Impolitical

A note on the 2018 Ontario provincial campaign

2017-11-27T15:35:00.000-05:00

Dear Parkdale-High Park Members, Volunteers, Donors & Supporters:

It has been my great pleasure to work with and get to know you over the past few years.

Over the past 4 years, I’ve worked hard to be the provincial Liberal candidate here in our home riding of Parkdale-High Park for the upcoming provincial election. You were very kind to me at your doors, in coming out for fundraising events, and in the community when I asked for your continued support. Thank you sincerely for standing with me.

I got involved in the political process because I sincerely want to make a difference in people’s lives for the better. I am a lawyer and as such ethics and integrity are very important to me. So after coming so close to winning in 2014, I persevered and continued to work in good faith because I knew I could do a good job of representing this riding.

Since the last election I have:

Knocked on well over 20,000 doors in the last two years with a view to building a winning and strategic coalition for the 2018 election;

Listened to thousands of our smart, caring riding residents in those engagements, and used those conversations to build riding specific policy ideas for the coming election;

Worked on housing issues in the riding that I care about and are important to riding residents – including:

· Advocating for our community on sustainable development issues at city council;

· Writing multiple housing submissions to the provincial government on landlord and tenant issues;

Volunteered for over two years at a church community meals outreach program in Parkdale and continuing to serve on the Parkdale food bank board;

Helped hundreds of residents with their education, healthcare, housing, immigration and legal needs;

Built riding association resources from $0 to over $50,000, leading with successful, well attended grass root fundraisers with accessible ticket prices;

Raised over $50,000 for the Ontario Liberal Party separate and apart from riding resources.

But I have come to believe that the path for me to continue to make a difference for the people here in Parkdale-High Park is not with the Ontario Liberal Party in 2018. This was a very difficult personal decision to make, especially after all the hard work over the past few years, but it is one that I have firmly made after much consideration around all of the circumstances involved.

I ask for your understanding and hope to see you soon. I am not finished with public service by a long shot and I look forward to ongoing dialogue and engagements with the residents of this community.

Thank you again for your support and friendship. All best wishes to you and family.

Sincerely,

Nancy Leblanc

Thoughts on the #LPC electoral reform policy plank

2015-06-16T20:18:00.000-04:00

As a party member who has been involved with supporting democratic reform initiatives in the Liberal party, I thought I would add a few thoughts to the discussion today on the Liberal Party of Canada's electoral reform plank, rolled out earlier today. The pledge to "Make every vote count" is as follows:

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting – are fully and fairly studied and considered.
This will be carried out by a special all-party parliamentary committee, which will bring recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow for action before the succeeding federal election. Within 18 months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform.

This is member supported LPC policy. The key electoral reform aspects are not new, save for the additions of the extra measures to be studied such as mandatory and online voting. Indeed, it is very similar to the party resolution that was passed at the Liberal Biennial in Montreal in early 2014, which included this element:

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, an all-Party process be instituted, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with recommendations for electoral reforms including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent Canadians more fairly and serve Canada better.

A "national engagement process" and and all-party parliamentary committee are important aspects to bringing this reform about. Any major reform to our electoral laws, foundational game-changers, should be demonstrably supported and multi-partisan. The multi-partisan aspect in particular has been lacking from Conservative changes to electoral laws over their tenure.

So a newly constituted Parliament will look at this issue in a multi-partisan way after receiving a mandate to do so. That is needed as there is no existing consensus in the electorate for a particular type of electoral reform. It's difficult to see how this election, just a few months away without that conversation presently taking place, could possibly lead to such a conclusion.

This is why I do not understand the NDP's position which seems to be to choose one form - mixed member proportional (MMP) - without laying a proper foundation for it. There is no consensus that MMP is the preferred electoral reform option for Canada. The NDP's December 2014 one-off motion, which they have pointed to today, brought quickly and with little national debate is not a basis for choosing. A 2004 Law Reform Commission report is also not a basis for choosing, today, what electoral reform we might want in 2015, 2016 or 2017. It will help and probably weigh heavily but on its own, it is not determinative.

Simply put, there are differing views on what type of electoral reform is the consensus choice for the country and a consensus choice is where the country needs to get to before one form is chosen.

Fair Vote Canada recognizes this and their Declaration of Voters' Rights calls for the House of Commons to undertake a public consultation.

Today's announcement also helpfully expands the conversation beyond the Senate as the dominant focus of a national discussion on democratic reform. While the Senate has clearly become a problem in need of many fixes, it is not the most important aspect of our conversation about improving democracy in Canada and should not be the part that is the driving force of the conversation. Improving the democratic legitimacy of our government, the House of Commons, should be the focus. Enhancing that institution's capacity to listen and represent Canadians' concerns well, that should be the focus.

The good news is that there seems to be much support for modernizing our democratic system. And that conversation will be a key part of the 2015 campaign.

Parkdale Tenants facing down a Landlord

2015-04-28T07:00:00.000-04:00

Updated below (Thursday April 30th, 1:30 pm).

Last Wednesday I attended an organizing meeting in the basement of the Parkdale Library for tenants of the Akelius owned buildings in the heart of Parkdale.

Akelius is a Swedish owned company that entered the Toronto real estate market in approximately 2011 and now owns over 2,000 units in over 30 properties across the city, including four buildings in Parkdale that have garnered much media attention and legal action thanks to tenant organizing.

There is a hearing this morning at the Landlord-Tenant board at 79 St. Clair Avenue East at 9 am and there will be a demonstration outside the board - part of what last week's organizing meeting was about. One of the Parkdale buildings is the subject of a hearing today on the issue of back to back yearly above guideline rental increases. Additionally, there is a group building challenge to the landlord's legal ability to remove superintendents from the site of these buildings.

When I ran during the provincial election of 2014, the difficulties tenants are having in Parkdale with this one landlord in particular, the foreign-owned Akelius, came up repeatedly. So, during the summer and into the fall of 2014, I continued to pay attention to these issues and began to try to help based on the concerns I had heard.

In the fall, I consulted with Parkdale Community Legal Services, who have been assisting the tenants, helping them to organize and providing legal assistance. One of Parkdale Legal's case workers spoke at the meeting last week about the importance of the tenants' organizing - rightfully so - it is the most effective way in which pressure can be immediately brought to bear upon a landlord that fails to live up to its obligations.

There was a substantial turnout to the meeting, primarily tenants of Tibetan heritage, and the meeting was translated simultaneously. The tenants who told their stories are viscerally motivated by this landlord who fails to repair their units - they speak of holes in bathrooom walls, broken sinks, etc. - yet nevertheless seeks above-guideline rent increases for structural repairs to their building, beyond their units. One of the principal problems is clearly the lack of a stick to enforce Landlord repair obligations and this foreign-owned Landlord in particular, who seeks to expand its holdings in Toronto, is becoming notorious for its failures that are viewed as an effort to drive tenants out and allow higher rents to be charged to incoming tenants. Affordable housing, raised yesterday by our Mayor, is put at risk.

Thanks to the organizers and the tenants for allowing me to express support for their organizing efforts and to provide an update on how I've tried to help, as a citizen, by raising these concerns with the provincial government and further, by participating in the current provincial consultation on Long Term Affordable Housing strategy. In addition to the tenants' organizing track, such efforts to seek changes to the rules that are affecting their tenancies were welcomed by the crowd in the room.

Watch for the outcome of today's hearings and developments in this ongoing story coming out of Parkdale as a result of these determined residents.

Update: A summary of the results and status of the two hearings at the Landlord & Tenant board can be found here. Kudos to the tenats of 188 Jameson for their organizing and the outcome of their above guideline increase hearing: "At the end of the day Akelius conceded to a 4.5% increase over three years (1.2% in 2014, 1.6% in 2015, and 1.7% 2016). Akelius also gave in to the demand not to bring applications for above guideline increases in the next two years and agreed to allow tenants up to six months to pay any back any rent they owe due to the increase."

Paul Godfrey's endorsement of Patrick Brown for PC leader of Ontario

2015-04-02T16:48:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, Paul Godfrey, the President and CEO of Postmedia Network Inc., attended at the Ontario legislature where he stood next to Patrick Brown, candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, to announce his endorsement of Brown. This is a moment that warrants some critical observations on the appropriateness of a major media CEO making such a public statement of support of a political candidate.

Here was the scene on the north lawn of Queen's Park where, facing the legislature, the endorsement was rolled out:

.@brownbarrie announces Postmedia boss Paul Godfrey and PC titan Derek Burney are supporting him. #onpoli pic.twitter.com/5JYJIRMouz
— Robert Benzie (@robertbenzie) April 2, 2015

Godfrey is President and CEO of one of Canada's largest media operations. Indeed, this announcement occurs on the heels of the federal Competition Bureau having given the green light to Postmedia Network's acquisition of 175 Sun Media newspapers. There is a public democratic interest that the Competition Bureau took into consideration when granting public approval over this expansion and the recency of that decision and his company's expanded media footprint in Canada might give some executives cause for extra caution and care when considering such a political endorsement.

Further, Godfrey's endorsement of Brown cannot help but be viewed without considering Godfrey's recent history with the Wynne government. Recall that in the spring of 2013, he was removed from his position as Chair of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. That history informs his announcement today and bolsters a perception of an adversarial political context.

A President and CEO of a company is the chief spokesperson for that entity. A President and CEO doesn't simply "run the business part of the newspapers," as Mr. Godfrey stated today, but speaks on behalf of the organization. Herein lies the perceived conflict of interest in a media CEO endorsing a political candidate, and the importance of journalistic objectivity. A CEO speaks on behalf of, represents and embodies that corporation's public and private dealings with its many stakeholders. It is quite difficult to unpack the chief executive's persona from that of the corporate entity due to their position and the scope of their authority. This is why, as Postmedia Network's Business Code of Conduct, provides - "Postmedia Personnel may participate in the political process as private citizens." - there is a signalling implicit in Mr. Godfrey's endorsement to his company's journalists, customers and shareholders. In short, Mr. Godfrey is not speaking as a private citizen. CEOs rarely do.

Presentation on the Bloor/Durie development in Bloor West Village #parkhp #topoli

2014-08-12T20:12:00.000-04:00

Updated (Friday August 14th, 7:30 p.m.) below.

Hello all! It's been a while here at the blog. Apologies. I hope to get back to posting more regularly in the near future.

I wanted to post my speaking notes from today on an issue that came before the Etobicoke York Community Council. As you will note from my previous blog entry, I have been involved with residents here in Parkdale-High Park for a few years now on development proposals. It's a huge issue in the riding. The latest significant challenge is represented by the proposed development at the corner of Bloor & Durie in the heart of Bloor West Village ("BWV"). While my notes will go into a bit of detail on the entire issue, I just wanted to highlight what essentially happened at council today.

This development is of great concern to the residents of BWV, Swansea, Old Mill, South Kingsway and High Park. The development proposal was scheduled to be heard at the Ontario Municipal Board in the near future (date unknown). But Council agreed today - essentially adopting the motion found below - to seek an adjournment of that development hearing until a properly done public study can be undertaken of the Bloor West Village area. That is potentially quite significant should the OMB - as it rightfully should - listen to this message from the City.

This could mean that BWV will be developed coherently, driven by a public study process that will now keep at bay the one-off developer driven proposals such as this one at Bloor & Durie.

Here's hoping and I know the residents will remain vigilant to ensure it happens in the right way. Notes follow.

Speaking notes for Tues, Aug 12th – Etobicoke York Community Council
2265-2279 Bloor Street West and 116 and 240 Durie Street – Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Rental Housing Demolition & Conversion Applications

Councillors, City Staff & members of the community, my name is Nancy Leblanc. I am a resident of Swansea, residing just a few blocks away from the proposed Bloor West Village development that is before the council today for consideration.

I support the position of the neighbourhood resident associations who are opposing this development and am appearing today on their behalf. Those resident associations are: the Bloor West Village Residents Association, the Old Mill Community Association, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association and the South Kingsway Neighbourhood Committee. Many of their members are here today.

I would respectfully ask of this Council that you support the residents of this neighbourhood community in their opposition to this development. Specifically, I would request that the following motion be moved, considered and supported by this Council:
1. Be it resolved that the Staff Report dated August 1st, 2014 be deferred for consideration until a properly done public Area Study can be undertaken by the City in respect of Bloor West Village that will set out detailed guidelines for future development.

2. Be it further resolved that this Council authorize the City Solicitor to request an adjournment of any date obtained before the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of this development until a properly done public Area Study can be undertaken by the City in respect of Bloor West Village that will set out detailed guidelines for future development, and until that study and its conclusions are subject to public review and comment, and until that study is adopted by City Council as set out in the Official Plan.
This staff report should be deferred for many reasons. We have little to lose by doing so, and much to gain.

This application is being supported by a study completed by the proponent which, to no one's surprise, is basically in support of the proposed development.

But - The basic principle which the residents seek is to ensure that Bloor West Village be developed through a plan driven by the public interest – not private – and in a manner that recognizes its unique historical characteristics and its present day character as a landmark west Toronto village. Study the village as a whole - then decide how it should be intensified and densified.

The character of the Bloor West Village strip is unique. There is a careful balance between the Mixed Use commercial areas along Bloor and the stable Neighbourhoods that abut Bloor. It is a flat stretch that to date has been undisturbed by high developments except to its peripheries on the east and west, in lower grade areas toward the Humber River and High Park where height impact is somewhat lessened. The storefronts date to the 1920s and 30s. Yet the Staff Report before us today maps out a future for the Village that will disrupt this character and historic balance, that will penetrate a stable Neighbourhood street, and that will set a poor precedent for development of the heart of Bloor West Village. It opens the door to a series of negotiated one-off developments, jammed into the heart of Bloor West Village without the proper studies having been done.

For example - There is no Avenue study that has been undertaken of Bloor West Village. According to the Official Plan, development requiring a rezoning – as this proposal does – will not be allowed to proceed prior to completion of an Avenue Study unless a review is undertaken that demonstrates to Council’s satisfaction that subsequent development of the entire Avenue segment will have no adverse impacts within the context and parameters of this review.” (2.2.3.3(b))

Further, the Official Plan requires that any development preceding an Avenue study must be shown to “contribute to an attractive, safe and comfortable pedestrian environment that encourages walking and strengthens local retailing” (2.2.3.3 (c)).

Yet as one resident has put it, quite well, this proposal will:

“have an adverse impact on the pedestrian environment by inserting a much taller street wall rising straight up from the street 7 stories before the step-back in a block of predominantly two story storefronts. The height and massing will create a large monolithic structure than looms over and oppresses the visual environment within the heart of the district and replaces lively, pedestrian oriented, fine-grained commercial facades with a bland, undifferentiated row of shops with identical materials and design that are less variable, legible and attractive.”
A publicly driven area Study is therefore required before such one-off developments, supported by segmented studies, are inserted on a jarring basis that break up the character of Bloor West Village.

A deferral of this Staff Report is also warranted given that a Heritage Conservation District Nomination has been sought for Bloor West Village. In 2008, City Council identified Bloor West Village as an area warranting analysis as a Heritage Conservation District. Some of the heritage considerations include:
The buildings, dating from the 1920s and 30s;

Bloor West Village was the first Business Improvement Area in the world;

The historical connection to immigration from Eastern Europe, including the location of an annual Ukrainian festival which is the largest in North America
To prematurely consider a development in the heart of the Village without allowing for a Heritage process to be completed would be inappropriate.

Another important factor for this Council to consider is the Swansea Secondary Plan that governs the Durie Street properties sought to be included in this development. The Swansea Secondary Plan specifically provides that
“where the Zoning By-law permits apartment buildings in areas designated as Neighbourhoods, any apartment building will respect the zoned height and density limits.”
This means that any development proposal that penetrates the Durie Neighbourhood, governed by the Swansea Secondary Plan, must respect the zoned height and density limits of the Neighbourhood. That is, 0.6 times the area of the lot. The Staff Report is rightfully concerned that these physically “stable” neighbourhood areas are sought to be used to support a mixed-use development.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we ask this Community Council to support the residents, defer consideration of the Staff report before you today and seek an adjournment of any scheduled OMB hearing in respect of this development. The future development of Bloor West Village deserves a proper public study - after which decisions can be made to intensify and densify the area, in accordance with its unique history and village characteristics.

Thank you.

Update (Friday August 14, 7:30 pm): Please also see the Save Our Village website for more information on the 2265 Bloor hearing and other developments in the Bloor West area.

Presentation to Etobicoke York Community Council

2014-05-18T11:39:00.000-04:00

Update: I am re-posting this entry as some residents of Parkdale-High Park may visit this blog to find these submissions. Development in the riding is an issue for many and for those who are interested in the approach I took, along with the members of the South Kingsway residents, I thought I'd make it a bit easier to find here at the top of the blog.

-----

Here are my speaking notes, below, from this afternoon's Etobicoke York Community Council hearing on a condominium development at 34-50 Southport Street in my Toronto neighbourhood. Quite unfortunately, the application by the developer passed with the support of my local councillor, Sarah Doucette. I attended with the South Kingsway Neighbourhood Committee and with many other residents who filled the council room to oppose the development.

We didn't win, and will no doubt carry on to next steps. It is really a psychological barrier that's been broken with this one. If it ultimately succeeds, there will be two major new towers north of the Queeensway in the west end and a horrible precedent has been set.

This is, in many ways, a snapshot of what is happening throughout Toronto. There are three 80 storey towers just proposed for the King Street neighbourhood, there is a major development proposed for the Humbertown area and signs are all across the lawns in Etobicoke. Stay tuned.

Councillors, City Staff & members of the community, my name is Nancy Leblanc. I am a resident of Swansea, residing on [edited out], minutes away from the proposed Southport condo development that you have before you today for consideration. My house was built in 1929 and I mention that to give you a sense of the well established nature of this area into which this two tower condo development is proposed.

I support the position of the South Kingsway Neighbourhood Committee that has been previously set out today, encapsulated by the slogan, “One less Tower, Tons less traffic.” I would respectfully ask of this Council that you support the residents of this neighbourhood community and adopt that position, for 3 reasons.
1. This development proposal is not the right thing to do for the Swansea community because it totally undermines the Swansea Secondary Plan, which is the foundational planning document for the Swansea neighbourhood.

2. The $1.4 million cash payment to the City cannot compensate the existing local residents for the value of what they are losing should this full development proceed.

3. The City of Toronto’s intensification policies do not apply to the Swansea area and Southport street site.
1. Turning to my first point, the Swansea Secondary Plan. It is a careful, balanced Official Plan policy that touches on all aspects of development in this neighbourhood with provisions on apartment neighbourhoods, employment areas, park spaces, and the specific Southport site. It is the most relevant planning material in front of you.

In each part of the Swansea Secondary plan, the need to retain low density development is paramount. In section 4.2 pertaining to “Employment Areas,” for example, the plan says this:
“In order to ensure the continued compatibility between industrial and adjacent residential and commercial buildings and to maintain the low scale nature of development in this area, it is the policy of Council to pass by-laws limiting the heights of buildings.”
Further, in section 5.3 on Parks and Open Space Areas, for example, the Swansea Plan speaks of the need for any development to maintain and where possible enhance views of Lake Ontario EVEN from the lands at the rear of 2155 Bloor Street West.

And of course - Section 6 of the Swansea Secondary Plan pertaining to the Southport site - is explicit in prohibiting a density greater than 2 times the lot area. It also requires any new development to have a minimum of 2,385 square metres of retail and service use, as my fellow citizens have pointed out today. The developer’s proposal - offering a minimum of 1300 square metres to a maximum of 2,200 square metres - breaches this requirement, and does not even reflect the compromise of 2,205 square metres which the residents and the developer agreed to during good faith community meetings.

What the developer seeks to do, in fact, is to double the density permitted in the Southport site from 2X lot area to 4 X lot area, without any sensitivity to the rest of the Swansea plan.

You will see in the Final Report in front of you that the developer references, on page 44, the surrounding neighbourhood context, speaking of the new towers to the south. But the neighbourhood context for this proposal is Southport, which is north of the Queensway. There is a careful layout of the 4 apartment buildings to the north of the Southport site that don’t obstruct each other’s views or cast shadows on each other. There are purposely low level condominium buildings to the south and in the adjacent low density employment area.

The layout of Swansea and the provisions in the Swansea plan tell us that low density, low height developments are what are explicitly contemplated throughout this well-established neighbourhood.

Let’s keep it that way. What is south of the Queensway should stay south of the Queensway. We have our own well-balanced plan for Southport and the surrounding community which requires low density development. Where change is needed, it is incremental change that is provided for, reflected in building transitions and land uses that are respectful of each other. What the South Kingsway Neighbourhood Committee has proposed allows that balance to be retained in a respectful, one building compromise.

2. My second point is regarding the cash payment of $1.4 million by the developer to the City, as part of this proposal.

Simply, this payment cannot compensate current local residents for the value of what they are losing should this full development proceed.

You have heard some of what residents have said. Whether it is a loss of privacy, loss of their view and therefore loss of tax assessment value on their unit, loss of daylight, or increased traffic congestion…citizens are losing and the City is gaining a cash payment. There are no consultations on where to spend it, no citizen input. There is questionable democratic integrity to this payment process. In a nutshell, as the OMB held in its 2003 decision involving the Southport lands, inappropriate development should not be bought for the price of improvements.

3. Third, this area does not meet the requirements in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan for locations suitable for significant intensification, as set out in section 2.2 of the City’s Official Plan.

It is not an enumerated area designated for intensification growth, such as Downtown, the Central Waterfront, one of the Centres or Avenues.

Further, this development cannot be said to be located in an area that is well served by transit. As my friends have already set out today, this undermines the choice of this site for an intense development such as that proposed. The City’s Official Plan, in section 2.2, does however say that Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods are equivalent when it comes to protection from new development considerations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we ask this Community Council for your support. Not everything should be up for grabs by developers in our city. We need consistency and balance in our planning. Side with we the residents who have acted in good faith to come up with a reasonable development plan that meets the standards of the well thought out Swansea Secondary Plan that protects our established community. Thank you.

Liberal reformers

2014-01-29T16:06:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts here on today's announcement by Justin Trudeau that Liberal Senators will no longer be part of the Liberal caucus and are now to sit independently.

One of Trudeau's lines that stood out for me was this one: "At our best, Liberals are relentless reformers." Recently, on the death of Jim Coutts, an opinion piece he wrote in 2004 was circulated, and in it, we found this:

"The current policy markers of the Liberal party have evolved over time and are fairly familiar to many Canadians. The most crucial Liberal markers are these:
Reform, which is so central to Liberal identity that it was the party’s name up to and during the leadership of George Brown. The marker has stood for political reform, ranging from the introduc- tion of responsible government under Baldwin and Lafontaine, to battling ruling-class power and patronage abuse at the time of Brown, Mackenzie and Blake, to entrenching a constitutional Charter of Rights under Trudeau. Since the 1920s, the Liberal reform marker has most importantly sig- nified social reform, or the cre- ation and improvement of a modern welfare state."

