Tag Archives: canadian politics

Norman Spector: legend and expert on gender and politics

6 Replies

At risk of giving this piece more life then it deserves, did anyone else find this Norman Spector column completely offensive? It appeared in the BC section of the Globe so hopefully most of the country was spared.

Believe it or not the same man who, on the air and then in his column, called Belinda Stronarch a bitch over and over and over again now feels qualified to comment on gender and politics. My stomach turns.

If you read further (don’t), you’ll learn how “nice guys” like Stephen Owen “know intuitively that politics is not the right career choice.” This perfect statement reveals little about the nature of politics, but a lot about about Spector. Could he have a more succinctly summed up his worldview and modus operendi?

Oh Norman, just because you are boorish, mean-spirited, and vindictive doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be…

[tags]Canadian politics, gender politics[/tags]

The Trouble with Citizens' Assemblies

12 Replies

My friend Peter MacLeod published this web-exclusive op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail where he complained about the critics’ harsh treatment of Citizens’ Assemblies. Peter (and I) may not like the language used by some of its critics but he still has to explain why citizens’ assemblies are an appropriate approach to decision making, something I’m not sure his op-ed accomplishes.

What is that famous Churchill quote? “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Let’s be clear, citizens’ assemblies, despite their non-binding nature, are a form of governance. Moreover, despite what their champions claim, they are not democratic. Randomly selecting citizens cannot ensure a province or country’s citizens’ diverse interests and concerns are effectively represented. We use democracy to make decisions because we believe it is the best process by which conflicting interests can be debated and citizens’ issues can be engaged. Is it perfect? Hardly. But citizens’ assemblies are less so.

To see their possible shortcomings one need only look at the BC citizens’ assembly. As Andrew Potter notes in This Magazine “The Assembly’s director of research (i.e. the fellow in charge of bringing in the experts) is Ken Carty, former chair of the UBC poli sci department. According to a colleague of mine who worked in the department under Carty, decisions at faculty meetings were always entertaining, because of the mechanism Carty used to take decisions. What mechanism was that? STV voting. Coincidence?” Moreover, a scan of Carty’s publications shows that his initial writing focused on politics in Ireland: the only other country in the world to use the system like BC STV. Does this mean Carty unduly influenced the assembly? I don’t know. But this, a problematic process, is exactly the type of issue an opposition party would bring to the publics’ attention in a public debate on a policy initiative – and yet where is the role of opposition in a citizens’ assembly?

If a community felt it couldn’t trust its politician on a given issue – such as electoral reform – why not call a commission? Although less sexy, Canada’s history is filled with notable and effective commissions that have laid the groundwork for some of the country’s most significant reforms and policy decisions. These include: public healthcare, bilingualism, and free trade. Because commissions bring together experts with diverse opinions and engage in public consultations they can accomplish many of the goals of citizen assemblies while simultaneously ensuring that numerous informed opinions are represented in the discussion. Can anyone name a process where we purposefully select non-experts to make a decision? When I get on a plane I don’t believe I will be best served if the pilot and crew are randomly selected from the passenger manifest! I’d definitely prefer an expert pilot and crew to manage the flight. The passengers may tell them where they’d like to go and offer some other suggestions, but I think we’d probably all feel safer knowing there was an expert behind the wheel. Moreover, as life and death flying a plane may be, I’m fairly certain decisions about our country are actually still more important.

My friends know I’m a fan of open-source public policy, mostly because I believe it will allow citizens, in a sophisticated and cumulative manner, to shape how our country should operate. However, there is nothing about open source public policy that is democratic – a constraint we must recognize and live by. The problem with citizen assemblies is its champions don’t believe they are bound by such constraints. A citizen assembly’s product is usually pre-sold as democratic and legitimate. Maybe one day the process will be refined in such a way that this will be true, but for now, such a description is misleading, and dangerously so, as it popularizes these assemblies’ recommendations on a false foundation.

[tags]Citizens’ Assemblies, electoral reform, Canadian politics, BC Citizens’ Assembly, Ken Carty[/tags]

shhhh, Did the Fraser Institute Just Say Something Interesting?

