Worth Reading - October 9, 2014

It was a busy week in politics between the developments in the House of Commons and the ongoing municipal elections in Ontario. Take a look.

John McGrath writes the (satirical) case for Doug Ford mayoral candidacy. 

Chantal Hébert writes that this week’s debate and political manoeuvring in Ottawa over the ISIS combat mission was disastrous for Justin Trudeau (LPC – Papineau, QC). 

I think the ISIS situation and the Canadian dimension is difficult to understand. Thereofre I strongly recommend Justin Ling’s fantastic piece on what this issue is and how the federal parties have responded. 

In the progressive urbanism circles there is much disparaging of the suburbs, but in reality the urban core has come to resemble the suburbs in many ways and the suburbs are adapting urban elements as well, this article discusses this blurring line. 

Jane Hilderman of Samara writes about democracy at the local level in Canada. 

From the Globe and Mail, are career politicians imperiling our system of governance? I don’t think so, but it’s worth taking a look at.

From the Brampton Guardian, there has been an implication that Mayor Susan Fennell’s poor relationship with the provincial Liberal government has hurt Brampton. 

Also from the Brampton Guardian, an editorial discusses political engagement. 

Interesting analysis breaking cities into creative-class, service-class and working-class areas.  

Gentrification is a really interesting issue for cities in my opinion. Related to the above, the impact on San Francisco is transforming the city, killing what makes it work. 

Making Municipal Elections Accessible

This autumn voters in four of Canada’s provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island) will be casting their ballots for local government officials. Given that I am only familiar with the local Ontario context this piece truly only applies there, though I am sure there could be something to be gained from it elsewhere in this country.

Our current system for local elections does not really help voters make informed decisions. There are several simple reforms that might help voters make more informed decisions that I wish to throw out for consideration.

Back in Brampton there are 16 candidates running for city council where my parents call home. That does not include the candidates for regional councillor, mayor, or school trustee. Voters across Brampton are experiencing similar problems. With incumbents lashed with the issue of mismanagement and corruption along with a large number of retirements a higher than normal number of candidates have come forward to be considered. With a massive slate of candidate engaged citizens must compile whatever data they can scrounge together to figure out who to vote for.

Pollsters, politicians and pundits should not be surprised that citizens find it so hard to keep everything straight. I never thought of home as Ward 3. I lived in Peel Village, or southern Brampton. The wards’ numbers only ever come up at election time and if the boundaries have changed... well, good luck to any citizen trying to work it out. Federally and provincially the name of ridings corresponds to prominent geographic locations. Perhaps this is what should replace wards either formally or informally to help citizens connect to their representatives/candidates.

Assuming the citizen does figure out their slate of candidates they then have to go on a wild goose chase putting together enough information to make an informed decision. Media will sometimes compile the relevant information about candidates, but oftentimes that is incomplete as well. Local campaigns are often small, poorly funded and have limited resources for full websites, mailers, advertising or anything else like that. Therefore candidates with money or name recognition (even if for the wrong reasons) tend to be frontrunners. In The Campaign Manager by Catherine Shaw she referenced that the county or city put out public information on all of the candidates. This is put out at taxpayers’ expense so that everyone has some information. I think this is a simple and relatively cheap way to help the public make informed decisions.

I am a supporter of the ranked ballot initiative and I am very excited to see Premier Kathleen Wynne (OLP – Don Valley West) has promised to move forward on that legislation. Ranked-ballots might do a great deal to help citizens make better choices and encourage better campaigns at a local level but it won’t necessarily help voters make a more informed decision.

Though controversial, political parties on the local level may do a great deal to clarify this mess. Many large cities in Canada, Montreal, Vancouver, employ party systems. Toronto is notorious for having a fairly open informal party system at its city council. Political parties help organize candidates and campaigns and inform voters of what their general positions are. Municipal parties could even run multiple candidates for the same office. There’s no reason in a Liberal stronghold there couldn’t be two, or more, candidates, especially if ranked-ballots were being used. Organization and generating a volunteer base is one of the most difficult parts of running an independent campaign, couple with that the development of policy ideas and a case for municipal parties really grows. In addition, it might build some consensus before a city council ever meets over policies instead of having 11 or 7 or 45 different ideas being hashed out at once.

