All the Answers

by Joey Eremondi

When I tell people I’m a debater, most people assume that I have very strong political views, and that I somehow have “all the answers” to the world’s political problems. In reality, this could be no more distant from the truth.

I have been debating for seven years: four in high-school and three in university. That is approximately half of the portion of my life that I can remember. To say that it has shaped me as a person would be an understatement. I often joke that debate isn’t a hobby, it’s a personality type.

However, since I started competing, I have noticed a strange trend. I have become less and less opinionated on controversial issues. Unlike in youth parliament, competitive debate does not give you the luxury of debating what you personally believe. Rather, you are given both a topic and either an “affirmative” or “negative” stance on that topic. You must then present clear and logical arguments supporting that stance. If you ever concede or admit that you don’t think your side is correct, then you will certainly lose the round.

When you are assigned the viewpoint opposite to your own, the immediate consequence is that the logic of the opposing viewpoint becomes clear to you. Time and time again, this has happened to me. It is so easy to view people who disagree as simply stupid or evil, but I do not have a monopoly on logic. Those who disagree with me can be logically correct.

This has led me to the unsettling conclusion that there might not be right answers to these issues, or if there is, knowing them is beyond human grasp. When devising a policy, there are always harms and benefits, and much to my chagrin, most of the time these cannot be quantified. Unless we start randomly assigning arbitrary numbers to happiness and pain, there is no way to objectively weigh whether the harms outweigh the benefits.

It is here that I see voice becomes important. Everybody has different things they value, and different things they care about. What people believe, what people speak out for, what people are passionate about depends on their circumstances, their personality, how they were raised. And on any issue, there are different voices to be heard.

Which voices do we listen to? Debate experience has taught me that sometimes, even when a policy seems to make sense, somebody gets left behind. Somebody’s voice is stifled. Sometimes politicians have to make those tough decisions, and decide that one group’s rights trump those of another. Those decisions are never easy. But I think what is important is that we acknowledge that we do it, and that we make sure to listen to the voices of those who are left behind.

So is there a right answer? Who knows. But can we get something close to a right answer? Yes. We do it by acknowledging the role voice plays in opinion, and making a conscious effort to hear as many different voices and viewpoints as possible. No voice is evil, no voice is stupid. Some voices are different, and some voices clash. And if we want to ever find compromise, find ways to make the world better, I think it will be done by listening to as many voices as possible.

We can’t please everyone, but when we take the time to listen to each other and to hear the voices facing hardship we can see the people behind those voices as not just a statistic or an abstract logical construct. And it is in listening that we will find compassion.

The 2011 Parliamentarian Theme

by Tiffany Cassidy

During the 2011 Canadian Federal Election, I was getting annoyed. I was annoyed at the different politicians who weren’t responding to me, and I was annoyed at how few policies seemed to be geared towards what my demographic (the youth vote) had been asking for. I felt like my voice was being lost in a sea of millions of other Canadians, and worse yet, few were interested in listening to me anyway.

So it was the political event of the year that made me decide on this year’s Parliamentarian theme – “Voices: What we have to say; and How and Why we Say it.”

I was absolutely blown away by the quality of contributions. Members discussed topics such as: who is heard in society, what methods are used for expression, and the personal events which shaped their beliefs into what they are today.

In addition to putting these contributions in SYP’s annual publication “the Parliamentarian,” they will be added to this blog over the coming weeks.

Enjoy the first post, “All the Answers.”

Vote for your future

by Brett Estey

Many youth often complain that politicians don’t meet their needs or care about their issues. Federally they may have an argument (although a poor one if any). But in this provincial election there are plenty of issues to get young voters excited and voting.

Tuition, housing, and the cost of living are, of course, the staples of many youth voters. Every party has their solutions to these problems. But even with these rather important issues, youth may yawn at the idea of voting.

Let me put it to you this way. Vote not just for your situation now, but for where you will be four, eight, or twelve years from now.

A lot of young voters have aging parents not long from becoming senior citizens, if they haven’t already. So it is important to see how parties plan for senior care and assistance. The environment and energy production is another issue. How will we be powering our homes with rising energy prices? Some young voters could be starting their own young families in the next few years, if not already. It becomes important to look at what parties are doing for child care and assistance for young families.

Are any of these issues important to you? Then find the party that meets your needs.