2 Replies

The sad fact about most think tanks in Canada is that they are generally quite boring. The most egregious example of this phenomenon is the Fraser Institute. I’ll admit that I rarely read Fraser Institute reports simply because I’ve found I don’t have to… I already know that they are going to say before I pick them up. No matter what the problem, a downside-free, unregulated, free-market option will always be the perfect solution. However, the real problem isn’t that I know what their reports say before I read them, it’s that the Fraser Institute policy wonks knew what it was going to say before they researched it.

That said, it is important to keep one’s eye out for data that contradicts established conclusions (something the Fraser Institute is good at avoiding). So, I was initially curious when I read this piece in the Vancouver Sun on Wednesday the 10th discussing how a Fraser Institute report, Tax Efficiency: Not All Taxes are Created Equal, argues that while income taxes should be lowered, the forgone revenue should be captured by raising the GST to 8 or 9%.

This is indeed a suggestion worth exploring. Raising the GST would encourage saving and investment and dampen consumption (particularly of imported consumer goods that negatively impact our trade surplus). Indeed as long as a basket of core goods – food, rent, educational materials, healthcare and other essential goods and services – remain tax exempt the GST can serve as quite a progressive tax lever. It could become even more progressive if the new taxes were used to elevate the basic exemption – providing tax relief to everyone, but most of all to those who earn the least. These latter suggestions are, of course, not in the Fraser Institute report and humble additions of my own. Hey, I said they got something right – not everything!

Actually, this suggestion is so sensible, it is precisely the same argument the Liberals (quietly) used during the last election to highlight why the Conservative party was foolish to advocate cutting the GST. (BTW: Am I frightened that the Liberals and the Fraser Institute are on the same page, even on only half an issue? Absolutely.)

For those too bored, or too tired, of predictable reports from Canada’s ideological think tanks, the Fraser Institutes’s tax report will only confirm your worst fears. To be clear, their one interesting recommendation is essentially a happy accident of analysis. Moreover, the usual Fraser Institute shenanigans are in play. For example, in assessing Canada’s tax structure the authors use the OECD countries as a benchmark. For those who think that sounds like a reasonable peer group you would be correct, except that in 1990’s the OECD added Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, and Hungary. Guess which group of countries doesn’t like to levy an income tax on its citizens, in large part because they don’t have an income to tax? Better yet, when calculating the OECD average the authors elected to not weight the countries income tax rates. So the income tax rates of Canada (35.1) or the United States (34.7) have the same impact on the OECD average as, oh, let’s say, the Czech (12.7) or Slovak (9.3) Republics. No big deal – IF we put aside the fact that the Czech Republic has a population 1/30th that of the US and 1/3rd that of Canada, that its real GDP is .9% that of the US and 10% of Canada’s and that its economy is, shall we say, structured somewhat differently than our own. But I’m sure that the Fraser Institute chose this methodology for some sound reason and not because it makes the OECD average income tax appear lower so they can argue Canada’s tax burden is comparatively high.

Ah, the Fraser Institute: where research conforms to conclusions.

[tags]Fraser Institute, canadian politics, think tanks, public policy[/tags]

Symptoms of Alienation

Leave a reply

Hi Friends – sorry for the lack of posting over the holidays. I’m back and will be posting full time again.

Every Christmas westerners living out east return home to pass the holidays with friends and families. With the added personal dimension created by this event, the holiday homecoming becomes one of the few times Westerners are willing to get updated on the ‘going ons’ out east. I’m no fan of western alienation but I am curious: why is this pilgrimage virtually the only time Westerners talk about the rest of the country? Why does the west not feel in?

It could be, as my friend John pointed out, that “national” newspapers like the Globe and Mail treat the machinations of Ontario’s budget process as critical reading for all Canadians (sorry if those of us in Vancouver aren’t rushing to grab a copy) while news from out west is an afterthought for most publications – a clumsy attempt at having western content without offering any real meat or analysis.

