After reading Susan Delacourt’s “Shopping for Votes,” I want to ask Angelique Wood what insider information the party is giving her about voters in the Similkameen Valley. Wood is the NDP candidate running hard in the Central Okanagan Similkameen Nicola riding. She is also my neighbour, only two doors removed. It’s a question I hope to ask of the Liberal and Conservative candidates as well. Not having deep pockets, the Green Party doesn’t have the means to employ the expensive strategies and tactics described by Delacourt.

An award winning journalist with the Toronto Star, Delacourt provides a fascinating, but also disquieting account of how political parties endeavour to secure our votes. Her information reinforced my one cardinal rule concerning how I vote. The rule is, “I will not give my heart to any political party.”

Tactics and strategies of political parties have changed radically since the days when my parents voted faithfully for W.A.C. Bennett and Social Credit. According to Delacourt, the three major parties at the federal level now employ sociologists, statisticians, advertising experts, pollsters, and mass communication experts.

Like major corporations, they enthusiastically embrace the practise of “data mining” and “micro targeting.” The major parties all have systemized data bases which assemble contact information. Door-to-door canvassers are instructed to watch for indications of what might be important to the people of a neighbourhood. Children’s toys, camping equipment and golf clubs are examples. Canvassers may also report political lawn signs, doors slammed, a willingness to engage in political discussion etc.

Possessing this information helps party strategists make decisions about where to devote time, or what issues to emphasize in a particular riding or neighbourhood. Delacourt notes that one party sent a Jewish woman a greeting card at the time of the Jewish New Year.

Graham Fraser in “Playing for Keeps,” suggests political campaigning has become much like a corporate advertising campaign. Although politicians likely don’t consider it amusing, pollster Martin Goldfarb compared the selling of a candidate to selling cans of tomatoes.

Apparently the practises of data mining and micro targeting are just too powerful to resist. After the 2008 election, the New Democratic Party hired the polling firm, Viewpoints Research. They wanted a demographic profile of people who might be swayed to the NDP with the right marketing effort. It would be interesting to know how early socialist leaders like J.S Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and M.J. Coldwell would view such maneuvering.

One benefit of data mining for political parties, according to Jeffrey Stevens is that “the 3 leaders, properly briefed, are able to make stage managed public appearances without falling into the orchestra pit.” One negative aspect, in Stevens view, is that “we learn nothing about which man would make the best P.M. or how he would conduct himself in high office.”

Politicians have long had a reputation for telling voters what they want to hear. Now with data mining and micro targeting, they can craft their messages with laser like accuracy to appeal to specific communities here in the Similkameen Valley. Unfortunately, too often the resulting promises come more from a thirst for power, than from a commitment to follow through.

Regarding political promises, Delacourt reminds us that before the 1974 election, Pierre Trudeau promised not to legislate wage and price controls. After the election he did impose price controls. Finance Minster John Turner added 10 cents and then another 5 cents to the price of gasoline. Delacourt goes on to say that in his 1995 budget, Jean Chretien cut health and social transfers to the provinces, a move contrary to public wishes.

Data mining tends to produce “designer policies”, whose purpose is to attract specific groups, or to please the party’s core supporters. Writing in the National Post, Attorney Edward Greenspan (1944-2014) and criminologist Anthony Doob suggest that “criminal justice policy is a product being shaped by the need to attract voters. Conservative criminal justice policy is developed not to serve public or societal needs, but to help market the Conservatives to specific constituencies.”

Although the political strategies described in “Shopping For Votes” may unsettle us, I don’t feel they are a reason to stay home on voting day. Rather, they’re a reminder for Canadians to listen with discernment and then vote in droves. It is important for politicians to understand we are alert and will be actively assessing their policies and decisions.

This week, when we sing “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee,” will it be with a comprehension that at times we must defend our system of government against those we have elected? I fear we have become overly complacent about our democracy, at every level of government.

We seem not to consider that early reformers worked unstintingly to attain what we have today. And we give little thought to the possibility it can be eroded by insidious forces if we become too preoccupied to observe what is happening. If my perspective seems negative at a time when we celebrate our nation, I suggest we take a careful look at what I believe is a too cozy relationship between the BC government and the giant pharmaceutical companies.

The provincial government’s arbitrary firing of 8 Ministry of Health researchers is strikingly similar to the manner in which this land was ruled before it became a nation. At that time the Governor and his appointed Council determined who received land and timber rights. Usually it was the wealthy friends of the oligarchy. The Governor and Council made all financial decisions, without permission from the people. Even after the Constitutional Act of 1791, any laws passed by the Elected Assembly could be vetoed.

When Canada was granted a Senate in 1867, its original purpose was to allow Canada’s wealthy elite to veto any legislation passed by the politicians representing the common people. Almost without exception, those in power at every level want to retain the privileges of power for their inner group. This enables them to reward those who help them hold on to their positions of influence.

The provincial government’s decisions concerning research in the pharmaceutical industry are reminiscent of a time when significant favours went to wealthy, influential speculators.

In 2012, when the government fired the researchers, it apparently didn’t occur to anyone that Roderick MacIsaac, one of the eight, would commit suicide and bring huge media scrutiny. With pointed questions, reporters began dredging up embarrassing, highly disconcerting facts concerning the possible motivation behind this decision.

In thetyee.ca, Andrew MacLeod revealed that “the researcher who committed suicide was developing a way to evaluate a project that was one of Premier Christy Clark’s pet initiatives.” It entailed the utilization of Champix, a smoking cessation drug. The Tyee reported that both Health Canada and the American FDA had issued warnings about Champix. Also, according to Colleen Fuller, Chair of PharmaWatch, other countries were removing Champix from the market at the time the B.C. government decided to list it under PharmaCare.

The Vancouver Sun learned through a Freedom of Information request that “police were never given evidence by the government to investigate the wrongdoing which was used to justify the firings, despite the government telling the public an investigation was ongoing.” The police actually closed the file due to lack of information.

Just as in the early years of our nation when the Governor and Council favoured wealthy friends, the provincial government appears to be favouring large corporations, from which they have received huge infusions of cash. Media reports indicate major pharmaceutical companies have given the Liberals tens of thousands of dollars in recent years.

The fired researchers had been delving into areas that were troubling for the pharmaceutical companies. Were the ill conceived firings the government’s manner of appeasing the multinational pharmaceuticals and thanking them for their substantial campaign contributions?

And what was the motivation behind the government’s 2012 suspension of funding for UBC’s Therapeutics Initiative research contracts? TI provides practical, evidence based prescription drug information to physicians and pharmacists. The program has saved Canada hundreds of millions and prevented many deaths from inappropriate prescriptions.

Only a massive media storm and public outcry persuaded the government to restore fifty per cent of the funding. Was our government so desperate to endear itself to the drug companies that it was willing to penalize its own citizens?

In “The March of Folly”, Barbara Tuchman suggests “the problem may not be so much a matter of educating officials of government, as educating the electorate to recognize and reward integrity of character.”

Retaining power has become a primary motivation of some in government. This makes them susceptible to the allurements of large corporate contributions.

“O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”

I was listening to a CBC broadcast once again reciting the litany of

charges against suspended Senator Mike Duffy. Living in the serenity of the Similkameen Valley, I was tempted to think this court case in Ottawa is too far removed to impact me or my neighbours. Surely we are insulated against the alleged predations of Mr. Duffy.

Then I recalled Bruce Hutchison’s words in The Unfinished Country, “Like most capitals,” Hutchison contends, “Ottawa is a parasite, a kept woman, feeding on taxpayers from coast to coast.”

It’s not what I want to hear about those who govern us. I would much prefer to think well of them. Maybe that is at the root of the problem. We assume our affairs are being tended to with integrity. This assumption lulls us into a state of complacency. The result is we don’t pay attention.

There have always been individuals prepared to take advantage of citizen apathy. The Pacific Railway Scandal during the tenure of our first PM, John A. McDonald, is an early Canadian example. More recently Vanessa Redgrave, former Premier of Alberta, became embroiled in a highly publicized case of misuse of public funds. Highly placed executives in the Portland Hotel Society lived lavishly on donated funds. Examples abound at every level of government and society.

Mr. Duffy’s attorney, Donald Bayne, has offered the explanation that “the rules about Senate expenses are unclear.”

It is apparently Duffy’s view, and that of at least some Senators, when rules are unclear it’s permissible to be reckless with our tax dollars. Although it would be unfair to believe all Senators have interpreted the rules too loosely, they have not chosen to rectify this situation that allows some members to live like High Rollers on the public purse. If they don’t understand that vague rules will lead to overspending on the part of some Senators, do they have the wisdom and integrity to represent us adequately?

I’d leave this alone if there were sufficient funds for a decent medical facility in our valley. If streets in disrepair in Hedley were redone with real blacktop. If we saw a police cruiser in town more than occasionally. If the aging infrastructures of towns and cities were being properly maintained. If disabled individuals and frail seniors received more services in their homes or in care facilities. If there were effective programs to support families with special needs children and youth.

The sense of entitlement has never been dealt with because Senators from all parties have become comfortable with rules that permit virtually any interpretation. It’s a system that will always remain in place unless we become sufficiently irritated to shake off our lethargy and firmly instruct political leaders to remove the lavish “public trough”.

Like many of my neighbours in this valley, I value the distance from our provincial and national capitals. I understand, however, that this distance does not impair the ability of the greedy ones in those capitals to be free wheeling with our tax dollars. I know also that I should not expect that the current revelations of shoddy practises will shame the Senate into enacting substantive change. The beneficiaries of our largess are not likely to do it willingly, or on their own initiative. The impetus will need to come from us, the citizens of this nation.

I have immense respect for those who write or call their elected representatives. Also for individuals who pen letters to editors of newspapers. Although it requires patience and perseverance, governments sometimes will change policies and actions due to significant public outrage and pushback.

Donald Bayne has asserted the Senate permits its rules to be interpreted in virtually any way a Senator chooses. His client should therefore not be punished for his extravagant interpretation of the vague rules. If we disagree, or at least feel strongly the rules need to be tightened, this is an opportune time to make our views known on this matter. Complaining to a neighbour over the fence won’t be effective. A brief note to our local political representatives and to leaders of the major parties could make a difference. Change comes when enough individuals act.

In a recent letter to the Editor, Mary Masiel of Princeton expressed her belief that Stephen Harper has done more damage to Canada than any other Prime Minister. Sentiments such as this are not uncommon, whether referring to the current Prime Minister or others before him. I consider her statement a reason to acquaint ourselves with the present leadership candidates. Only by being vigilant and informed will we be likely to elect leaders we trust and respect.

With the federal election on the horizon, many candidates are already in the political marketplace, shopping for votes. The parties are engaging pollsters to determine what issues are important to Canadians. They are beginning to tell us what they hope we want to hear.

Possibly one reason we are so often displeased with politicians is that we don’t pay sufficient attention to what they are saying and doing long before we enter the voting booth. And we aren’t asking enough tough questions and demanding substantive replies. If we have an inadequate understanding of a candidate‘s character, how can we even guess at what that individual will do if elected?

When we complacently vote according to party brand, we are essentially telling politicians, “we are not deeply interested in the affairs of our nation. You have our permission to do whatever you think is best.”

For me deciding who to vote for begins with the underlying principle that I will not give my heart to any political party. Then I look at the leaders. In this regard I like Peter C Newman’s words in Home Country, “I stopped believing in magical leaders.” Like the rest of us, political leaders are flawed, and we should not decide who we will support on the basis of party brand, charisma, or extravagant promises.

With this understanding, I hope to find particular qualities in a party leader. Wisdom and sound judgment seem a good place to start. Without these, a leader can cause serious damage, especially to those having little political clout. RB Bennett, Prime Minister in the early years of the Great Depression (1930-35) seemingly lacked these qualities.

Bennett approved the construction of work camps for young men

unable to find employment. The administration of these camps was generally appalling, the pay abominable. The men embarked on a trek to Ottawa to make the government aware of their serious grievances. Instead of giving them an audience, Bennett ordered the RCMP to halt the march in Regina. The crackdown was harsh, with some bloodshed. With wisdom and sound judgment, the discouraged young men could have been given a hearing and their legitimate grievances dealt with fairly. Fortunately Bennett lasted only one term.

I also hope a leader will deeply and genuinely care about and respect the citizens of the country. As a student at SFU, I was caught up in the Trudeaumania that swept through Canada in 1968 when Pierre Trudeau first ran for the position of Prime Minister. Like many Canadians, I thought he would bring a creative approach and positive solutions to complex issues. Instead, when his popularity waned, from the comfort of his plush railroad coach he gave the finger to 3 disheartened placard carrying citizens. He also raised gas and other taxes after promising during the election campaign he would not. Newman’s opinion is that “Trudeau didn’t understand Canadians and their concerns. What is worse, he didn’t appear to care.”