With just this handful of issues as an example, it is clear that you can’t simply look at your situation now. You should also look to where you could be. Hopefully this will inspire some young voters to get out and vote. Simply put, your future is now. And in this day of smart phones and social media there is no lack of ability to gain access to what the parties are promising.

So take the time to go online and find the issues that concern you and find out what the parties are planning. In fact, I’ll help do the work for you. Below is a link to a CBC webpage that does it all for you by showing advanced poll dates, where you constituency is, who is eligible to vote, links to party websites and more.

At the end of the day, a lot of older people say, “youth don’t care.” We at SYP of course slay this notion. But if youth want to fight that idea even further then a key way to do it is to vote. So take the time to learn the issues that are important to you and vote on November 7th.

Voter toolkit: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/skvotes2011/story/2011/09/30/sk-sask-votes-2011-voter-toolkit.html

Where is contestant number 3?

by David Johnson

I absolutely love elections. From federal elections to electing who has to take out the garbage – I enjoy them all.

Scratch that. I enjoy almost all of them. You see, there is one style of election that I don’t enjoy in the least bit and it mostly happens in the United States. I like choices, options, diversity, etc. This means any election where I only have two options for  which to vote really isn’t my cup of tea. So I’m sure you can imagine my dismay with the current Saskatchewan election, and the fact that there are really only two parties I can support with a vote.

I can already hear you saying, “But David, there are at least four, maybe even 6 choices depending on your riding!” (If you didn’t say that please say it now so I don’t have to face the minor embarrassment of not accurately predicting people’s reactions.)

Now that you have said that lovely sentence, I counter with this: if a candidate has no chance of winning, is he/she actually a legitimate choice? For some reason, when the votes are all tallied in the majority of this province’s provincial elections, only two parties travel to the Legislative Assembly. That’s something I don’t feel very comfortable with.

It’s not about which two parties end up being elected. Whenever there are only two parties there is less compromise, which is unhealthy for our province. I understand that every vote is important and that I can vote for the fringe parties or even the mythical “third party.” Either way, we seem to end up with the same result: two parties in the Legislature, and a majority government. Majority governments may be more stable, or can at least more easily pass legislation. Unfortunately, they only further their own agenda, and there are times they do this without the majority of the province’s approval.

So maybe, just maybe, it’s time to take an honest look at electoral reform.

There is a reason I am not in a position of political significance, but I am also paid to talk, so that must count for something. I’m not going to suggest which system we should adopt. Honestly, there are too many options. The best one most likely fits our provinces diverse needs. It may not exist yet and will probably be a significantly modified version of some other country/province/state’s electoral system.

This won’t happen today, tomorrow, or even the day after that. But for this to happen at all people need to talk about it now. Whenever candidates come to your door, ask what matters to you and what you want to see happen, tell them: you want an electoral system that accurately represents the way the province votes!

It’s time to pay attention!

by Brett Estey

With the summer at a close we look fondly back on the summer that was and set our sights on the fall. SYP’s cabinet is entering the stretch run of the year as we’ve been planning for the tri-provincial mini and Session. But this year SYP has had the rare privilege of seeing both a federal and now a provincial election.

That’s right, this November 7th the people of Saskatchewan go to the polls. In fact, just about half the country has provincial elections over the next two or three months. So, while you begin to head back to the class to pay attention to your professors or teachers, I ask that everybody take the time to pay attention to the issues as they come to play over the next weeks.

Soon the writ will be dropped for the election and it is time once again for us lucky people who live in this democratic nation called Canada to uphold our responsibility to vote. And with the recent events of the Arab Spring it becomes pretty clear just how valuable the vote is to those who don’t have it.

You have the vote already, so don’t waste it. Get informed, ask questions and most importantly, vote November 7th.

A Canadian’s voice and how it can be heard

by Michael Roche

Every time an election is called, the youth vote is considered one of the most valuable streams of support. However, there seems to be a large amount of apathy among young voters. As Canada’s overall electoral turnout has dwindled, it has become essential to encourage young people to go out and vote.

I’m a young political student, and so are a majority of my friends. A lot of what I do involves politics in some manner, so elections are a very interesting and complicated time for me. Looking carefully between the political advertisements, criticisms of certain PM’s, and questions about the credibility of other leaders, one can see the small requests from Elections Canada for young people to “Get Your Voice Heard. Vote.” That’s it. A simple and direct message: Vote.

