The prospective purchase of 65 F-35 fighter aircraft for the Canadian Forces has become, perhaps unsurprisingly, a political football. What is little in evidence, however, is discussion of the role the aircraft are intended to fill in our national defence policy, and the reasons for making this specific purchase.
As background it is worth reminding ourselves that the Canadian CF-18 fleet, originally over 120 strong, has been reduced to some 60 operational aircraft by unit retirement and changing priorities. These last 60 aircraft are approaching the final decade of their design life, and they cannot be kept flying forever. Any replacement aircraft, however, will not appear in the budget until 2016 or so, and the price will be spread over a decade for their delivery. Maintenance costs, an enormous percentage of the total lifetime cost of these assets, would continue over their 25-40 year useful life. A fleet of fighter jets is a big-ticket item, with the current conversation of the F-35 purchase including $9 billion for the planes and $7 billion for the maintenance over their lifespan. This is a lot of money, but on a national scale over a period of decades it is also not really that large. Our government is looking at spending several billion dollars on additional prison buildings in the near future, not to mention what the operation and maintenance expenses of those buildings will turn out to be.
In considering the purchase, then, we have a national defence asset that provides a series of unique capabilities that we are losing in the near future to old age. Those capabilities include:
1 - Air superiority/combat air patrol
2 - Air strikes on surface targets
3 – Aerial Reconnaissance & surveillance
4 - A rapidly deployable force with enormous range
5 - A force element highly interoperable with our allies
The fundamental question underlying the purchase of any replacement fighter aircraft is whether or not we require these capabilities, and if so whether or not new aircraft are the only way to maintain them.
In the case of the original raison d’être of fighter aircraft, the ability to control airspace, they are still an unrivalled tool. Ground-based defences can protect specific sites, but Canada’s capabilities in that area are starkly limited and our airspace is vast. There are now drone aircraft, including the American Predator, with a limited anti-aircraft capability. Given their relatively slow speed, limited sensor capabilities and very limited armament these drones also do not approach the capacity offered by manned aircraft.
The story in terms of surface support is much the same. Army artillery can provide support only within its own range, as is the case with our Navy’s ships and submarines. The aircraft are able to provide support over great distances, and are also capable of using a vast array of munitions, from the most powerful to the most precise. Drones as yet carry only a very limited array of weapons, and are far less survivable to boot.
In terms of surveillance fighter aircraft are essentially never the first option. Dedicated long-range reconnaissance aircraft like the Orion or Nimrod are superior for maritime work and drones are better for tactical work. Where the fighter aircraft do offer a unique strength in this area is in their ability to actually engage a target if required, but for the scouting work itself they are a second option.
The range issue has already been mentioned. Canada is vast, our maritime frontiers even more so, and we have friends and potential commitments all over the world. In that respect this type of aircraft is an excellent asset for foreign deployments for two reasons. First, it is relatively easy to get the planes there. Second, so long as we maintain our tradition of NATO interoperability we can act with our allies without awkward and expensive barriers to overcome.
In my view these are capabilities we should have, both for our own protection and for the aid of our allies. It is also worth noting that these are not capabilities that can be recreated in less than a decade should we decide to eliminate them. To buy the planes, get them delivered, train pilots and re-create an infrastructure would be enormously expensive and time-consuming. To a large extent we shelter under the American aerial umbrella (they operate thousands of fighter aircraft), but their interests are not ours and there will be frictions around northern waters and sovereignty for example where their aid may not be forthcoming, or it may not be available even if they want to help.
This brings me to the question of whether or not the F-35 is the right aircraft for Canada’s needs. There are a variety of aircraft currently in production. Some, like China’s domestically-produced military aircraft are easily ruled out. I put Russian-made MIG aircraft in this category, both due to their inferior performance and more importantly the highly unsafe and unreliable supplier. Given our highly limited influence in Russia, and the difficulties around relying on contracts with Russian organization (i.e.: Shell’s experience with Gazprom) there are far too many red lights to make this practicable. What does that leave us with?