Voter turnout at the local level is never going to improve until citizens are helped in making clearer, more informed choices. Even useful ideas like ranked-ballots won’t help inform someone that John Tory is not running to be mayor of Mississauga. The way we consume media makes this a very difficult process, but municipalities provide critical services and are our most accessible level of government. Our election officials and governments need to help us make informed decisions less a tiny minority govern for the rest of us.  

Worth Reading – October 2, 2014

Vasiliki Bednar writes about the “lazy feminism” surrounding our politics and how greater analysis of how policies will impact women is required. 

The fellow mentioned in this article seems horrendous, however, I feel uncomfortable with the digital mob that was spawned through his alleged terrible actions. 

Premier Kathleen Wynne has announced that it will be a priority for her government to bring in ranked ballots for the municipal elections in 2018. Hurray!

The Brampton Guardian, my hometown paper, has nicely collected their resources on the candidates running in the upcoming October 27^th election. 

Mayoral candidate John Tory’s plan for the TTC has come under strong criticism for being impractical. Royson James writes that despite this it is resonating with Torontonians. 

Behold, the most recent and obvious manifestation of sexism from popular culture to be called out. 

The collapse of the Bloc Quebecois has created all sorts of interesting possibilities for the three federalist parties. 

Andrew Coyne offers his take on the embarrassing spectacle in the House of Commons last week. 

Aaron Wherry reflects on the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons. 

Maclean’s magazine draws a line between the excitement for the iPhone 6 and the decline of religion.

The Loophole around Canadian Content

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has recently drawn attention in this country for trying to regulate Netflix. Netflix’s content competitors, Bell, Rogers and others have complained about Netflix’s ability to circumvent regulations that impede their own performance. The CRTC threatened Netflix to regulate them and impose penalties if they did not voluntarily comply, which Netflix has declined to do.

It strikes me that Canadian content laws rest in a place that between meaningless and useful to make them just ineffective. As I understand it Canadian content laws require a certain percentage of their broadcasts to contain material made in this country. Going off of my memory (and I admit I could be wrong here) during prime time, defined as between 6 PM and midnight has to a certain percentage produce in Canada. Theoretically this is to encourage the broadcast of Canadian television shows, and encourage these companies to produce their own shows set in Canadian locales and themes. However, Global, CTV, CityTV and others use the time to broadcast their news hours, evening and late night, and simultaneously show American television programs.

As near as I can tell the Canadian content laws for television have done nothing to encourage broadcasters to produce new Canadian programs. The occasional show pops up, such as Corner Gas or Murdoch Mysteries, but they are by no means the centrepiece of the private television channels. Just flip through the Canadian channels between 7 PM and 11 PM and that much will be clear. In recent years a certain number of Canadian-light shows have been making an appearance, such as Rookie Blue and Orphan Black, which are both quietly set in Toronto and filmed in Canada.

However, as Canadians turn away from their televisions and rely on pay-as-you-go services such as Amazon, iTunes and subscription services like Netflix these regulations seem increasingly irrelevant. Given their toothless nature of the current laws I see no reason why we should continue them unless we fundamentally rethink the approach. I am not comfortable with the idea of mandating what should be broadcast. I think the changing media landscape and the success of shows like Orphan Black and Rookie Blue in the global market that Canadian produced shows can find success elsewhere. This country has a strong and talented film and television industry. I don’t know why a sitcom set in Toronto, or a police procedural in Vancouver could not be successful. American networks don’t disdain Canadian content, and there are so many of them that they’ll take cheaper foreign-made content.

Instead of mandating quotas perhaps we should do more to encourage more Canadian production. If we insist on regulation is must not be as ineffective and meaningless as it is now.

