Thursday, March 29, 2007

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch called on the Auditor General to audit the highly questionable, so-called “deliberative consultation” the federal Conservatives are conducting on federal democratic reforms.  The consultation process raises as many serious questions as the federal Liberals’ 2005 consultation on the same subject, and seems to be as insincere as the Conservatives’ so-called "Federal Accountability Act".

Democracy Watch called on the federal Conservatives to cancel the consultation and then conduct a meaningful, statistically valid public consultation on democratic reform of the federal government, and called on all federal parties to work together to pass a law setting enforceable standards for all future consultations.

Last Wednesday, Democracy Watch was contacted by Brooks and Done Recruiting and Field Services of Calgary (a sub-sub-contractor involved in the consultation process -- tel: 403-374-0187; email: <brooksanddone@shaw.ca>) and asked to help find 40 people each for the forums being held in Winnipeg on Friday-Saturday and in Oakville, Ontario on Saturday-Sunday.  Of course, if Democracy Watch had self-selected 80 people to attend the forums, those forums would have produced statistically invalid results.

“The federal Conservatives have contracted to conduct a consultation that seems like a con job,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Like the federal Liberals’ consultation in 2005, the Conservatives’ current consultation on democratic reform issues is highly questionable and clearly shows the need for a law with enforceable standards for all public consultations.”

The Auditor General should review the consultation contract to answer the following key questions:

• Given that a consultation involving about 60 focus groups and 1,100 participants was conducted for Citizenship and Immigration Canada on immigration policy in 1994 for about $100,000, does the $900,000 cost of the current consultation (which involves 5-10 forums) meet the “value for money” standard?
• Is it proper for Compas Public Opinion and Customer Research (Compas) to have sub-contracted the task of recruiting participants for the forums, and is it proper for Compas to refuse to disclose the name of the organization to which it sub-contracted recruitment (especially given that the organization then sub-contracted some recruitment tasks to Brooks and Done without permission from Compas)?
• Given that three people that Democracy Watch recruited to attend the forum in Oakville were among about 20 people turned away because “too many people showed up” at the meeting, shouldn’t Compas be required to prove that they actually selected participants for the forums using a statistically valid method, and that comments from participants were accurately recorded by impartial facilitators?
• Given that participants’ materials were sent by email (thereby requiring an Internet- connected computer to read them) and travel expenses were repaid 2-3 weeks after each forum, how could people with low incomes participate?
• Is it proper for Compas to have sub-contracted facilitation of three of the focus groups to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, an organization that is active in debates on democratic reform issues in Canada?
• The consultation framework, and the Participants' Workbook, limit discussion to five subjects and in many cases strongly suggest how people should think about them (See Analysis of the Workbook below) - doesn’t this invalidate the consultation results? 
• Isn’t it false to call the consultations “deliberative” given that participants were recruited for the focus groups and sent the 34-page Participants’ Workbook only 2 days before the meetings?

“I wouldn’t want upstarts or troublemakers -- I just want people interested in our democracy.  You know what I mean?  I wouldn’t want anybody going ‘Hey, we’re here to start trouble’ -- like Greenpeace or groups like that.”

As a result, seven people applied to attend the focus group in Oakville, and three were accepted.  However, when they went to the Oakville Holiday Inn for the focus group, they were told that “too many people showed up” and were offered the $150 and payment for their travel expenses if they would leave.

The Conservatives’ consultation process is as bad as the former Liberal government’s 2005 consultation on the same issues.  In spring 2005, then-federal Liberal Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform Mauril Bélanger contracted with the Institute on Governance and other organizations to hold five roundtables of stakeholder-experts on five democratic reform topics.

In May 2005, then-Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed Belinda Stronach as Minister for Democratic Renewal as part of her reward for switching to the Liberals from the Conservatives.

The Liberals pledged publicly to release the report on the five roundtables, and to conduct nation-wide focus groups of citizens as a follow-up in fall 2005.  The report on the roundtables was never released, and the focus groups were never held.

“The federal Conservatives and Liberals ask Canadians to trust them but their sham consultations on democratic reform issues show that they don’t trust Canadians,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “Canadians can’t afford to waste any more time and money on consultations whose results are skewed on purpose or kept secret by the ruling party, and we need a law requiring meaningful consultations to prevent such charades in the future.”

“The Conservatives’ consultation is as insincere as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s pledges not to appoint senators, and the Conservatives’ so-called ‘Accountability Act,’” said Conacher.

I. Background
The “Participants’ Workbook” for the Conservative federal government’s Spring 2007 Public Consultations on Canada’s Democratic Institutions and Practices was prepared by Compas Inc. and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Compas Inc. won the contract to conduct the consultation, and subcontracted the Frontier Centre to facilitate some of the consultation sessions.

On the cover of the “Participants’ Workbook” are the logos for both Compas Inc. and the Frontier Centre.

The Introduction was written by Gordon Gibson and Conrad Winn, the head of Compas Inc., and it states that the goal of the consultations is as follows:

“At a minimum, we wish to be able to identify the key values that Canadians would want as guideposts to the future of our civic institutions.”

II. Analysis of the “Participants’ Workbook” - Pre-determining Participants’ Conclusions

In several instances the “Participants’ Workbook” strongly suggests, or suggests, how participants should think about an issue, or neglects to mention key facts and figures that any meaningful consultation on the issues of Canada’s democratic institutions and practices would include (See examples of both suggestions and missing facts set out below).

And overall, at the end of each section is a list of “Editors’ Questions That Forum Participants Might Think About” which, despite use of the word “might”, definitely direct the discussion in specific directions.
 

(a) Specific examples of strong suggestions and suggestions about how participants should think about an issue are as follows:

Chapter 2. The Role of the Citizen in Canadian Democracy (pp.4-11)
The chapter was written by Conrad Winn (COMPAS Inc. and Carleton University) with the assistance of Paul Howe ((University of New Brunswick), Anne Muxel (Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques) and Peter Levine (University of Maryland and CIRCLE).

• in the subsection “The Electoral Process” it is strongly suggested that “it matters less why people vote the way they do than that they vote.” (p.4);
• in the same subsection, it is strongly suggested that decreasing voter turnout is proof that “The public is gradually withdrawing from civic involvement.” (p.5) even though there is ample evidence that civic involvement is not decreasing, just changing in terms of the ways people are involved (e.g. on the Internet instead of at community group meetings);
• in the subsection “Members of Parliament” it is strongly suggested that Parliament should set up an “Office of Parliamentary Education” focused on civics education for Canadians (in fact, it is the only possible change in this area given) (pp.5-6), and;
• in the subsection “Parliamentary Committees” the highly questionable claim is made that “Parliamentary committees invest much effort to reach out to citizens.” (in fact, many committees don’t reach out to citizens at all) (p.6).

• in the subsection “Political Parties and Democracies” strongly suggests that “Today, parties are among the more tightly regulated of private organizations.” (p.25) -- in fact, corporations and unions, unlike political parties, are required by law to follow specific procedures when making decisions and electing their boards, and nomination races for election candidates and party leadership races (two fundamental party processes) are only regulated in terms of donation limits and disclosure requirements;
• in the subsection “The Challenge of Making Parties Both Effective and Dynamic” the false claim is made that political finance reforms have reduced opportunities “for influence to be bought or sold, and any remaining opportunities are strictly illegal.” (p.28) -- in fact, it is still legal to make a secret, unlimited donation to any nomination race or party leadership candidate, and it is still legal to make a secret, unlimited donation to a trust fund maintained by an elected politician as long as the fund is used to benefit people other than the politician or organizations other than the politician’s riding association.

Overall
The following 13 issue areas, which polls over the past decade have shown are of great concern to Canadians, are not even mentioned in the "Participant's Workbook" even though they address the fundamental issues of whether politicians, their staff, and government officials are effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly, representatively and to prevent waste: 

1. the 70 undemocratic and accountability loopholes not closed by the federal Conservatives' so-called "Accountability Act" (including 22 loopholes the Conservatives promised to close during the last election but did not close) -- To see the details about the broken promises and the 70 loopholes, "click here;
2. false promises during elections;
3. lying by politicians, their staff, and government officials in between elections, and overall dishonesty in politics;
4. truth-in-budgetting and stating the surplus/deficit position of the government;
5. the Prime Minister’s and Cabinet’s abuse of their appointment powers (patronage and cronyism);
6. switching of parties between elections by MPs;
7. denial of information that the public has a clear right to know under access-to-information laws and regulations;
8. unethical actions by politicians, their staff and government officials and loopholes in their ethics rules and lack of enforcement of the rules;
9. unethical, undemocratic and undue influence of lobbyists and loopholes in lobbying laws and regulations and ethics rules, and lack of enforcement of lobbying laws, regulations and rules;
10. direct democracy reforms (e.g. requirements for binding consultations (such as those that occur in the area of environmental assessment, plebiscites, referendums);
11. loopholes in spending laws and regulations that allow the government to waste the public’s money, to hide the waste, and that allows political parties (especially the ruling party) to use the public’s money for party activities;
12. accuracy of polling, and accuracy of media reporting of polls, and;
13. the media’s role generally, fairness and accuracy in the media, and concentration of ownership of the media.

• no mention is made of processes other than elections through which citizens can hold governments accountable (in other words, the strong suggestion is that the role of the citizen is limited only to voting, answering pollster's questions and surveys, and participating in government consultations);
• while "bird watching and other outdoor clubs, parent-teacher groups, religious groups, volunteer charities, chess clubs, fishing clubs and and volunteer agricultural groups" are all listed as typical citizen participation organizations, no mention is made of the 10,000 or so citizen advocacy groups in Canada in which citizens participate and which are focused on holding governments, politicians and government officials accountable in various ways, nor is there any mention of the role of government in facilitating and supporting such groups through funding or other means, and;
• no mention is made of citizens taking governments or politicians or government officials to court as one way of participating as a citizen, let alone any mention of the barriers facing citizens in going to court.

• no mention is made of switching of parties by MPs in between elections, a highly controversial action and one part of the overall issues of lack of honesty and ethics in politics that are completely ignored in the Workbook.

• no mention is made of the many loopholes in ethics rules for senators, the fact that the Senate Ethics Officer is completely controlled by a committee of senators, and the overall lack of enforcement of Senate ethics rules, which is part of the overall issue of lack of ethics in politics that is completely ignored in the Workbook.

• no mention is made of the “right to refuse the ballot” that exists under Ontario election law and gives voters the right (by refusing their ballot instead of not voting or spoiling their ballot) essentially to vote for “none of the above” (if, for example, they do not support any of the parties or candidates in their riding, or if the party they support does not have a candidate in their riding), and;
• no mention is made of the issue of recall, a process through which voters in a riding can hold their elected official accountable by petitioning to hold a referendum on his or her removal from office.

X-Original-To: dwatch@web.net
Delivered-To: dwatch@web.net
From: "Dorothy Brooks" <dvbrooks@nb.sympatico.ca>
To: <dwatch@web.net>
Subject: MANITOBA & ONTARIO FOCUS GROUP INVITATION.doc
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:08:45 -0300
Thread-Index: Acdr2t4pCk+y+4S0T9ivxxXkewuKsQ==

Good afternoon:

The government of Canada is having a discussion group on “THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN OUR COUNTRY”

The purpose is to find out the honest, thoughtful views of about 40 people from across MANITOBA & ONTARIO about Parliament and our other democratic institutions.

Winnipeg, Manitoba: Discussions begin at 5:30 p m on Friday, March 23rd over dinner, end 8:30 in the evening, begin again Saturday morning at

8:00  over breakfast and end at 4:30 in the afternoon.

Oakville, Ontario: Discussions begin at 6 p m on Saturday, March 24th over dinner, end at 9 in the evening, begin again Sunday morning 8:30 over breakfast and end at 5 in the afternoon.

If you agree to attend, the government will pay your (airline, bus, mileage) costs to get to the meeting, all your meal costs and a room in the hotel where our meeting is taking place if you need a room will be paid for by the government as well.  Plus an incentive of $150.00 will be paid to you. 

We will pay more if you need money for a baby-sitter.

Everything you say will be kept confidential.

If you or someone you know would be interested in attending please reply to this e-mail with your contact numbers (home & work) so that I may contact you by phone.

Thank you for your help with this project.

Warm regards,
Dorothy V. Brooks
Brooks & Done Recruiting & Field Services
403-374-0187

X-Original-To: dwatch@web.net
Delivered-To: dwatch@web.net
From: "Dorothy Brooks" <dvbrooks@nb.sympatico.ca>
To: <dwatch@web.net>
Subject: Manitoba & Ontario Focus Groups
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:48:53 -0300
Thread-Index: Acdr8fQcNSnJmyY3SqKBTT7LjedWcw==

Hi Duff:

Anyone interested in my focus groups?

Dorothy
Brooks and Done Recruiting & Field Services
Business:  403-374-0187
brooksanddone@shaw.ca