Elections, Social Media, and Bozo Eruptions - Time for Sanity?

I haven't written on this blog for a long time, but with the current Federal election taking place and the number of candidates being forced to resign over social media screwups, perhaps we need to take a step back and consider if a person's past online statements are really necessarily enough to be dismissed. By my count, there have so far been two Conservative, two Liberal and one NDP candidates that have been forced to resign their candidacy for past posts on various social media platforms (with an additional Conservative candidate being dumped for urinating in a cup at a client's home)

While this might thrill the hyper-partisans of the other parties (full disclaimer - yes that includes me sometimes), I think Canadians need to really consider if the statements made in the past are significantly important or serious enough to impact their ability to be an effective Member of Parliament and represent his or her constituents in a manner that is both professional and ethical. In my view, this is distracting from the election as a whole, and while the media might like it for some brief excitement in the daily news cycle, one has to wonder at the long term effects (if any) on the types of people who get selected for running for public office.

Realistically, none of us are perfect, and I would not feel too much risk if I bet that almost everyone who partakes in social media, especially in the political debates, have at least once posted something that is offensive to at least one other person. That is the reality of life - what one person thinks is okay, may be offensive to another; and if a disagreement gets out of hand, words are spoken that are meant to hurt or provoke. The difference is that social media records this for all time, no matter what the circumstances were that lead to it or if is actually relevant to the events of today.

In common law there is a concept of Statute of Limitations, where the actions of a person in certain issues, such as slander, are no longer considered to have legal ramifications (I'm using this as an illustration, I am not a lawyer, so my definition may be a bit off). I suggest that if we want people to continue to come forward and participate as candidates there should be a statute of limitations for social media, say two or three years. Why? A person's views may have changed, the person may have not been in the best mental state at the time of a posting, or maybe even having written something after a few too many beers. And in the case of teenagers, well, realistically speaking, the number of teens who have not done or said something moronic during that time period in their life would be almost non-existent...

That being said there are a few caveats to this:

• Posts that can be considered by the general population to be discriminatory towards a specific group of people (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)
• Misogyny
• Posts that threaten violence to a person or persons

All in all, to me the ultimate test may be to just let the candidate run on their past record. If they can convince voters in their riding that they deserve to be elected, that is far better than the shrill voices of the political bubbles on social media that demand blood.

Missing & Inaction

For many years, Alberta has been known across Canada for it's entrepreneurial spirit and its can-do attitude. Of course, at the heart of that attitude is unflinching readiness to perform great amounts of work to accomplish great goals.

However, our elected officials, both in Alberta and in the Federal government (including the PM who's riding is in Calgary) seem feel that the important work of running a province or a country respectively does not need that much attention. I'm speaking of the disturbing trend of reducing the sitting times of the two levels of governments, supposedly for "consultations" or "caucus meetings". While the Federal government seems happy proroguing parliament when it pleases, the Alberta governments tendency to take time off on a whim is a more serious issue at the moment.

As pointed out at Christmas in the Edmonton Journal, total number days the Alberta legislature sat in 2009 was 64 and then last year was 50. It would seem that this year, it will be even less, with the legislature apparently not going back into session until sometime in the second half of February. Admittedly, the number of days has fluctuated wildly over the past few decades as shown in a Pembina.org report.

The problem here is that there is no reason for the legislature not to be back at work. There are numerous issues that face this province - health care, education at all levels, homelessness, infrastructure, and on and on. While the implementation of government programs is of course carried out by the provincial bureaucracy, there is still leadership needed from the cabinet as well as full discussion by the entire legislature.

This is even more disturbing after the release today of the fact that Premier Stelmach is the highest paid premier in all of Canada and the government ministers earn "the most among the provinces and territories". Remember, this is after the ministers gave themselves a pay raise shortly after the last election, without outside consultation or discussion with opposition MLAs.

I can imagine what my boss would say if I went up to him and said - "I'm taking off for a couple of months, by the way, thanks for the big raise!" - I would end up in the Alberta Works employment line the next day.

Now, I'm all for fair compensation for executives. However leaders must meet the expectations of the stakeholders, in this case the voters of Alberta. During the past few years there have been a number of problems that have appeared or worsened. Some have been a direct or indirect result global recession - reduced income from resource revenues among the most notable. But, this does not excuse poor management!

We've had the highest per capita spending in Canada for a while. Despite this, we have infrastructure problems, a collapsing health system and insufficient allocation of resources for education. On top of this, the government is in a cycle of deficit budgeting to pay for everything.

Note that I don't follow the belief that governments should be run like a corporation - they are radically different than corporations, both in terms objectives and its methods. Governments provide necessary services using taxes to fund them; it should not be making a profit (although, in the case of natural resources, I agree with the Alberta Heritage Fund as a way of compensating the extraction of resources). The thing is, efficiency should be measured against government operations. Root causes of the problems should be found and addressed, and streamlining of operations and reduction in bureaucratic red-tape should be implemented. More to the point, input from the public should be collected and acted upon - use the ideas from the people to find solutions! Talk to the people, not down to them!

The Alberta PCs have had 40 years to work at the problems facing this province, and while the province has grown and is better off than was, many of the problems facing us have been here for a long time and have gotten worse. So, I'm still unsure why the Stelmach government believes that they deserve the high rate of compensation that they gave themselves, or the extended time away from work.

If they feel that they are bereft of ideas on how to solve the problems facing the province, then let's call an election! Otherwise, get back to work!