Another quality I look for is integrity. When Jean Chretien made his promises public in the famous Liberal Red Book, I thought he intended to fulfill them. Apparently their sole purpose was to garner votes.

Fortunately Canada has had leaders who exemplified good

character and values. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Liberal Prime Minister from 1896 to 1911, is still considered by many to have been a true Canadian statesman. JS Woodsworth, the main founder and first leader of what later became the NDP has been called the “conscience of Parliament.“ Robert Stanfield, leader of the Progressive Conservative Opposition from 1967 to 1976 continues to be regarded as an honourable politician by political writers.

If we want good governance in Canada, it is essential that we elect individuals of good character. To accomplish this we will have to be diligent, proactive and vigilant.

With the selection of Angelique Wood as the NDP candidate for the Central Okanagan Similikameen-Nicola constituency, I find myself

dealing with an inner quandary. She is my neighbour, only two doors away. Also, I observed her efforts fairly carefully during the three years she was the RDOS representative for Area G. Her work ethic is impressive and she has an evident love for the Similkameen Valley and for Canada.

Given that I have a positive opinion of her, why would I hesitate to vote for her? It certainly isn’t that I favour one of the other two major parties.

I think former PM Jean Chretien best epitomizes why I might hesitate to vote for any party other than the Greens. Some years ago, I was in a line of people patiently standing in a hot sun waiting for the privilege of shaking his hand. When he finally appeared, he sped along the line with the determined visage of a Kentucky Derby race horse. He showed no warmth or interest in us.

His inner voice might have been saying, “I really would rather not be here. These people mean nothing to me. The only reason I’m here is that they are potential votes. Let’s get this done and leave.” This is only conjecture on my part but that certainly is the message his visage and body language conveyed. Only our votes mattered in his relentless drive to be re-elected.

Although I went away unimpressed, I still had some faith because of his famed Red Book boldly outlining Liberal Party promises. I agreed with my wife Linda when she said, “if he puts them in writing, surely he means to follow through on them.” How naive we were. How easily deluded. Experiences like this have made me cautious, even skeptical, when listening to politicians, especially those who could soon be governing our nation.

Does my lack of enchantment with political parties mean I won’t vote in the upcoming federal election? Certainly not. Does it mean I hold Angelique Wood accountable for the arrogance and failings of Jean Chretien and other politicians? Again, certainly not.

I’m actually deeply impressed by the founders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) precursor to the NDP. Before being elected to Parliament, J.S. Woodsworth was superintendent of the All Peoples Mission, working with the poor in Winnipeg. Later, in an address to Parliament he said, “the economy should be planned for public benefit rather than allowing businesses to gouge customers.” Pierre Berton referred to him as “the conscience of Canada.”

On the provincial scene, in 1944 Tommy Douglas and the CCF won

47 of the 52 seats in the Saskatchewan legislature. According to Vincent Lam in his biography of Douglas, the province at that time had the second highest provincial debt in Canada. The CCF, he says, recorded a surplus in each of its 17 years in power and steadily paid down the debt.

Speaking at the 1983 NDP National Convention, Douglas said, “We are not just interested in getting votes. We are seeking people willing to dedicate their lives to building a different kind of society. A society founded on the principles of concern for human well being and human welfare.”

Lam says “voters continued to elect the CCF in election after election, because they delivered what they promised.”

Lam states further, “the need for a Universal Public Health Care program was a well used plank in the Liberal federal election platform since the early years of the 20^th century, one that was never followed by action.” It is his opinion that Douglas and the CCF can take credit for having the commitment and political will to make universal health care a reality in Canada.

I believe many Canadians long for politicians who will represent the wishes of the people to the leader, not the wishes of the leader to the people. With the Party Whip system, employed by the Big Three parties, this is difficult to achieve. It is for this reason I often vote Green.

I do recognize that we need people of integrity, ability and vision to sit on the benches of the governing party and the opposition. It is my opinion that Angelique Wood embodies some of the qualities and zeal of the party founders. Although I have never voted NDP and am troubled by their spending commitments, I do feel she established a strong track record in the RDOS. I may yet be persuaded to affix an x beside her name on election day.