While it may sound like an old song, living out here one cannot help sense that, at their core, publications like the G&M still believe Central Canada is ‘the country’ whose dynamics must be understood by everybody. Everything and everyone else is as periphery – whose relevance can be correlated to their impact the central Canada’s agenda. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the recent Globe and Mail article “Western Canada Comes of Age.” Let’s put aside the fact that most westerners likely believe ‘the West’ came of age a long time ago. Let’s also put aside the unbelievable condescension of the title (I can’t wait to see when the G&M decides that Aboriginal Bands have “come of age” in national politics). Instead it is the framing of the piece that reveals why Westerns often feel outside any ‘national’ dialogue.

So how does the Globe and Mail define ‘coming of age’? Is the West’s political maturity and relevance defined by its perspective? its unique challenges? or possibly by the ideas, ambitions, or opportunities it brings to the country’s agenda? No. What matters is that Alberta and BC’s combined population now exceeds Quebec. In short, the G&M, believes the West’s maturity and relevance is defined by its capacity to force other actors (read, central Canada) to pay attention to it. And we wonder why we struggle to have national dialogues.

The second element revolved around the West’s raw economic power. However, let us be clear. This is not economic power defined in absolute terms, but economic power measured in relation to the challenges it posses to Central Canada! What does the article cite as the foremost important impact of the West’s boom? Is it the challenges it posses to Western communities? The international opportunities and clout this creates for the country? No. The ‘broad’ and significant impact of this economic surge was to “have helped drive the Canadian dollar higher, causing challenges in Ontario’s manufacturing sector.” Thus, in both instances, the importance of the West is not defined in its own terms but largely by its relationship to central Canada.
Western alienation isn’t about political clout, economic weight or even effective representation. It is about the capacity to participate, and be understood, within national debates. Until we, and more specifically, our newspapers get that right I’m not sure the West will ever feel ‘in’.

[tags]western alienation, canadian politics, public policy[/tags]

Find the oxymoron: NDP strategy, admiting fault, newsmaker of the year

Leave a reply
  1. This article provides a glimpse into the complex and sweeping grand strategy Jack Layton has both masterminded and only begun to reveal. Yes, folks, Jack killed a minority Liberal Government so that he could form a strategic partnership with… the conservatives? We will monitor this, and the NDP’s seat count, closely.
  2. A few weeks ago I wrote about the centralizing of the internet using the disappearance of this Rooster tooth clip as an example. Always pleased to be proved wrong, my man Mike B. has found a copy of the clip on Myspace. Apparently, someone cached and reposted it. Mike also shared some poweruser tips on how to capture videos off webpages, thus helping us all better earn our status as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year (groan).
  3. Speaking of Time’s Person of the Year… I won’t hop on the band wagon and lambaste their choice (no need, enough has been said). However, I will point out that Time has only itself to blame. Specifically, Time mis-set expectations by allowing “Person of the Year” to cease being a title and allowing it to become an award. As my friend Salimah noted, gone are the days when Bin Laden or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could grace the front page as person of the year. In contrast, Time Canada (and I also can’t believe I’m about to say this) gets it right. Its title, earned this year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is the much more neutral “Newsmaker of the Year.” Alas the subtle difference was lost on the ears of the Prime Minister’s Office which was apparently thrilled on discovering their man’s new status. Someone should remind them that being the year’s top newsmaker simply means you made a lot of the news, for better or for worse…

Update: Dr. Kissinger overseeing a rock contest? Friends, just finished watching possible the best Colbert Report to date – clearly they saved the best for the end of the year. Those unable to watch or bitorrent it can read a description here. What a cast!

[tags]canadian politics, public policy[/tags]

Review of Graham Fraser’s “Sorry, I don’t speak French”

2 Replies

Dear friends, sorry for the long delay between posts. Between the convention last week and the 5 days of seminars in 3 cities I did this week I was a cooked noodle by the weekend. I’m back on the horse though, and even polished off “Sorry, I don’t Speak French” on the flight to Vegas. I’ve written up a little review for those who were thinking about picking it up…

I stumbled upon this book by luck. Sam M. recommended I check it out after posting my CBC piece on the Dominion Institute blog. Serendipitously, a month later the Millennium Scholarship foundation gave me a copy as a thank you gift for a talk I gave at a “Think Again” conference.