Essentially there are 5 aircraft being produced by Canada’s allies for us to choose from, including the F-35. In Europe the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale also are in production, and thus likely available. In the United States there are the F-16, the F-15E and the F-18 E/F model (the linear descendant of Canada’s CF-18s, which are largely a variant of the F-18D). The Americans are also producing the F-22, but this aircraft is both more expensive than the F-35 and less well-rounded, being focused more on air-to-air combat. Currently it is also restricted from export sale by Congress, just in case anyone here still wanted it…
So why the F-35? The F-15, F-16 and F-18 models are old designs, with the advantages and drawbacks that implies. They are proven performers, but they lack some of the capabilities provided by the newer aircraft. The Eurofighter and Rafale are largely equivalent to their American counterparts, with the exception of the F-35, which stands out from the group as the only option from the very latest design generation; incorporating a variety of stealth characteristics and sensor and computer upgrades.
The question is what capabilities the plane is required to deliver, and the threats it is intended to meet. Fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s seem like a reasonable defence purchase to me, given the variety and importance of the roles these aircraft perform. What is less clear to me is whether or not we need the F-35. Any of the models mentioned here is an upgrade over our current CF-18s, even if the latter were not at the very end of their useful life. An open tender based on clearly published requirements would seem like an obvious way to allow the field to price itself, and to comparison shop. I am disappointed that this approach was not taken by the government several years ago, but I am hoping that public interest drives a conversation about the topic now. I am also hoping that this conversation does not long delay a selection and a purchase, since such aircraft are an important part of our national defence framework and the timelines on acquisition is long.
While I am on the subject of said framework it is worth pointing out that a full white paper national defence review would seem to be called for as a way of adjudicating priorities on such issues.
*Edit:
Here are the Operational Requirements from the DND website:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/or-bo-eng.asp
Showing posts with label Canadian Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Politics. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Wee Shuffle
Today's Cabinet Shuffle, necessitated by the retirement of Jim Prentice to move on to a job at CIBC, was as minor as it could have been. A replacement had to be found for Mr. Prentice, and while there were no other important changes the strategy of wooing Greater Toronto prior to the next election continued.
Mr. Prentice's replacement at Environment is Mr. Peter Kent, whose experience in the media will undoubtedly be very useful in a position which this government uses primarily as a heat shield for criticism of the government's environmental policy. I don't envy Mr. Kent the role, though a seat at the Cabinet table is certainly a prize. In addition Mr. Julian Fantino, recent winner of the close Vaughn by-election, was appointed as Minister of State for Seniors. Mr. Kent and Mr. Fantino, a former Chief of both the Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police, are highly visible parts of the Conservative strategy of targeting Toronto seats for the next election. Putting them both in Cabinet, however minor Mr. Fantino's role, will be intended to raise their profile.
Alberta sees Mr. Prentice replaced in Cabinet, at least in theory, by the promotion of Mr. Ted Menzies from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for finance. Ms. Diane Ablonczy moves sideways from the post now occupied by Mr. Fantino to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs). With a cabinet whose major figures aside from the Prime Minister are all from outside of Alberta it will be interesting to see if there will be any repercussions here in the Conservative Party's heartland.
Mr. Prentice's replacement at Environment is Mr. Peter Kent, whose experience in the media will undoubtedly be very useful in a position which this government uses primarily as a heat shield for criticism of the government's environmental policy. I don't envy Mr. Kent the role, though a seat at the Cabinet table is certainly a prize. In addition Mr. Julian Fantino, recent winner of the close Vaughn by-election, was appointed as Minister of State for Seniors. Mr. Kent and Mr. Fantino, a former Chief of both the Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police, are highly visible parts of the Conservative strategy of targeting Toronto seats for the next election. Putting them both in Cabinet, however minor Mr. Fantino's role, will be intended to raise their profile.