Today we saw a big bout of reform in the form of a Senate that would be independent, in Trudeau's words:

That is why I have come to believe that the Senate must be non-partisan. Composed merely of thoughtful individuals representing the varied values, perspectives and identities of this great country. Independent from any particular political brand.

Trudeau's reform will likely come off as reasonable to many Canadians. It is not the radical abolitionist approach of the NDP which would require constitutional reform. It is not the Conservative supposed pro-reform approach that has gone nowhere for their seven years in power and that would also likely require constitutional reform.

Trudeau's reform looks at the Senate, and proposes an approach that will not tear it down, but make fair use of a second chamber. In the Westminster system, it would be anomalous not to have a second chamber. The direction suggested, a more merit-based approach is a good one that speaks to the times. This reform, as Trudeau is suggesting, could be infused with principles of merit, competency, and transparency, to bolster the credibility of the Liberal proposals. And this Liberal would suggest ensuring that the appointment process be free from an elite-based orientation.

To be sure, there will be wrinkles to iron out. Senator Campbell spoke to some of these today: He also questioned how the Senate will function in terms of their role in scrutinizing government legislation. He questioned, for instance, who will sit on committees and who will be named critics of which bills.

Ensuring that the elected representatives' will is carried out and without blockage, is another consideration to be grappled with. And perhaps with that consideration in mind, note Trudeau's last line in his remarks today:

We want to build public institutions that Canadians can trust, and that serve Canadians. This requires real, positive change. These proposals are the next step in our Open Parliament plan to do just that.

They won’t be the last.

This may be a nod to the democratic reform resolution that the federal Liberal MP caucus has proposed as one of its priority resolutions to be voted upon at the upcoming February biennial policy convention in Montreal, less than a month away now. That resolution, Bolstering Canada's Democracy, contains this operative proposal:

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, the Liberal Party of Canada institute an all-Party process, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with analysis and recommendations for an electoral system including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent all Canadians more fairly and to allow Parliament to serve Canada better.

Senate reform without reform of our House of Commons would be incongruent. The above proposed resolution would be the beginning of addressing the imbalance that would result if the Senate were reformed without a similar effort being made in respect of the House of Commons. As bad as some of the practices and appointments connected to the Senate have been, the pressing need for reform lies in the House of Commons. Electoral reform to change the system in which we operate is one route. Michael Chong's reform which accepts the system yet changes the rules is another. The good news is that reform in a big way is on the agenda for Canada.

Liberals are re-embracing reform as a mantle. All in all, a positive development today.

CPP reform rhetoric

2013-12-16T15:06:00.000-05:00

Since there is a significant meeting among Canadian finance ministers today, where reform to the Canada Pension Plan is on the agenda, it's worth pointing out some really unhelpful ongoing language the federal Finance Minister is using to describe CPP. This is what he said today to describe CPP:

"CPP is a tax on people who work, a tax on employers. It takes money directly out of the economy, so it's not something to be done lightly. It's something that must be done with consideration and thought," he said.

This framing of CPP, a valued Canadian program that is the backbone of our savings retirement, as just another vile tax should be countered. Here's one:

There is not a shred of credible empirical evidence to support assertions CPP contributions amount to a payroll tax and a job killer. CPP contributions, like all contributions to any pension plan, are deferred wages. Calling an employer's pension contribution a payroll tax is disingenuous, if not an outright deception.

Deferred wages. Savings investments. A retirement worth paying for.

Or choose whatever else you'd like to call it to accurately describe the value and positive association most Canadians would have in their minds to ascribe to CPP.

The Conservatives are masters of dumbing down issues into these convenient ideological talking points. The facts are that people are not saving, there are a growing number of provinces getting behind expanded CPP for such reasons, and Canada's economy - as the Conservatives enjoy telling us - is one of those to be envied among world nations.

We should be tackling pension reform and hopefully, in the long term, if serious people keep speaking up, the need to address this issue will trump the rhetoric.

Leadership noted

2013-09-20T06:00:00.000-04:00

What a great display of striking, positive leadership for the good in the last 24 hours. First, this news of the Obama administration's announcement today on limiting emissions from new power plants:

A year after a plan by President Obama to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants set off angry opposition, the administration will announce on Friday that it is not backing down from a confrontation with the coal industry and will press ahead with enacting the first federal carbon limits on the nation’s power companies.

This is executive action that does not require approval by Congress. Obama will, however, have to take on the coal industry. Yet somehow, doesn't that now seem like much less of a task in the wake of Obama's handling of the Syria crisis? The timing of this announcement seems to be one from a leader feeling emboldened, with that major international event just under his belt. Moving on now to one of the other major challenges the world faces.

And what will be the reaction of PM Harper? He of the letter to Obama asking for joint things to be done emissions-wise. Obama is acting. Unilaterally. What then is Canada prepared to do?

The second instance of leadership very much worth noting, the interview released of Pope Francis speaking on the Catholic church and his view of how the church needs to evolve.

Even if you are not a particularly religious person, this seems to have big implications. The way that this Pope, in such a position of influence and stature, is shifting the church from a close-minded, dogmatic institution to a non-judgmental, loving stance is remarkable. At least, that's the way it is striking me. I see news of others similarly moved.

And I certainly don't see how this is good news for those politicians who would seek to use gay issues and reproductive rights as exclusionary and divisive wedge political issues. This is a powerful counter.

And if you only read one thing on yesterday's Pope news, I recommend this.

Prorogation, obviously

2013-08-19T17:53:00.000-04:00

The big news on an August Monday:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed he will ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until October, when his Conservative government will introduce the next speech from the throne.

"There will be a new throne speech in the fall, obviously the House will be prorogued in anticipation of that. We will come back — in October is our tentative timing," Harper told reporters in Whitehorse Monday. Harper is in the Yukon on the second day of his annual summer tour of the North.

A few thoughts to add to the online maelstrom.

I am quite meh over this one. It's mid-August and the House of Commons will be back in just over a month and a half? That's not tooo bad in terms of an extension beyond a return that was expected on September 16th.

The news coverage on the Senate scandals, for example, is likely to continue through this period. They won't be escaping damage from it.

Also, whenever Harper interferes with his own government's ability to legislate, that's not so bad. Less is definitely more for some of us when it comes to their legislative output record.

Harper, though, just can't prorogue and avoid critical comment. He has baggage, to say the least.

He is the lone Prime Minister, of any Westminster democracy, to have faced a confidence vote and deployed prorogation to avoid his minority government's fate. Totally unprecedented in Canadian history and so he just can't shake that shadow. He would have been defeated in late 2008-early 2009 by the opposition parties but for his proroguing of Parliament. The Harper majority era might totally have been avoided had he not done so. All of today's present Conservative party edifice is built on that shaky foundation. Which is partly why the power to prorogue is still in need of reform. There is less malevolent political calculation at play in today's prorogation. But nevertheless, it doesn't take away the need to fix, at some point, the unrestrained ability of a PM to prorogue without limitation.

A law that would restrain the power of the Prime Minister to prorogue could be passed and a PM would ignore it at their political peril. Whatever that judgment by voters might be. Could be nil, could be more, depending on how prorogation occurred. (Similar laws could be passed provincially as well.)

Today's prorogation is also another reminder that it is just plain old anachronistic that a Prime Minister retains such power to unilaterally dictate the government's sitting. In this modern era of a 24 hour news cycle, ever enhanced technologies and where Canadians' work is increasingly stretched beyond 9-5, it is a strange holdover that a Prime Minister can still set their own government's clock and work agenda, largely for political convenience. It just doesn't fit in this era. It's a reminder that there is a larger democratic deficit that needs to be cured in Canada. It's not all about the Senate sideshow. Harper has educated us well about a PM having too much power and our way of governing being in need of an update.