It’s a brave soul who wades into Canada’s language politics but Graham Fraser has clearly impressed given that soon after the publication of this book he took on the role of Commissioner of Official Languages. In reading this book I take comfort in knowing we have a Commissioner well educated on the subject. Graham’s book provides us with a basic review of Canada’s language policy – essentially beginning 50 years ago with the launch of a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and weaving its way to the present day, analyzing the impact and effect of the commission’s results along the way.

For me the book had deep personal resonance. If you are a French Immersion Alumnus (Frims, as we called ourselves at Churchill) or have lived in either Ottawa or Montreal, I suspect it will for you as well. Upon reading the book the larger political and policy forces that drove both my education and experiences living in these places came into focus. Graham’s honest recounting of the tensions and problems inherent in Canada’s bilingualism policies often confirm what we likely suspected and/or already knew – his book compelling not because of its novelty, but because it gives those thoughts context and structure.

The book also made me realize I share a common experience with some 347,000 other Canadians. Canadians who were also educated in French Immersion but are often too embarrassed to speak it because they feel their French is inadequate (something I’ve begun to overcome) and/or who went on to learn a third language. Indeed, the only part of his discussion of immersion experience that didn’t ring true to me was his description of French Immersion as an Anglo education and culture, translated into French. I remember reading L’Etranger by Camus and other “French” books (not French translations of English books as he asserts). I also distinctly remember the strong Quebecois nationalists’ slant of my Grade 10 history text – a perspective that was almost disorienting when read from a classroom in Vancouver.

The books strongest and weakest moment is reserved for its analysis of present day language policy. Graham’s thesis appears to be that bilingualism has been, more or less, a success. Its detractors, and Canadians more generally, have simply misunderstood its intended goal. Bilingualism, according to Graham, was never about getting every Canadian to learn the other official language but to enable the public service, and the government services they provide, to function in both official languages. In this regard the chapter on the impact of bilingualism on the public service is excellent while the chapter on bilingualism in politics – which essential discusses how bilingualism is a prerequisite for political leadership – is somewhat wanting. Indeed, throughout the book you are left wanting for more. It almost felt like Graham constantly leads you up to the finish line, but then chooses to end the chapter, failing to provide you with the analytical conclusion you thought he was going to provide. My real fear is that he is much more pessimistic then he lets on and didn’t have the heart to plunge the dagger too deeply into policies and a subject matter he clearly feels passionate about.

If you are a Frimm, a public servant, or someone concerned with either language politics or national unity – this is definitely a book for you. It’s an easy, enjoyable to read and, if you’re like me, humbling. Given how much of our collective energy language seems to have occupied over the past two decades I remain struck by how little I knew (and still know) about Canadian language policy. It’s a great primer, and if you’ve got the time, worth reading.

[tags]book review, bilingualism, public policy, canadian politics, graham fraser[/tags]

A Nation Alone

Leave a reply

Barring some dramatic change of heart by one of the main parties it appears the House will pass a resolution acknowledging Quebec as a nation within a nation. Obviously, the news commentary has focused on what this means for the country and its politics. This is clearly a departure from Trudeau’s vision of Canada, but beyond that, it is unclear if anyone understands the implications of this vote. As my friends know, I work as a negotiation consultant, and despite all the discussion surrounding the resolution, from a negotiation perspective, I feel one issue has gone unmentioned.

For many Quebecers this resolution is likely not an affirmation, but a reaffirmation. For declaring Quebec a nation within a nation reaffirms the ‘two’ founding nations vision of Canada. And therein lies the problem. Nationalist Quebecers don’t need Canada to recognize or affirm it as a nation – it already knows it is. The challenge for Quebec nationalists is that they need the rest of Canada to perceive itself as an (English) nation. And yet, most Canadians outside Quebec don’t see themselves as part of any (particularly English) nation. I’m not sure ‘English Canada’ shares a common sense of heritage, destiny, collective identity or any of the other ingredients of nationhood… independent of Quebec. (Sidenote: Some Ontarians who see themselves as part of a nation, might disagree, but I can inform you that Nova Scotians and BCers don’t feel part of the Ontario nation). While this could change, as it stands today ‘English’ Canada appears to possess a largely post-nationalist view of itself. They see their country as composed of 10 provinces and 3 territories that are more or less equal. Shaking them from this view will be neither easy, nor pleasant. Which brings us back to that serious dilemma confronting Quebec nationalists. Specifically, what is the value of being the sole nation in what is supposed to be a bi-national federation? If who you perceive as ‘the other’ doesn’t share this bi-national vision – who do you negotiate with?

