more than their own backyard (66% favor Obama, 14% McCain). While there was some coverage of science issues in the US election we have yet to hear much about it in Canada. A quick look at the campaign sites of the 5 major parties shows that all focus to some degree on global warming but don't delve much deeper. Liberals are pushing their "green shift" but don't pay much attention to other science issues. Conservatives don't seem to have a definite plan but like to boast about their environmental record. The NDP mentions both environmental protection and the increasingly popular cap-and-trade system. The green party is not-surprisingly the most thorough. The Bloc Quebecois have a nice video.

So over the next weeks we'll try to see how the different parties stack up on science issues. Yes the environment is a particularly pressing one, but there are many others: science funding, reinstating a scientific advisor etc...

leave it to Nature, a British journal, to have the best editorial and news on the issue so far...

follow the link for more reading:

Indeed, many Canadian scientists are seeing, and complaining about, an undue emphasis on commercially focused research over long-term basic research. Such complaints are heard in many other countries too. But in Canada the problem is compounded by the fact that the current government has channelled new science funds into four restrictive priority areas — natural resources, environment, health and information technology — and that scientists are often required to scrounge matching funds from elsewhere to top up their grants. Furthermore, the government this month defined sub-priority areas that mix in obvious commercial influences: alongside 'Arctic monitoring', for example, sits 'energy production from the oil sands'.

SHARP: Where Politicians Stand on Science

Here in Ontario, we recently went to the polls to elect our members of provincial parliament and vote on electoral reform. Given Canada's current minority goverment, we could face a federal election call anytime. In the meantime, political junkies will have to be content to sit on the sidelines and watch as our neighbours to the south decide on the next 'leader of the free world'. Will the next POTUS be a staunch creationist? Support stem cell research? Where will s/he stand on global warming? What about other science issues?

Scientists and Engineers for America has launched the SHARP Network (Science, Health and Related Policies Network), an online resource to see where candidates stand on science related issues. The site doesn't limit itself to presidential candidates - congressmen and senators can be found as well. The site is wiki-style, meaning users can login and edit candidate information so they can remain updated throughout the campaign. Does anybody know of a similar resource for us Canadians?

I'll take a side order of science with that policy please

In an opinion piece of the Ottawa Citizen that came out yesterday, there is a rant about the lack of scientific method in the decision making process of politicians. The piece was written by our own Dr. Findlay, two-fingered typist extraordinaire, as he proposes a four step plan:

"What is the solution? First, those responsible for administrative decision-making need to be far better schooled in the scientific method. Think of it as analysis, a means by which we can unite our non-scientific egos and scientific ids. Many public institutions invest considerable sums in language training for senior decision-makers: Is it too much to ask that some resources be allocated to scientific method training?

Second, we need to reinvest in government science capacity. The past several decades have witnessed a dramatic loss of science capacity at all levels of government. This erosion cannot be mitigated by planting more scientific groundcover on the shoreline of academia. Government science must address itself largely to the quest for solutions to current or anticipated problems, or the documentation of such problems in the first instance, whereas academia is -- as it should be -- the wellspring of curiosity-driven research.

Third, we need to vaccinate science against political pathogens. Jacob Bronowski observed that no science is totally immune from political infection, and this holds doubly true for government science: If it cannot be immunized, it must quarantined through appropriate governance structures.

Fourth, we need to enhance the dialogue between the scientific and policy processes. The loss of science capacity means that much of the science required for sound public policy and administrative decision-making is external."