Note: A commenter on Twitter informed me that the location of a television show does not define it as Canadian content, but who makes it. The example provided was that the TV show "Vikings" is considered Canadian content. To my point of view this points out further flaws. This commenter, Ian Kiar, added that the main complaint of companies have is that they pay revenues into the Canadian Media Fund and Netflix does not. 

Worth Reading – September 25, 2014

The Fords, Trudeaus, Bushes, Kennedys are just some of the political dynasties most familiar to Canadians. Robert Fulford asks why we are drawn to dynasties. 

Justin Trudeau (LPC – Papineau, QC) has announced that he and the rest of the Liberal caucus will not be engaging with the Sun News organization until Ezra Levant or the Sun News executives address comments the commentator made regarding him. 

Brampton’s City Council did not debate the spending scandal engulfing Mayor Susan Fennell. Apparently, Mayor Fennell threatened Council with law suits were the debate to go ahead. 

John Ivison is suggesting that Prime Minister Harper may be calling an early election to avoid the Duffy trial from bringing down his government. 

Gary Bettman. The name inspires anger and frustration among hockey fans, in my experience. Mr. Bettman recently discussed the conditions for a second hockey team in Toronto. 

This is an incredible video. Thomas Mulcair (NDP – Outremont, QC) challenged the government to answer some basic questions about the Canadian mission in Iraq. The answers from the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary gave was a stunning insult to parliament. 

Related to the above, Maclean’s take on the incident in the House of Commons. 

New Brunswick had an election earlier this week and it was quite a mess. The Globe and Mail asks what we can learn from it.  

This is something I’ve written on before, despite the fact that crime is dropping the number of police continues to grow. The number of officers does not reduce crime, so why the increase? 

Another proud political story in Brampton, a brawl reportedly broke out in a parking lot during a Liberal Party nomination. 

Now that the Scottish referendum has ended there are big questions about how devolution will occur and the future constitutional structures of the United Kingdom. The Telegraph lay out the groundwork for the coming discussion. 

The Speaker oversees the proceedings of the House of Commons. The British Speaker is an entertaining and remarkable man. I share this speech he gave before his election as speaker. I share his idealism and think he presents a vision that would improve our own House of Commons. 

Book Review: Democratizing the Constitution by Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis, and Lori Turnbull

Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government by Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis, and Lori Turnbull sets out a rather simple case. It’s a case often presented by the intelligentsia in this country in newspapers and debates, and here it is again in this book – that our democracy is unwell, and requires reform to continue to function. The origins of the monograph can be traced to the 2008 prorogation/coalition crisis.

The 2008 prorogation/coalition crisis revealed a number of deep concerns to constitutional scholars in this country. In 2011 experts in the field were brought together by Peter Russell to discuss the issues and come to some consensus over how the various “unwritten conventions” of our parliament should be applied. The authors write that political scientists were unable to reach a common ground, and point out that if experts were unable to come to a clear answer then how are everyday citizens supposed to draw a conclusion? 

A book critical in understanding true democratic reform in Canada.

Should the Governor General have prorogued parliament despite expressions of non-confidence from the House and parties willing to form a new government? Should the Prime Minister have ultimately control over these powers when the source of his power, confidence in the House, falls into question?

Ultimately the authors do not weigh in on the issue but point out that this kind of confusion and abuse by the Prime Minister fundamentally undermines our status as a responsible government and democracy. The Prime Minister, using the full executive power of our system, can abuse and run roughshod over the House of Commons, which is supposed to be supreme.

Critically, the authors highlight how Canada is the outlier when compared to the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Documents in those countries expressly define the rules and conditions for the conventions. In Canada a vague set of precedents that are easily violable are in place where the realm of partisan interest increasingly holds sway.