Consequently, this resolution doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. It does not reconcile the two competing conceptions of the country (10 equal provinces vs. two founding nations). Instead, the resolution is premised on the assumption that enough soft-nationalist Quebecers will be satisfied with a theoretical reaffirmation of the two founding nation thesis to counterbalance harder nationalist who either want out of the federal structure altogether, or who wish it operationalized and/or re-institutionalized their bi-national view of Canada.

That assumption may be correct – I genuinely don’t know. But is seems to me that, nation or no nation, resolution or no resolution, the real question, and answer, to the issue of Canadian unity remains unchanged: Are ‘English Canadians’ willing to re-cast the federal structure along bi-national lines or do Quebecers believe their national aspirations can be achieved as one of ten provinces within a federated Canada?

[tags]canadian politics, quebec, negotiation[/tags]

Afghanistan – The Myth of the Opportunity Cost

2 Replies

Does anyone under 35 still ‘watch’ the news? It was refreshing to see after a 10 year hiatus. There was a fantastic piece on Iraqis moving to Syria – a half-million Iraqis now live in Damascus with 1500 more arriving everyday. Unfortunately a piece on Afghanistan served as a reminder of why to stick to print and on-line media.

The CBC report focused on the disparity over the accounting around the Afghan mission. It did so by citing a Polaris Institute study that placed the cost at $4.146B – more than double the government’s estimate. Although the CBC noted the report’s flaws, I’m forced to ask: why even cite something that uses such dubious accounting methods?

So what drove the higher costs in the Polaris’ report? They factored in soldiers salaries and operational costs for ships and other equipment. Even I, armed with the knowledge of Econ 110 course I took 10 years ago understand that many of these items are fixed costs – costs the Canadian tax payer must pay regardless of whether our military is operating in Afghanistan or not.

Still more disappointing was a brief Michael Byers interview where he highlights the high cost of replacing ammunition, arguing that the costs (like these) would be lower if Canada was involved in more ‘traditional’ peacekeeping. I know and like Michael – he’s been very supportive of Canada25 and of me personally. Moreover I know he would prefer that we were in Darfur – but he is misleading the public on two fronts: First, as virtually every military expert has pointed out there are very few ‘traditional’ peacekeeping missions out there. Moreover, Darfur, in particular, is not the mission I would choose if I was looking for a safe ‘traditional’ mission. It could get quite ugly, especially given how the Sudanese has government expressed, quite explicitly, that they don’t want us there. Second, the costs of placing Canadian troops in Darfur will not necessarily be dramatically cheaper then having them in Afghanistan.

Both Polaris and Michael Byers suggest we are paying an opportunity cost by being in Afghanistan. Specifically, that we could be doing cheaper, safer work elsewhere. This premise should be questioned. Stationing our troops elsewhere may not be dramatically cheaper. And, while it would likely be safer, it would not be the ‘safe’ peacekeeping of days of old. These missions, which tended to be ceasefire monitoring missions between state actors – simply no longer exist. If are willing to use our military to better the world (as both Michael and Polaris suggest they are) then there are no shortage of missions we could engage in… but we should not fail to commit to one because it means we can’t commit to the next one. This logical conclusion of this argument will leave us at home every time, waiting for the next ‘perfect’ mission. The opportunity cost Polaris and Michael refer to needs to be balanced against performing a mission where we have a national interest at stake. Given it was in Afghanistan where forces organized a deadly strike on the civilian population of our largest ally it seems to me that there is, at the very least, a plausible case for why Canada may have an interest in restoring order to that country.

[tags]public policy, Afghanistan, canadian politics[/tags]