Beyond all that, politically, today's prorogation seems to continue the end of summer roll-out of the newish Harper majority looking toward 2015. New websites here and there with partisan purpose (Consumers First, the new Harper blog), election style speech and talk, etc. Now prorogation. The reboot is on and he's looking to win again in 2015. Obviously.

Chickens roosting day, etc.

2013-08-13T06:53:00.001-04:00

Harper's chickens, that is: "Senator Wallin audit details set for public release." One upside for Wallin, she has one of the best litigators in Toronto representing her (pictured in the CBC link).

One thing of interest in this Postmedia report that could hint at more possible trouble for, I'm assuming, Conservatives:

In their report, the auditors write that part of Wallin’s inappropriate costs were for “partisan related activity, such as fundraising.” Her lawyers cite as an example a May 27, 2011, event for former cabinet minister Bev Oda, who resigned in July 2012 over her own spending scandal, which was made famous by a $16 glass of orange juice charged to taxpayers.

At the Oda event, Wallin talked about Oda’s ministerial role overseeing intenrational [sic] development, as well as the Afghanistan file, which Wallin knew from her work chairing the Senate’s defence committee. Her lawyer’s letter notes that fundraising events took place outside of election campaigns, involved talking about Senate-related matters, and that “this was generally accepted practice,” suggesting that others in the Senate have done the same.

Generally accepted practice, says Wallin's lawyer.

Also of note, a possible strategy suggested by Ivison that could come out of the Senate Supreme Court reference:

The Conservatives argue that the Senate can be abolished under the constitution’s amending formula — section 38 — which states that any changes to the Senate would merely required resolutions in the House of Commons, Senate and seven provinces, representing 50% of the population (rather than unanimous approval).

If the Supreme Court agrees, it seems to me that we will see the Conservatives launch a full-on campaign for Senate abolition, in an effort to insulate Mr. Harper from accusations of being the Red Chamber’s patron. There appear few lengths to which this prime minister will not now go to distance himself from Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin — three of his 59 Red Chamber appointments.

A full-on campaign for abolition by Harper et al. as a matter of political expediency would have absolutely zero integrity or credibility, as Ivison himself hints. It's not clear the Court will rule that abolition could happen under the 7/50 formula in any event. Peter Russell is of the view that unanimity would be required:

Prof. Russell said there’s “no way” the government can unilaterally abolish the Senate and without seeking unanimous consent. “You’re taking 100 per cent of the power away. The Senate has full power to approve every law, and it was put there mainly so the provinces, the sections of the country, would feel some protection against the central government,” said Prof. Russell.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Russell. But, that's all Senate reference stuff, down the road a bit. Today it's all about Wallin's audit and it is at the doorstep of the one who appointed her.

Tory expense fun, it's not just for the Senate

2013-07-20T16:52:00.000-04:00

Ahoy Tory riding associations!

Canadian Press follows the dollar trail to show us how political donation limits are playing out in Canada: "Eye-popping Tory riding war chests raise eyebrows." This is something we have known for a bit but it's nice to see reporting on it today in the wake of the Mike Duffy Senate expense extravaganza. It tells us that you can put in place all the low level limits you like but let's also look at where the money ends up. And at the need for that publicly subsidized money to be accounted for.

The Whitby-Oshawa federal Conservative riding association has $70,000 in "travel and hospitality" expenses? Crikey, that's high! No surprise here in the Conservative response: "...The Canadian Press did not receive any response to repeated requests for explanations from some of the biggest spending Conservative associations, including Flaherty's and Leitch's." The party of Senator Mike Duffy has apparently learned nothing from that ongoing investigative experience.

Who is helping to raise all that dough anyway? Tory Senators?

Carry on with all the great reporting out there!

Random thoughts on the cabinet shuffle

2013-07-15T18:02:00.002-04:00

If we must. Alternative blog post title could very well be: Everything old is new again. I agree with the Canadian Press header: "New faces in Harper's cabinet overhaul, but old guard stands economic watch." I also agree, unsurprisingly (!), with Bob Rae's fun take on all the hullabaloo: "With shuffle, the Harper Revolution continues its slow, steady crawl."

First, an under-noted development perhaps. Chris Alexander goes to Citizenship & Immigration. Jason Kenney's old stomping ground. Literally. Just ask the Doctors for Refugee Health Care who have taken the lead on protesting the cuts by this government to health care coverage for refugees. Whether Alexander will remedy this situation is a key question. Will he continue on with the "gold plated benefits" propaganda nonsense or as a GTA denizen amend this government's ways on what is an uncompassionate policy?

Another aspect of this move is the political angle. This ministry is clearly viewed by Conservatives as a key part of their political equation. Putting Alexander, an ambitious pol from the GTA into this ministry as a successor to Kenney is an intriguing political dynamic. Kenney nevertheless tweeted:

Congratulations to Chris Alexander on his appointment as Minister of Citizenship & Immigration. He's brilliant, hard-working, & very capable
— Jason Kenney (@kenneyjason) July 15, 2013

Speaking of himself, Kenney goes to HRSDC. It was termed Employment & Social Development today but it is HRSDC, as Kenney's tweets also indicate. Succeeding Diane Finley. No one is calling this a demotion but it does have that tinge to it. I suppose something transformational could be in the works, given Kenney's being Kenney and we shall see.

Working with Kenney, kind of, will be Kellie Leitch who is put in Labour & Status of Women. I find putting a surgeon in the Labour portfolio to be odd and not necessarily congruent with her experience. Raitt is a lawyer so at least she was steeped more in the framework, Leitch not so much. Although when your government's labour relations policy is just to legislate industries back to work under the guise of "the economy," it may not be an issue for Leitch at the end of the day. And also with Leitch, Status of Women continues to be an add on hobby for a Harper minister.

Pierre Poilievre to Democratic Reform? What more could one possibly say here? This is the MP who has been sicced on Elections Canada for years. If this day was meant to be about Harper turning a new page, this move surely undermined that thinking. But really, who would have expected a day free from some patented Harper partisanship.

The big news elsewhere in democratic reform today, by the way, is that Bob Rae has joined Fair Vote Canada's advisory board.

“Canadians need to know that their votes will really count. This means moving beyond our first past the post system”, says Rae, a long-time supporter of adding proportionality to Canada’s electoral system.

The key democratic reform challenge for Canada's future is not the Senate, the priority should be reforming the House of Commons. Liberals also joined that message on democratic reform today.

Lisa Raitt to Transport is interesting given the debate going on in the GTA - or should I say GTHA - over transit funding and dealing with Toronto's overdue needs and the Metrolinx proposals. Subway fever is everywhere and the funds to underwrite Toronto's transit needs are pressing. Raitt has her sexy portfolio now and it could provide opportunity for the Harper gang in Toronto. Emphasis on could. Whether they will be willing to work with Premier Wynne or keep showing up and wearing t-shirts for Team Hudak is a question.

Aglukkaq to Environment on its surface might seem like a less dug in approach in the offing. Here is one take that seems fair:

Aglukaaq's appt at environment signals importance of First Nations' support for resource development.
— Shawn McCarthy (@smccarthy55) July 15, 2013

But it's the oil and gas regulations that will be the big test for this government, as everyone knows.

Elsewhere, countries have ministers designated for climate change. It's time for this in Canada too.

Probably much more that could be said but that's it from this corner of the internet peanut gallery.

P.S. Oh, almost forgot the obligatory note for long time readers...Gerry Ritz should have been fired.

One man in Lac Mégantic

2013-07-12T06:00:00.000-04:00

This is a very powerful report on Raymond Lafontaine of Lac Mégantic who lost a son, two daughters-in-law and an employee in the train explosion. He's making a difference on the ground there in many ways, chief among them this:

In the minutes after Saturday’s explosion, he rushed to the town’s centre, using one of his front-end loaders to pour gravel and smashing buildings to stop the path of the flames. Then, beginning on Monday, he emerged to speak publicly and resolutely, a native son who shares his town’s grief — and carries its pride.

Shaking with rage he told reporters on Wednesday that he, personally, will make sure that trains of crude oil don’t pass through town the way they did before the blast.

“I am not a terrorist,” he said. “There is a way to organize this. That track was laid to transport wood. The government needs to put on its shoes,” he said, using a French expression for taking charge.

Lafontaine is striking a note that no politician has or perhaps could. And if he is doing so in Lac Mégantic, how many towns across the country are watching and having the same concerns?

Moodys has taken notice. Life could become quite different for the oil industry with means of transport and routes being challenged, increased costs and heightened scrutiny.

Place your Keystone bets

2013-07-05T06:00:00.000-04:00

Joe Romm is betting it's off:

Harder writes:
To the surprise of everyone outside the White House, Obama mentioned the pipeline in his speech. It was a politically savvy move for three reasons: 1) He called out the elephant in the room and thus avoided both criticism from groups like the Sierra Club and the subsequent media coverage of his omission; 2) He took ownership of the issue, showing everyone on every side of the fight he is personally involved; and 3) He shifted the debate over the pipeline from one of economics to one about the effects on climate change.
I agree with #2 and #3 — which is precisely why I think the speech makes it less likely he will approve Keystone. Obama owns KXL and he’s said the deciding factor is climate, not economics. As a new Scientific American article sums things up, “If built, the Keystone XL pipeline will be a spigot that speeds tar sands production, pushing the planet toward its emissions limit.”

...

And folks who have been around Washington politics a lot longer than I have think it would be very un-savvy to spend so much time laying out a strong moral case for climate action and then bringing up Keystone IF the president is planning on approving it. He would have been far better off not talking about Keystone at all in that case. As it is now, he will rightfully be called an extreme hypocrite if he ultimately opens the spigot to the dirty tar sands.

There’s no question Obama could approve Keystone, but I believe the smart money has shifted from betting he will to betting he won’t.

CTV was reporting that Peter Kent may be moving on and therefore would be out as Environment Minister. Not sure there's much a new Canadian minister might do to sway the Obama administration but Keystone has got to be figuring into Harper's thinking. Is Rempel, currently the Parliamentary Secretary to Kent, the one?

Whoever it is, they're also going to have to deal with this burgeoning - and very warranted - focus on petcoke. This oil sands byproduct gained greater visibility recently given the Koch brothers' piling of it on the Detroit waterfront to the discomfort of Windsorites looking on from across the river.

We, for the most part, won't burn it for fuel due to its high emissions levels and the "Environmental Protection Agency will no longer allow any new licenses permitting the burning of petroleum coke in the United States." So it is largely being shipped overseas to China and Mexico, nations that don't care much about emissions levels. Shouldn't we Canadians be concerned about that? Particularly if Keystone were to be approved, with the amounts of petcoke that will be produced.

Over to you, next Harper environment minister.

Farewell @bobraemp

2013-06-19T15:59:00.000-04:00

It's a sad day, Bob Rae is going away. Sure he said never say never to a return when asked about his future. This seems to be it though. It's a loss for all of us that Bob will not grace the stage of elected life again. Particularly at this moment where the issue of integrity in politics from top to bottom looms large. Maybe that's why, although this is not unexpected, it still stings a little more than expected. We need more "Bob" in our politics, not less.

I'll remember one thing in particular about his time as interim leader. How he reminded people of the essence of being a Liberal, that the heart is part of the political program in addition to the rational policy driven by the head. He emphasized issues like a national suicide prevention strategy. He talked openly about his own experience with depression. He was a leader on aboriginal affairs. When he spoke in the House of Commons to his October 22, 2012 motion on replacing the Indian Act and engaging with aboriginal peoples on a new nation-to-nation basis, there was this jarring moment:

Just last week I was in a northern community in Nunavik in northern Quebec. There is a housing shortage of as many as a thousand units in one community in Kuujjuaq. We see this situation every day. The most touching situation we have seen is that in that very same community three kids committed suicide in the space of a week, and on the wall in the school was a big agreement signed by the students saying, “I promise to live”. They all signed it because they wanted to make that commitment.

I wonder if internationally we can really hold our heads up high when we recognize the discrepancy between the conditions that exist for the majority of Canadians and the conditions that exist for those who are first nations and aboriginal people. I do not think we can. Therefore, how do we deal with this?

Bob wore his heart on his sleeve in a classy way and combined it with a clear focus on the fixing.

His humour and sense of fun humanized his approach to politics too. This tribute to his exit as interim leader was fitting:

I remember voting for Bob in 1990 in that momentous provincial election. I went back to law school for my second year immediately following that vote. I remember a dinner where my friends were sharing that they had voted for Bob too. We were all expressing a feeling of hope and having done the right thing with our vote. A magic political moment it was. And then he went onwards from there.

He may not have become PM, the timing didn't work for him. But can we say that he didn't become one of the great Canadian political statespersons of our time? Surpassing many of this era who did go on to become PM? No, he was and will continue to be.

Thanks, Bob!

Harper to the UK Parliament

2013-06-14T15:41:00.002-04:00

What to make of the PM's speech to the UK Parliament yesterday? When a leader is accorded that type of honour, surely they've got to come up with something worthwhile. And this did seem to be an effort to make a type of legacy statement on Harper's part.

What was his touchstone in the speech? The economy, of course, what else could it possibly be from Harper. And he seemed to be doing two things in his speech with that focus in mind.

First, he explained Canada's domestic economic success in a distinctly conservative way. There were at least four references to low taxes. The trade agenda, government efficiencies. Which all seemed to be wrapped in an effort to portray this as some type of value statement, about what economic values Canada possesses. Here is some of it:

“So, friends, knowing these things, in Canada, when times were good, we ran surpluses, and we used them.
“Not to expand the state, but to pay down debt and to lower taxes.
“As a result, since our Government came to office, the average Canadian family now pays about $3,300 (about 2,200 pounds) less in federal taxes every year.
“Canada now also has the lowest rate of tax on new business investment in the G-7.
“Consequently, we are widely regarded as the best place in the world to do business, and we have the best post-recession job creation record among the major developed economies.
“Our values also tell us, as you have put it, Prime Minister, that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis.’
“In Canada, we have no debt crisis, so during the recession we were able, to deliberately borrow to sustain economic activity and confidence, but in a way that was timely, targeted and temporary.
“And we are now returning, gradually but surely, to a balanced budget, without raising taxes.

I hesitate to reiterate all that but it's about showing Mr. Harper's limitations. This seems like the kind of rote thing you'd say to the local Board of Trade. Except for the accompanying effort to spin it all into some kind of economic values system.

Then we heard a sort of Harper doctrine. The short version: There are world perils and threats that nations will have to meet but...our national bank account must be liquid, people! Otherwise, it's a no go.

“Countries that do not bring their finances under control or that close their economies to the world, will face consequences.
“And those consequences are not only economic.
“In the absence of solvency, relevancy will also disappear.
“Nothing can lead more quickly and more completely to diminished influence
in the world than the decline of economic performance and financial credibility.
“Should we fail to faithfully adhere to our values in economic matters the wider values that we wish to protect for all humanity, values of freedom, democracy and justice, of dignity, compassion and security, those valueswill almost certainly be eroded.
“And they will be eroded friends at a time, when they are most needed.
“Because for good to happen in this world, someone must speak up for these values, and have the will and the capacity to act, so that these values are not mere sentiments.
“I speak of the courage to denounce oppressors and aggressors, to counter extremist ideologies,and to confront the abominations that must not be tolerated.

Nothing leads to diminished influence more quickly than the decline of economic performance? Solvency? Shades of JFK but please add the economic fine print to this: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." See how much better that is?