The book is composed of five chapters, the first lays out the overview of the problem in Canada’s parliament, the second is a discussion of responsible government; how it is supposed to function and how it actually functions, third discusses how conventions have broken down in Canada, fourth explores the various issues in our democracy such as control over the political parties and the caucus, along with elections. The fifth fleshes out the issues in our actual elections and government formation, and finally, sixth the authors propose a package of reforms.

I should be clear that the authors are not particularly concerned with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Though his actions have stretched, broken and violated parliament to the greatest extent the authors see a clear pattern in the accumulation of power to our head of government. The trouble is with institutional decline.

This book caused me to fundamentally change my opinion on one matter. The authors state that whatever flaws the first-past-the-post system Canada may have reforming how we elect MPs is irrelevant if the fundamental issue of prime ministerial power is not checked. Democratizing even has me reconsidering my position on fixed election dates. 

The authors propose a number of reforms to check the power of the prime minister. They include:

·         Establish a deadline requiring the House of Commons to be summoned within 30 days of the election, forcing the incumbent or winner to test their confidence

·         Establish a fixed election dates every four years on a specific date, binding both the prime minister and the governor general, unless a majority of two-thirds of MPs approve a motion to dissolve Parliament for an early election

·         Adopt the “constructive non-confidence” procedure, put briefly, it would mean only specific motions calling on non-confidence and proposing a new prime minister would be confidence motions

·         Require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons in order to prorogue Parliament

·         Adopt legislation limiting the size of ministries to a maximum of 25 individuals and the number of parliamentary secretaries to 8 at any given time

·         Use secret preferential ballots by committee members to select House of Commons’ committee chairs for the duration of the parliamentary session

·         Adopt a set schedule for opposition days in the House of Commons that cannot be altered by the government unilaterally

·         Reduce by 50 percent, the partisan political staff complement on Parliament Hill

·         Restore the power of party caucuses to dismiss the party leader, including a sitting prime minister, and to appoint a new interim leader

·         Remove the party leader’s power to approve or reject party candidates for election in each riding

Taken from Chapter 6 of Democratizing the Constitution

It is a lengthy and detailed list of reforms. They compliment, support and help constrain the power of the prime minister while empowering individual MPs, the House of Commons, and by extension, citizens.

Reading chapter six I could not help but wonder what Ontario would look like today if these reforms were in place over the last few years. Premier McGuinty’s crass prorogation for his party’s leadership contest would have failed. The brinksmanship that tormented the legislature would have been useless because no legislation would have doomed Ontario to a fresh election. Perhaps under the circumstances the Tories would have been inclined to govern with the Liberals, or the ONDP would have been offered a power-sharing deal.

This is a frank, straightforward, though academic, discussion of the crisis at the heart of Canadian democracy. It is a necessary read for citizens concerned about our country and wondering what is going so terribly wrong. The authors offer peace of mind in a positive set of reforms and forceful rebuke of naysayers and defeatists. It is important to note that the abuses the Harper’s opponents have decried will continue under a Prime Minister Trudeau or Mulcair without these reforms. The problems are institutional and will require great leadership to end them. As a country Canada cannot remain on its current path and expect to be anything other than a semi-democratic state. 

Worth Reading – September 18, 2014

With votes being counted in Scotland tonight that is where at least part of my attention will be. My schedule has been busy, to say the least, so my list of articles for this week is a tad bit short.

First, if you’re interested in following the Scottish results here in Canada Ashley Csanady offers a guide. 

Results for the referendum can be found here. 

John McGrath wrote an excellence piece against the secession of Scotland. 

Ms. Csanady writes, again, on Ralph Goodale’s (LPC – Wascana, SK) support of the preferential ballot. Many Liberals have come out in favour of various reforms, but the party remains a defender of the status quo time and time again.

Jon Loninc writes on Rob Ford’s cancer diagnosis and the possible impact on the mayoralty race. 

Steve Munro, perhaps the highly regarded commentator on transit in Toronto lays out some of the options facing the city of Toronto. 

Martin Patriquin writes a great long-form piece on the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre.