Thursday, December 4, 2008 

Canadians’ blood should be running a little cold today. 

Economic consideration trumped democracy.  I suppose this should not be too surprising, given our collective disengagement with our political process, and given that notions of citizenship, and the attendant rights and responsibilities, seem to have been reduced to residing and consuming in Canada.

What we seem to want, above all, is a government that ensures we continue to collect paycheques and enjoy our lifestyles.   (We also want a handful of basics thrown in – education, public safety, and healthcare (maybe).   Some of the more progressive among us also want basic food and shelter provided for each citizen regardless of their perceived merit or lack thereof.)

But we’re wrong in wanting that as a chief end of our government.

The constitutional mandate of parliament is to legislate for peace, order and good government.  I’ll get back to this shortly, but first, we’re wrong about a couple other critical distinctions too:

1. We think we elected Harper to be our Prime Minister.  We did not.   He was elected as an MP (as are all Prime Ministers) in Calgary SW;  he was the leader of his party; and the governor general appointed him to be the Prime Minister.  Again:  Our Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected.  By convention, the governor general appoints the person most likely to have the confidence of the house.  Arguments that the coalition does not have the right to overthrow “the PM we elected” are ignorant arguments.

2. We think that the coalition’s request for power is anti-democratic.  On the contrary, it is entirely democratic.   Combined, coalition MPs were elected by nearly two-thirds of Canadians.   The MP conserveratives were in the minority, and subject to precisely the risk of a vote of non-confidence.  We can be angry that the Liberals and NDP would choose to do so in the current climate, just like we can be angry that the Conservatives would use the opportunity to reduce the coffers of their opponents, but threatening a vote of non confidence is absolutely democratic.  The conservatives are not “our government”.   They simply have more seats in our house of parliament than any other single party.  That’s all.   

Instead of  facing a vote of non-confidence, the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue parliament.  He argued that the economic climate required this.  While our economy is indeed a nail-biter, his request was not about parliament’s chief concern:   Peace, Good order, Good government.  It was about protecting the shaky status of his 127 MPs.   Good government is about demonstrating a spirit willing to collaborate in the face of challenging times.   It may even be about reluctantly trying a coalition government – such as those in Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland.

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean acquiesced.  She opted to pre-empt the majority of our MPs, who we Canadians elected, by doing so.  Who knows what her reasoning was.  Her primary duty is to ensure a functioning parliament – did Harper threaten to deepen the disruption?  did she truly believe a coalition government would deepen the disruption?

In any case, democracy took a hit today, trumped by rhetoric about the economic crisis – a crisis which hasn’t even struck Canada, yet.   I hope all of us, regardless of political affiliation (I’m green, for the record), especially conservatives who mistakenly claim that this was undemocratic, are shaken. 

Greetings Vancouver readers and visitors!   It’s a dark, closed-in time of the year, but there are loads of spirit-lifting activities that are free or inexpensive, as we approach Christmas.

Here are a few:

1.  The Rogers Santa Clause Parade is this Sunday, 1pm  Cost: free

2.  The Vancouver Chamber Choir is presenting Handel’s Messiah Dec. 12th and 13th.  Lowest price tickets are $21, but if you care to take the chance, they can also be had at half-price the day of the concert, from TicketsTonite.

3.  Free Concert:  Pacific Baroque Orchestra’s  “Bach, Mozart and Friends“  dress reheasal at St. James Anglican Church Friday Dec. 18, 8pm (I need to confirm the time).

4.  Philosopher’s Cafe @Unitarian Centre “The Gifting Dilemma“  $5  I haven’t been to one of these in a while, but usually they are exceptionally interesting conversations and well worth the $5.

5.  And for you gingerbread house fans there’s always the Guinsess  Book of World Records Gingergread Lane at the Hyatt Regency.       (or you can do the Pivot Legal Society edition instead!)

Readers:  I know there’s tons more going on.  If you have something to add, please do!

The Dean of York University’s School of Business called it bang-on in a recent issue of the National Post.

The fundamental reason we’re experiencing a financial meltdown, he says, is we abandoned this notion:

Enterprises earn profits through the goods and services it generates, not the imagined value of its shares.

It is the primary responsibility of corporate governance (ie. boards of directors) to ensure a business is actually delivering on its promised goods or services.

Seems a no-brainer, right?  So why did we abandon this?

Professor Gilles points out three contributing factors:

1.  Focus on share value. For the past quarter century boards have focused on share value, rather than the nuts-and-bolts of operations, and share value can be manipulated by all manner of financial instruments which have nothing to do with the actual value of the goods/services.  As long as the numbers looked good, it was assumed the fundamentals of the company must be doing well.
2. Lack of Dissent. Boards of Directors by definition are comprised of like-minded individuals – typically, reasonably wealthy;  graduates from similar schools; and with shared values.  This minimizes the likelihood of any board member vigorously taking a contrarian position on anything, when dissenters were needed.
3. Passive oversight of managers.  Or:  nobody is really paying attention to the actual business.  The assumption was that “somebody” was providing valuable services or goods.

I’ve certainly seen this in action.  No names mentioned of course, but during a career spanning small business, corporations and civil service, it’s been clear to me on more than one occasion that when a business owner isn’t directly involved, it’s all too easy for decisions to be made that provide superficial, bonus-oriented results at the expense of the long-term health of the corporation.  Seeing the recent implosions resulting from this practice, much like the unwinding of characters in Magnolia, is at once a horror show and perhaps contains faint rays of hope that we’ll learn our lesson and start doing it better.

Readers:  have you witnessed this in action?  Where boards paid attention to charts and graphs, while managers made decisions winning for the short-term but jeopardizing the long-term health of the org?

photo credit: ManilaRyce