Alberta sees Mr. Prentice replaced in Cabinet, at least in theory, by the promotion of Mr. Ted Menzies from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for finance. Ms. Diane Ablonczy moves sideways from the post now occupied by Mr. Fantino to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs). With a cabinet whose major figures aside from the Prime Minister are all from outside of Alberta it will be interesting to see if there will be any repercussions here in the Conservative Party's heartland.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Representative Independence versus Caucus Control
Behind all the Sturm und Drang engendered by Dr. Raj Sherman's letter, comments and subsequent removal from the PC caucus there are several stories. The specifics of what happened and why are known only to those involved, and I won't speculate. There is a good post at the Enlightened Savage about which line Dr. Sherman crossed: http://www.enlightenedsavage.com/2010/11/paging-dr-sherman.html
The basic outlines can be found here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Sherman+suspended+from+Conservative+caucus/3867417/story.html
It is important to note that Dr. Sherman has been suspended, as opposed to Mr. Boutillier who was simply expelled. What requirements have been communicated to Dr. Sherman for his return, if any at this early stage, I certainly do not know. It is, however, clear that the PC caucus and the PC party both want Dr. Sherman as a member, something that was not the case with Mr. Boutillier.
Dr. Sherman's suspension from caucus is part of an ongoing conversation in Canada about the role and independence of our elected representatives vis a vis their parties.
Dr. Sherman was an emergency physician before he became an MLA, and continues to practice while he sits in the legislature. His sincerity and passion on the issue of emergency medicine are not questioned by anyone so far as I am aware, and he possesses a professional's knowledge of the systems strengths and faults. Dr. Sherman was entirely right to act as he did in order to bring the greatest possible profile to an issue he felt was vital. Conversely the government caucus was entirely within their rights to suspend him. This is the creative tension between the individual representative and the discipline of the group, and the latter is essential in order to make the system work.
The problem is that the individual representative has been pushed into the background by group discipline. Both Federally and here in Alberta the governing party keeps all conversations behind the closed doors of caucus far too often. Party discipline for votes on the floor is an essential element of a representative system, don't get me wrong. Without the ability to whip votes you wind up needing the kind of earmark system which has so bedeviled the American Congress in order to deliver enough votes to pass legislation and do the basic business of government. The tendency, however, to follow the logic of control past the point of necessary and into the realm of convenience.
Avoiding the presentation by your MLAs of alternative views to that of the government makes communications and messaging easier, avoids some public frictions; fundamentally it is easier to manage than diversity. The problem is that the diversity exists anyway - in a caucus of 68 members does anyone believe that the PC MLAs all agree on anything? Behind the closed doors of government caucus the debates and alternative views are guaranteed to be lively, but we the public don't get to see it. This disconnect is worsened by the lows to which question period has sunk, shortened legislative sessions and the steady reduction in the independence of committees in the legislature. As a result there are fewer and fewer arenas in which the individual MLA can be relevant outside of caucus, which we can't see, and constituency work, which is profoundly local. The latter is important, and many of our MLAs do it very well and build important and useful two-way relationships with their communities. Our public dialogue would be greatly enriched, however, if individual MLAs were more engaged and engaging on the provincial stage.
This does not require a revolution in political procedure - here in Canada we have a tradition of ministerial responsibility and representative independence. Even in this age of tight party control there are individual MLAs (and MPs) who, by force of personality or sheer competence, have carved out independent voices for themselves. Does this mean that Doug Griffiths or Jim Prentice don't vote with their party on matters of confidence? Of course not. We as citizens need to demand more from our representatives, however.
Equally important party organizations and party leaders need to examine what they lose by keeping the reins short, as well as what they gain. Simplifying the messaging has to be balanced against the separation created between party and citizens. Openness has the advantage of creating conversation and engagement, which can be harnessed and directed in positive ways. True discipline doesn't mean there is no debate on what to do, it just means that when the time comes to act everyone supports making the decision work. We need to work on a parliamentary culture that embraces the diversity of views expressed publicly for examination and debate. The biggest gainers will be the parties, in the end.
