Bill's Bulletin Board

By the time this community newspaper hits the streets, the federal election will probably be history.

I hedge a bit on that prediction, aware of the possibility that some vote counting might still be going on as some of you read. As of this writing (late Friday night) the overall national campaign is becoming harder to predict. And Canadians have a whole holiday weekend to reflect on the kind of government they want, factoring in their concerns for the environment, fears for the economy and a host of other matters.

But as you read this, there are two things that can be counted as true. One is the voting is done, even if the counting is not. The other true thing is there is one very tired scribe thinking, "thank God it's over!"

I love covering elections. Indeed, it's one of the main reasons why I got into this business, and a major reason why I've stayed in for almost 25 years.

But it is very tiring. It's tough to keep track of who's running for which party in a number of ridings, and remembering that you still have to cover and report on the regular doing in the community, during what is traditionally one of the busiest periods of the year.

No wonder I urged Stephen Harper not to call the election. The fact that he did should tell you just how much clout I have in Ottawa.

Over the last couple of weeks, as I hope you have noticed, I have been contacting candidates in a couple of ridings, hitting them with a couple of pre-determined questions, seeking spontaneous responses. That is a practice I have followed in just about every federal or provincial election I have ever covered, and generally, it has gone over quite well. It's a relatively easy way to keep track of what all the candidates are up to during the campaign. They seem to appreciate the relatively easy access to the exposure. And I have received the odd compliment over the years from readers.

But as I ask the questions of these candidates, I am frequently tempted to get into debates with some of them, which is something I should not be doing in my line of work.

But some of the questions I have asked over the last couple of weeks deal with matters on which most of us probably have opinions. So I'll take a couple of those questions, and offer my opinions.

Do you favour capital

punishment?

I have never covered a federal election in which I did not put this question to the candidates. In my first election, in 1984, I felt contempt for those bleeding hearts who opposed the death penalty. Today, I feel contempt for the death penalty. I believe the concept is known as growth.

I might have to drop that question in future campaigns. From the candidates I talked to, all but one were opposed to capital punishment, and one other was trying to be non-committal. I probably shouldn't be too surprised. As I reflect, it has been some time since I have heard any serious calls for the death penalty. Several of the candidates I talked to referred to the number of people who have been wrongly convicted over the years. That's a very solid argument. But there's the philosophical case that's compelling too. We, as a society, are supposed to be better than criminals who kill. They put people to death. I believe our society should let people live.

Should Canadian Forces

be operating in

Afghanistan?

Absolutely they should. Canada is part of the world community, and has obligations to uphold. And if other countries are reluctant to shoulder their share of the burdens, then Canada must be prepared to set the appropriate example. It's part of the war on terror, which started with 9-11. There were 24 Canadian lives lost in 9-11. That means there's an obligation on this country.

Is this election necessary?

Nope. Stephen Harper advocated fixing election dates so prime ministers couldn't call them when it was politically expedient. Then he turned around and called an election because it was politically expedient.

Would you support proportional representation

in the House of

Commons? I agree we need some form of electoral and parliamentary reform, but I don't think proportional representation is the answer.

I believe the way Parliament was intended to work is we elect people in our individual ridings to be our spokespeople in Ottawa. But the system has degenerated, such that MPs (especially those in the government benches) are now well-paid mouthpieces for the party bosses, many of whom are not elected. To those who question that conclusion, I respond with just two words, Garth Turner.

I believe we need a system, that allows MPs to be more accountable to constituents, and I don't see how proportional representation is going to accomplish that. My preference, which I have put on the record a number of time, would be to see the use of preferential ballots, where voters list their first, second and third choices. The candidate finishing last would be dropped from the ballot and the second choices on that person's ballots would be portioned out accordingly until someone has a clear majority. Granted, it would be an organizational nightmare, but it would have the advantage of letting the voters ultimately decide the issue. Last time I checked, that's the way democracy is supposed to work.

Is Canada facing a

recession?

We probably are, but I go along with Harper's reasoning that Canada's institutions are probably better equipped to deal with it than they are in certain other countries; the United States springing readily to mind. What we need is a government that can convey a message that people should sit tight and not panic. The more cooler heads prevail, the better things will be in the longrun.

Does Canada need the

monarchy?

I was a little surprised at the amount of support the monarchy has among the local candidates. I personally don't think we really need the monarchy, but it is a benefit. It serves as a reminder of the roots from which Canada sprung, and Canadians have done a pretty good job of slipping into the role of being "loyal subjects," without really having to be that loyal or subject to the authority of a monarch.

Although I don't consider myself a monarchist, I have great respect for the institution, and am impressed that it has found a way to remain relevant. I think its darkest hour came 11 years ago, with the death of Diana, although I will go to my grave believing the trashing the Royal Family took at that time was undeserved. But the monarchy goes on strong.

Canada can get along without it, but there's something about an institution that's that durable that I think we want to stick close to.

Does Canada need a

Senate?

Yes, and in it's current form. It's very useful to have learned people, reflecting regional representation, in a position to advise and comment on legislation without having to worry about the electorate. True, there are some senators who don't earn their keep, but what's so astonishing about that? How long can a person be in the workforce without coming upon people in high positions who do nothing? Every occupation is full of them.

Of course, from what you've just read, some of you might think I'm full of it.