It's also ironic, these conservative leaders talking up the need to have stable domestic economies in order to meet world threats. The right wing policies that leave nations in debt and deplete treasuries are the economic results that have been seen. See also such economy destroying policies as invading Iraq.

More from the same crux of the speech where he defines the central challenge:

“But, make no mistake, if we wish to spread prosperity to others, we must be
prosperous ourselves.
“Without prosperity, there can be no aid.
“Indeed, without prosperity, we will have little ability to project any of our values anywhere.
“And, of course, we cannot hope to effectively spread these values unless we live by them ourselves and demonstrate our own success by virtue of doing so.
“Lord Speaker, Mr. Speaker, distinguished guests, I believe this is the challenge we face in the West today.
“There are massive shifts, shifts of epic dimensions, taking place in the world economy.
“To the extent this means that traditionally less fortunate people are beginning to enjoy prosperity, and the other fruits of our values, much of this is a good thing.
“But there are also, as there have always been, rising powers that do not share our values, and dangerous forces that seek to destroy them.
“We cannot, in the face of this, be at all complacent or, as I have said elsewhere,
We cannot entertain the notion, as I think some in the West do, that our wealth and influence can be assumed, that they are some kind of birthright.
“I know, Prime Minister, that neither of our governments think that, which is why we take the difficult decisions we do, to ensure our people will remain among the most fortunate and prosperous for the generations to come.
“But, just as we cannot be complacent about our wealth, neither can we allow our peoples, in these times of tough decisions and shifting fortunes, to become fatalistic.

Without prosperity there can be no aid, said the Prime Minister who will tout our world leading economic strength yet slashes foreign aid and dismantles CIDA but nevertheless praises Britain for keeping their levels up. The emphasis on western prosperity as what must be guarded rings hollow. There's an us versus them tone to Harper's remarks. We cannot give to you unless we remain well off. We cannot project our values unless we retain our wealth and influence.

Honestly, in reading such speeches that are occasions, and caring citizens should take a few moments to consider, you really want to hear and feel a sense of your country in them. But it just doesn't seem to come with Mr. Harper. He doesn't complete the job. Economics is cool territory, there's no heart in it. It doesn't grasp the essence of what Canada is and that could be portrayed to the world if this is a ground shifting moment, as he sees it.

Here is a clip - yes, one exists! - of the MacKenzie King speech to the UK Parliament in 1944 and his speaking of Canada entering the war. Harper included one of King's lines in his remarks, saying we entered "not from obligation, but ‘was the outcome of our deepest political instinct, a love of freedom and a sense of justice.’" Out of our deepest political instinct. Times and instincts have changed...

A robust liberalism

2013-06-09T19:06:00.000-04:00

Now here's something worth waking me out of this lengthy blog slumber: "I despair as I watch the erosion of the liberal views I hold dear." Yeah, you sing it, Will Hutton. Articulating liberal values in this era is a challenge and he calls it out, prompted by the recent death of leading liberal thinker Ronald Dworkin. This is a little UK-oriented but substitute the Canadian Conservative emphases and it still makes good sense:

Last Wednesday, there was a memorial service for one of the doyens of American liberalism – Professor Ronnie Dworkin – who died in London, his adopted home, earlier this year. A succession of some of Britain's best-known liberal writers and thinkers took to the rostrum to pay tribute to a man who continued to honour Roosevelt's New Deal, insisted law and morality were indivisible and argued that to live well and with dignity was every human being's aim – one that law and government should support.

It was a moving occasion, but, as his wife, Irene Brendl, wrote in the service notes, this great liberal tradition is increasingly beleaguered. She is right. We live in rightwing times. Law and justice, which Ronnie Dworkin cherished so much, are depicted as burdens on the taxpayer whose costs must be minimised. If you want justice, you must pay for it yourself and have no embedded civic right to expect others to contribute. The good society and moral individuals are those who do without the state. The public sphere is derided and positive public action to promote the common or international good is acceptable only if it involves less, rather than more, government. Instead, what we are invited to hold in common is nationhood, national identity and hostility to foreigners and immigrants. The open society is in retreat.

This may seem an odd commentary in a week in which gay marriage has been agreed by the House of Lords and where companies are increasingly hounded for avoiding their tax. Both are surely liberal rather than conservative preoccupations. In an idiosyncratic leader recently, the Economist proclaimed the strange rebirth of liberal England, arguing that young people's tolerance of ethnic and sexual differences, along with growing distrust of the state and welfare, was proof positive of the emergence of a new liberalism. Ronnie Dworkin should have been happy.

He would have turned in his grave. Such a view of liberalism does not go to the heart of what it means to live well. Tolerance of other people's differences is a core element of a liberal order, but a good society is one where we go beyond just shrugging our shoulders at someone's sexual preferences, religious beliefs or ethnicity. It is one in which we engage with each other, create law and justice as a moral system enshrining human dignity and accept mutual responsibilities. The aim is to live with dignity, to be able to make the best of one's capabilities and to expect that the consequences of undeserved bad luck – what Dworkin called brute bad luck – would be compensated by society in a mutual compact. This is a million miles from the Economist's arid conception of liberalism.

...

In successive areas of public policy – "reform" of criminal justice and legal aid, the health service, climate change, employment law, social security – the debate is similarly defined wholly in terms of the need to assert individual rights and choice, to minimise social and public responsibilities and, above all, to roll back taxes. If the facts or scientific evidence do not support this drive, then the facts are changed or the science ignored.

...

But if the right is dominant, a rounded liberalism has one advantage. The right's world leads to economic stagnation, social atomisation and a destructive nationalism. Nor, ultimately, is there happiness and dignity to be found by living as a tax-avoiding, climate-change-denying anti-feminist while mouthing how tolerant you are. There is a quiet and mounting crisis in conservatism. Liberalism, in its best sense, could capitalise on the opportunity. It is a pity Ronnie Dworkin won't be around to be part of the fight back. We'll just have to do it by ourselves.

Killer last paragraph and timely perspective and advice for Canadians who presently face many crises of governance faith.

How's your water?

2013-05-11T17:23:00.000-04:00

Watch this excellent weekend type video and you will understand the question.

(h/t)

Friday night

2013-05-10T19:54:00.000-04:00

New awesome set by Kaskade with lots of great stuff. A free download to boot.

Have a good night!

Your $60 million media monitoring programme

2013-05-09T16:02:00.001-04:00

Note: This blog post below was written on March 9th but not published. Given this news of the past day, "Harper Government Spends Millions Monitoring Press Of Own MPs," thought it would be useful additional context. Also, note to self: Listen more intently to that friend who passes these things on...

Let's look at one of the late Friday afternoon announcements last night, just for fun: "Government of Canada continues to look for savings in media monitoring." Mentioned 6 times in this brief announcement, including the title, is the word "saving" or "savings." Which makes you wonder, well, is this really about savings or is somebody protesting a little too much.

This is the announcement where they have to tell us how much they're spending on media monitoring. I.e., how much money the government is spending to see how it's departmental efforts and etc. are going over in media coverage. And it's actually quite a lot when you compare this spending to things they're cutting. But you have to look twice and very carefully given the way the information is presented to determine how much the government is actually spending:

The Government of Canada is committed to saving taxpayer dollars and keeping taxes low. From April 1st, 2011, to December 11th, 2012, the Government of Canada spent approximately $22 million on media monitoring services.

The first sentence is pure propaganda that has nothing to do with the second sentence. Indeed, they are contradictory. But set that aside. Look at the strange period they report on, a year and just over 8 months to come up with the figure of $22 million. So deduce the math, Canadians, the savings experts won't do it for you. It's just over a million a month ($22 million over 20 months).

We also read that "Estimated annual savings based on the current five-year negotiated contracts for these licenses are approximately $18 million." So they're saving us $3 million a year, which they're selling as a good thing, when they spend about $12 million a year on this activity.

Or, they've contracted to spend $60 million over 5 years which is what they don't seem to want to flat out say. That's a heck of a lot of scratch on media monitoring.

Friday night

2013-05-03T20:01:00.000-04:00

Fave song of the week. Nice mix of emotion in this one.

It's from one of Avicii's recent sets that now has over 1.2 million listens in the past 20 or so days. Wow. A great hour if you like this kind of music.

And shhhh, don't tell anyone...it's my birthday:) Celebrating with the parents. Yup.

Have a good night!

The Conservatives eye the CBC - updated

2013-05-01T06:14:00.003-04:00

Updated (Thursday 6 pm) below.

Every once in a while, Harper exposes his fangs. This is one of those moments: "Budget bill gives Harper Cabinet new powers over CBC."

It's a Harper special, naturally. Mix the CBC in with a pile of other Crowns who can be portrayed as bloated public entities whose employees are getting more than in the private sector. So we hear Clement say this “is part of a broader issue, which is aligning the public-service compensation and benefits to private-sector norms and expectations...”. Sell it to the public as a sensible economic measure then. Try to massage it into one more incremental logical step that won't raise hackles.

Nothing sensible or reasonable about this one though. The public broadcaster should not have its salaries explicitly overseen by the federal Conservative cabinet. Or any other stripe of cabinet. The implications for the independence of the institution are clear. Politicians weighing in on journalistic salaries? That has no business in a modern western democratic nation. And what breed of conservatism is this?

At least Scott Brison is serving notice that Harper is playing with fire and will be carefully watched: “We will thoroughly scrutinize actions by this government towards these agencies.” The politicians will have lots of help in that task.

Bravo to the CBC, by the way, for blowing the lid off the temporary foreign workers programme. Nothing like a few whistle blowers leading the national news describing how their jobs are being farmed out to bring it right into every living room and made meaningful to the average Canadian.

Happy two year Harper government anniversary, everyone...

Update (Thursday 6 pm): A must read follow-up to the above in the Hill Times today. Tim Naumetz has reviewed the Crown corporation annual reports and discovers, lo and behold, that the CBC is essentially the major Crown whose collective bargaining agreements could possibly be affected in the near future by the Conservatives' insertion of the cabinet over those negotiations. There is a CBC agreement that comes up for renewal in March of 2014:

But of the three Crown corporations, only the CBC will have its major collective agreements expire between now and 2014 as the 2015 federal general election nears, including one covering 5,000 English-language news personnel and journalists that expires March 31, 2014.

Also notable, this excerpt referencing a statement by the CBC in response to the government's move:

The statement also noted the Broadcasting Act gives the CBC board of directors the “explicit authority” to determine the salaries of its employees and that CBC and Radio Canada employees are not public servants.

The budget bill would give Cabinet the power to order Crown corporations to have their mandates for collective bargaining approved by Cabinet’s Treasury Board committee of ministers and allow for a Treasury Board employee to monitor negotiations.

Yes, if you look at the Broadcasting Act, there are clear distinctions drawn which separate the CBC's power to hire and set salaries versus the cabinet's power. For example, the federal cabinet has a say in the Chair of the Board and the President's salary but it does not with respect to any employee:

Remuneration

Chairperson’s and President’s remuneration

43. (1) The Chairperson and the President shall be paid by the Corporation remuneration at the rate fixed by the Governor in Council.

Fees of other directors

(2) Each director, other than the Chairperson and the President, shall be paid by the Corporation such fees for attendance at meetings of the Board or any committee of directors as are fixed by the by-laws of the Corporation.

Expenses

(3) Each director is entitled to be paid by the Corporation such travel and living expenses incurred by the director in the performance of the duties of that director as are fixed by the by-laws of the Corporation.

Staff

Employment of staff

44. (1) The Corporation may, on its own behalf, employ such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the conduct of its business.

Terms, etc., of employment

(2) The officers and employees employed by the Corporation under subsection (1) shall, subject to any by-laws made under section 51, be employed on such terms and conditions and at such rates of remuneration as the Board deems fit.

Not servants of Her Majesty

(3) The officers and employees employed by the Corporation under subsection (1) are not officers or servants of Her Majesty.

It's very much a clear policy distinction being made here in the Broadcasting Act. The intent is to leave staffing and remuneration decisions within the CBC as an internal matter, free from government intrusion. This is entirely understandable. The CBC is a Crown like no other at the federal level. The CBC is part of the free press in Canada.

Granted, the government appoints the Board members who provide oversight of the CBC employee salaries and employment whom the CBC chooses to employ. But the Board's primary duty is owed to the corporation within the context of the particular Crown's public service mandate.

What Harper is now doing is reaching in and making CBC employee salaries - journalists - subject to the federal cabinet's influence, contrary to section 44(3) above. Typically, he's doing it without explicitly amending the Broadcasting Act but through the budget bill. It's quite an intrusion. The Treasury Board representative doesn't even have to do anything by way of taking action in the negotiations. The presence of this representative is influence enough.

As a majority government, these Conservatives can do what they choose, essentially. But no Prime Minister to date has gone this far with the CBC.

Stephen Harper has no business inserting himself in the salary negotiations of journalists within the CBC. Period.

The choice #lpcldr

2013-04-07T06:00:00.000-04:00

Joyce Murray's leadership video, released yesterday, which was very well received at the Showcase yesterday.

On the leadership outcome #lpcldr

2013-04-03T18:35:00.001-04:00

Shorter David Akin today: Hold your horses, everybody! Agreed. One part of his piece requires a little clarification though:

And remember, it's not just paid-up members of the Liberal Party who will vote. As many as 90,000 "supporters" or non-members of the party are eligible, and their influence will swamp the 35,000 actual members eligible to vote.

Many of those "supporters" have been herded into the race by activist groups such as Avaaz or LeadNow who have endorsed Murray because of her idea of electoral co-operation. These groups don't care if the government is Liberal, New Democrat or Green so long as it's not Conservative. Kicking out the Conservatives is the one goal above all for these Harper-haters and they're solidly behind Murray.

This notion of "swamping" the members is a little too pejorative. This, after all, is the system that Liberal members overwhelmingly chose in early 2012 at the Biennial policy conference. The whole point of the race was to engage Canadians, there was much talk at the time of creating a Liberal movement. So the fact that candidates have indeed reached out to bring in new supporters - and connect with Canadians - was contemplated and this is a good, welcome thing according to the party's own rules.

Second, the motives ascribed to these groups is also a little skewed. The motivation for involvement is not entirely anti-Harper. Many have been bandying the anti-Harper thing about as if it's bad. I for one do not agree. To be anti-Harper means a lot, policy-wise, on many fronts, be they environmental, economic, social. It's a galvanizing political force. But back to the point - these groups actually do care very much about democratic reform and electoral reform in particular. Like many Liberals do. And if they are choosing Joyce Murray, it is because of her commitment to electoral reform that she has prioritized since the outset of the leadership race.

As Mario Canseco of Angus Reid stated in a brief but insightful interview snippet on CBC's The House this weekend, this is a constituency that has been created for the party.

It's not all about the hate at all. It's about a reform current that is swirling in Canada and that has been hastened by this government's muzzling, stifling, and abuse of democratic institutions.

And who is to say that many members of these constituencies would not stay with a Liberal party, ideally led by Murray in my view, who follows through on their commitments? There is much in the realm of possibility to be embraced by the party. Party finances are being eroded, it's a new era in Canadian politics. Connecting with Canadians in such manners is a new politics. Murray has shown that she gets that, during this campaign.

Otherwise, interesting piece.

Update: One more thought. When you create a motivated pool of voters who will show up for you, due to their deep convictions, attack ads and various considerations surrounding them become a lot less important.