The basic outlines can be found here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Sherman+suspended+from+Conservative+caucus/3867417/story.html
It is important to note that Dr. Sherman has been suspended, as opposed to Mr. Boutillier who was simply expelled. What requirements have been communicated to Dr. Sherman for his return, if any at this early stage, I certainly do not know. It is, however, clear that the PC caucus and the PC party both want Dr. Sherman as a member, something that was not the case with Mr. Boutillier.
Dr. Sherman's suspension from caucus is part of an ongoing conversation in Canada about the role and independence of our elected representatives vis a vis their parties.
Dr. Sherman was an emergency physician before he became an MLA, and continues to practice while he sits in the legislature. His sincerity and passion on the issue of emergency medicine are not questioned by anyone so far as I am aware, and he possesses a professional's knowledge of the systems strengths and faults. Dr. Sherman was entirely right to act as he did in order to bring the greatest possible profile to an issue he felt was vital. Conversely the government caucus was entirely within their rights to suspend him. This is the creative tension between the individual representative and the discipline of the group, and the latter is essential in order to make the system work.
The problem is that the individual representative has been pushed into the background by group discipline. Both Federally and here in Alberta the governing party keeps all conversations behind the closed doors of caucus far too often. Party discipline for votes on the floor is an essential element of a representative system, don't get me wrong. Without the ability to whip votes you wind up needing the kind of earmark system which has so bedeviled the American Congress in order to deliver enough votes to pass legislation and do the basic business of government. The tendency, however, to follow the logic of control past the point of necessary and into the realm of convenience.
Avoiding the presentation by your MLAs of alternative views to that of the government makes communications and messaging easier, avoids some public frictions; fundamentally it is easier to manage than diversity. The problem is that the diversity exists anyway - in a caucus of 68 members does anyone believe that the PC MLAs all agree on anything? Behind the closed doors of government caucus the debates and alternative views are guaranteed to be lively, but we the public don't get to see it. This disconnect is worsened by the lows to which question period has sunk, shortened legislative sessions and the steady reduction in the independence of committees in the legislature. As a result there are fewer and fewer arenas in which the individual MLA can be relevant outside of caucus, which we can't see, and constituency work, which is profoundly local. The latter is important, and many of our MLAs do it very well and build important and useful two-way relationships with their communities. Our public dialogue would be greatly enriched, however, if individual MLAs were more engaged and engaging on the provincial stage.
This does not require a revolution in political procedure - here in Canada we have a tradition of ministerial responsibility and representative independence. Even in this age of tight party control there are individual MLAs (and MPs) who, by force of personality or sheer competence, have carved out independent voices for themselves. Does this mean that Doug Griffiths or Jim Prentice don't vote with their party on matters of confidence? Of course not. We as citizens need to demand more from our representatives, however.
Equally important party organizations and party leaders need to examine what they lose by keeping the reins short, as well as what they gain. Simplifying the messaging has to be balanced against the separation created between party and citizens. Openness has the advantage of creating conversation and engagement, which can be harnessed and directed in positive ways. True discipline doesn't mean there is no debate on what to do, it just means that when the time comes to act everyone supports making the decision work. We need to work on a parliamentary culture that embraces the diversity of views expressed publicly for examination and debate. The biggest gainers will be the parties, in the end.
Friday, October 15, 2010
What's in a Name?
The negative tone of much contemporary politics in Canada, and even more the case in the United States, is an issue of concern to people from all sides of any given issue. It seems to me, based on prolonged observation, that there is a simple remedy that would go a long way to address the concerns of those lamenting the balkanization of our political discourse: use people's names.