But what does this message tell us? As a representative democracy, it’s every Canadian’s right to have their voice heard. But I think there is a great misconception in saying that voting allows us to express our political selves. True, votes do turn into an elected body which makes decisions for us. We need to consider, though, the effectiveness of our elected politicians. Are elections really the only time that Canadian’s can have their “voices heard?”

During the campaign, candidates will present their platforms and say what they hope to accomplish in Parliament on behalf of their constituents. As I am sure you know, campaign promises are not always kept. Campaigns are the period of promise-making and a “what I can do for you” mentality. Those promises are not immediately put in place once MPs are elected; there is still the lengthy process of creating a bill and turning it into law, a process that requires the work of all politicians. It is difficult to go into the entire process of policy-making here, but it is important to know that policy creation is affected by many factors. At any point, a proposed policy could be rejected by opposing politicians based on wording alone or for various political reasons (gasp!). Therefore, one cannot guarantee that the policies proposed during a campaign will actually come to fruition.

In addition, policy creation and political decision making is an on-going process. Elected MP’s are not bound to create policies that they promised to create during the campaign. In fact, initiative is often taken by many MP’s to draft legislation that reflects changing economic or social conditions. As society changes, issues will arise that need to be addressed by politicians for proper regulation. For example, I do not think that issues like usage-based billing could have been foreseen. Elected politicians had to create opinions on the matter and were strongly influenced by public opinion. Because issues like these are not taken up at election time, are citizens forced to accept the decisions of the elected House? After all, it was their “voice” which put them in power. Would Canadians be willing to face such a reality?

I think it would be difficult for any Canadian to say “Yes, I’d take the government’s decision without question.” Being part of a representative democracy allows all Canadians to have their “voice” heard at any point in time. This can be achieved in a variety of ways: public protest, petitions, open discussion with friends, contacting one’s MP, or going to a rally supporting legislation. The options for swaying Canada’s policy decisions are numerous, and cannot be limited to voting in elections alone. It is dangerous to say “Have your voice heard” in a campaign, as it suggests that one’s political expression is limited to a choice of candidates on a ballot. While voting may be the time of political expression en masse, it is surely not the only opportunity available for democratic expression. Such an understanding is essential in keeping citizens’ involvement consistent and maintaining Canada’s strong democracy.

Rise up Canada! Understand the power of your political expression! Have your voice heard, but don’t be silenced when someone is chosen to speak on your behalf.

Hey Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and May. Wanna be Facebook friends?

by Tiffany Cassidy

The Tea Party of Somerset County cares more about what I have to say than the Canadian political party leaders. At least on Twitter they do.

So I’m a little bitter that the Canadian party leaders listed in the title aren’t following me back on Twitter. (I’m also a little puzzled as to why the Tea Party started following me, but I digress.)  I don’t really care if they want to set me aside on a list of “people not to bother looking at” on their tweetdeck. Not following me at all is just bad campaigning. All they have to do is click the “follow” button and I’d instantly feel that joy I get with each new follower, added to the thrilling idea of a hot shot politician actually caring what I can say in 140 characters or less.

Because what their Twitter campaigns are telling me right now is that my voice doesn’t matter, or doesn’t matter as much as the few thousand other Canadians that they have chosen to follow. Is it right to actually take offence?

Social media is how I connect. I’m assuming both people within my demographic and in other age groups feel the same. A party leaflet summarizing a platform in the mail doesn’t make me feel engaged; I’d rather have actual correspondence with my MPs over Twitter and Facebook, two “places” that are already integrated into my daily routine.

I tried having Twitter correspondence with all the party leaders, and only heard back from Ignatieff (or at least his “ghost-Tweeters”). In all fairness to the others, I did set him up quite nicely to announce his Learning Passport on Twitter. Still, I don’t see how answering any of my questions could have looked bad for the party leaders. Again the question is: how much does my voice count? In an age in which communication is made instant and easy, politicians have the chance to listen to the people in a way that was never before possible.

On the simplest level, social media can be a way to feel comfortable with these politicians. A tweeting MP can be a transparent MP, and can also be one that is more popular with the public. The old survey question that used to be asked to find out a candidate’s likeability was “is the politician someone you could see yourself having a beer with?” A more modern rephrasing of the question might be “is the politician someone you could see yourself tweeting with?”

I’m not casting my vote based on an MP’s social media skills; I’m casting it based on the party’s policies and the MP’s credentials. Both of these things just happen to be much easier to discover when politicians update and converse with me online.

So how about it, @pmharper, @M_Ignatieff, @jacklayton, and @ElizabethMay. Aren’t I worth following? Aren’t all Canadians?

***

For more on effective Twitter campaigns, check out these links:

If You Tweet, They Will Respond #elxn41

3 Twitter Tips for Politicians

I wanna rock! (The vote)

by David Johnson

Did you know Canada and the United States are different countries? If you said “no” and are over the age of 10, please talk to someone and learn basic geography, among other things. So we know that Canada and the United States are not the same place. This is a generally a good thing since most Canadians don’t want to be Americans and vice versa.

For the most part I believe that everything about our electoral process is better. We technically vote for local candidates and not for people who have never been to our cities. For the most part we are much more civil, seeing as our politicians generally shy away from hyperboles and don’t brand people with extreme titles. Finally, voters can tastefully disagree without saying horrible offensive things about each other.

There is literally only one thing that the U.S. voting has that I wish we had here in the great white north, and that is this:

No, I don’t mean Sheryl Crowe despite the fact that she is a talented musician. I actually mean the reason she is in that video and that is Rock the Vote.

For whatever reason Canadian celebrities steer clear of elections. So far only Rick Mercer has said, “Hey Canadian youth, use your democratic right to vote.” Every other notable Canadian must be hiding out in a secret clubhouse or bomb shelter since they all seem to have disappeared into thin air and won’t show up again until May 3^rd. In fact the only people trying to get youth voters out to the poll are other youth voters.

Do the actors and musicians of Canada not want us to vote? Do they assume we are already voting in droves despite data that says otherwise? Maybe they themselves don’t vote or don’t care about voting. If any of these are the case, they are doing a major disservice to Canadians. Some of these people are politically active and if this vote were about wearing fur or about funding for the arts, they would be coming out of the woodwork.

Even politicians are strangely silent. One would think they would want people to vote for them but for whatever reason they rarely ever say Canadians should go to the polls and have their voice heard. More likely is the phrase such as, “my opponent has done this, don’t vote for him/her.” All parties say this and after awhile all you here is, “don’t vote!” On the rare occasions they do urge us to vote, we ignore it because they only say it to further their own agenda.

Canada needs a non partisan voice to call everyone to the polls and something similar to Rock the Vote would do just that! Imagine instead of seeing attack ads and things of that nature, you see Sam Roberts telling you to get out and fulfill your duties as a Canadian. Or Alanis Morissette, saying how ironic it is that we complain about our government but we don’t get out and vote to change things. Have Justin Bieber do something, and every 13 year old in the country will pressure their family to get out and vote!

If you are 18 or older, vote. If you are under 18, make sure all your friends and family that are able to vote do. That’s the only way we can be sure to have the Canada we want and not the Canada we end up getting.

Canada is a democracy, and other fun facts!

by Jordan Sherbino

It seems as if election time, the glory days of any political nerd, is once again upon the great country of Canada.  So for your edification, I thought that it would be interesting (keeping in mind that my definition of interesting is very different from that of a normal person) to explain how elections come about in Canada, and to give a little intro to Canadian governance.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy based off the Westminster style of a fusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches.  This means that the concept of responsible government is integral to Canada; however, since Parliament is a bicameral legislature it is only the elected lower chamber, that is, the House of Commons, that has the power to… you know what?  On second thought I’m too lazy to give you all of the technical mumbo jumbo.  And you know what else?  I’m too lazy to explain it at all.  Fortunately for me Canada has been blessed with Rick Mercer, and he’s already done all of the work for me.  Turning it over to you, Rick…

Thanks Mr. Mercer.  That made it much easier for me.  That video came out in 2009 after the talks of coalition government and the first prorogation of the 40^th Parliament.  Some of the names are no longer correct, but the facts about governance procedures still hold true.  In fact, they have been true since the days even before Confederation.

The main thing to gather from that video is that the PM is not elected to that position.  When Canadians go to the polls on May 2^nd they will be electing a House of Commons, not a government.  When most MPs are elected, they belong to a political party.  These parties have certain policies that they want to try to implement due to differing political ideologies.  The parties also have leaders, and if one party has a majority of seats in the House, they become prime minister.

However, if no one party is able to garner more than 50% of the seats in the House, things are not so simple.  Generally, the trend in Canada has been for the party with the most seats (a ‘plurality’, if you will) to form the government and to try to find some support from a smaller party for its policies.  This is not the same thing as a coalition, which is when two or more parties (with or without a combined majority in the House) form the government.  ‘Forming the government’ merely refers to occupying the positions in Cabinet and thus being responsible for heading departments and controlling the direction of government policy.

The word ‘coalition’ has become somewhat of a dirty word in Canada. However, around the world they are very common and generally enjoy stable government.  They are particularly common in countries with electoral systems that differ from our own – but that’s a story for another day.

The PM and his/her government remain in power so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons.  When the government loses the confidence of the House, the Governor General has two options:  the House can either be dissolved and an election called or (and this has only happened once in Canada) another party from the current House of Commons can be called upon to form the government.

Canadian governance is by no means a simple concept.  It’s full of subtleties, traditions, and ambiguities.  However, it’s important to understand how it works to better inform voters on Election Day.

P.S.:  Well, I guess the title was kind of a tease… the only reason that you probable read this post was for a fun fact.  And really, who am I to deny you this joy?  So, without much further ado…

FUN FACT!!!

In the election of 1925, PM King did not retain his plurality in the House, but did remain the prime minister due to the support of the western-based Reform Party.  This is because it is the PM that must resign from that office, and he believed he could maintain the confidence of the House.

He later approached Governor General Byng in 1926 to dissolve Parliament and call an election, but Byng refused this and instead called upon Arthur Meighen, the leader of the party that did have the most seats in the House, to form government.

Meighen was PM for a short time before losing the confidence of the House, albeit in a very odd way.  King, now Leader of the Official Opposition, attacked Meighen sharply; before his new Cabinet was even sworn into office the government fell.  The debates raged on into the night, and at roughly two in the morning an MP who was supposed to be abstaining from the vote was roused from his sleep and ended up voting against Meighen.  Byng, seeing that Parliament was dysfunctional, was forced to dissolve it and call an election.

Thus ends the infamous King-Byng Affair, and may God save the Queen.

Canadians like Tim Horton’s, curling, and… voting?

by Todd Blyth

Canada is full of diversity; we have mountain ranges, prairies, arctic tundras, and the rocky terrain of the coasts. Our people are even diverse in nature, from First Nations, Quebecois, and “Newfies,” to the less recognized, but ever present cultures from the people of European countries, Africa and Asia. It doesn’t stop there either; the beliefs of these citizens are all different! Some like hockey, some curl, others just like a nice large double-double from Tim Horton’s, but does anyone like to vote?

If you ask the politicians that are currently on the campaign trail, they would tell you that many people like the whole voting thing; that is, except young people. They would continue to tell you that young people are not involved in politics and that young people never participate, or even respond to political action. I have a problem with this: how come other young people can effectively ruin my chance at being an involved citizen and effectively contributing to change in this country? I think this sentiment is felt by many people in the age demographic of eighteen to twenty-five.

I think that the poor youth turnout in the past may have been the “fault” of youth of that time, but now I feel that some of the blame must be shifted back to the politicians. In my classes I have heard questions such as, “What riding am I in?” or “I don’t even know who my MP is now! Can you tell me?”  Granted, if they wanted to find out they could google it, but really, shouldn’t the politicians be out advocating for themselves to hear the issues of their people? I am sad to say that I am now officially giving half of the blame to the politicians for the poor youth participation in voting.

This doesn’t have to be the case, though! Can you hear me Mr. Harper, Ignatieff, and Layton? We want to care, we want to participate, and we want vote; all you have to do is give us the opportunity. If you would only give the young Canadians something to become passionate about, something that really strikes the core of who we are, you will see the polls fill with youth expressing themselves. Not to say that seniors, and the working class don’t need reasons to vote, nor to say that youth have no reason currently, but without a direct discussion between the average youth and yourself, you will never get the youth vote. I will leave you with a point to ponder, O’ leaders of Canada: if the adults of today age and die and, and subsequently, the youth take their place, where will you get your votes?