Even if you don't like someone, or their views, show them some respect and use their name. As someone who has trained as an academic I'd be interested to see a correlative study linking the use of derogatory nicknames with the appreciation of complexity in politics. Painting issues in black and white is rarely a good way to accommodate the complexity of the world we live in. Painting policy alternatives, like a given airport tunnel project or piece of legislation, in black and white is even more unlikely to reflect anything resembling their true relationship with reality.
The fundamental point I always aspire to bear in mind is that people of good will can, and will, disagree on any given issue. Our system of Westminster-style democracy is not only designed to accommodate such disagreements, it is dependant on the adversarial contest between diverging views to develop a working consensus. This is perhaps even more the case in our pluralist parliamentary model, as opposed to the unique duopoly the Americans have developed. A substantial majority of our fellow-citizens are good people, so those engaged in our political discourse, whether they be politicians, civil servants, journalists, commentators or concerned citizens, deserve the same assumption.
The use of nicknames, whether simply shorthands or the actively derogatory, is obviously a continuum. However, in order to avoid slipping into the derogatory, or the grey area in which one could be perceived that way, use the simple alternative of the proper noun. So instead of 'Slitherman' or 'Harpo' I try to use Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Harper. In the latter case why not acknowledge his earned title, and call him the Prime Minister? He is, after all, whether I like it or not, and he deserves to be.
In short, I have resolved to combat trolls on the internet and incivility in my speech by aspiring to use the simplest of formal courtesies - the proper name.
Even if you don't like someone, or their views, show them some respect and use their name. As someone who has trained as an academic I'd be interested to see a correlative study linking the use of derogatory nicknames with the appreciation of complexity in politics. Painting issues in black and white is rarely a good way to accommodate the complexity of the world we live in. Painting policy alternatives, like a given airport tunnel project or piece of legislation, in black and white is even more unlikely to reflect anything resembling their true relationship with reality.
The fundamental point I always aspire to bear in mind is that people of good will can, and will, disagree on any given issue. Our system of Westminster-style democracy is not only designed to accommodate such disagreements, it is dependant on the adversarial contest between diverging views to develop a working consensus. This is perhaps even more the case in our pluralist parliamentary model, as opposed to the unique duopoly the Americans have developed. A substantial majority of our fellow-citizens are good people, so those engaged in our political discourse, whether they be politicians, civil servants, journalists, commentators or concerned citizens, deserve the same assumption.
The use of nicknames, whether simply shorthands or the actively derogatory, is obviously a continuum. However, in order to avoid slipping into the derogatory, or the grey area in which one could be perceived that way, use the simple alternative of the proper noun. So instead of 'Slitherman' or 'Harpo' I try to use Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Harper. In the latter case why not acknowledge his earned title, and call him the Prime Minister? He is, after all, whether I like it or not, and he deserves to be.
In short, I have resolved to combat trolls on the internet and incivility in my speech by aspiring to use the simplest of formal courtesies - the proper name.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What to make of the Gun Registry
The existing Federal Long Gun registry is an issue on which I have mixed feelings.
To begin with it is a flawed peice of legislation, its startup costs were exhorbitant, and its operating costs remain higher than they should be. That said Canada's police chiefs say it is useful, and the current operating costs aren't so extreme that the program should be cancelled on that basis alone. It should, however, be subject to a full review, with the intention of making the program both more useful to law enforcement and cheaper. A committee of the House of Commons with representation from all parties would be the ideal mechanism for this, though it is hard to see how it would work in the current poisoned climate in Ottawa.
Do I think Canadians ought to be able to purchase and own firearms? The answer to that is, unhesitatingly, yes. Do I think they should have to register those firearms? The answer to that is yes as well. It is a question of responsibility; where society is trusting you with a weapon you should be accountable for the maintenance, safety and use of that weapon. We all register our cars for the very same reasons, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we be accountable for our weapons in the same way. This is especially the case for handguns and automatic weapons, whose designed purpose is for use on humans. Long guns in the traditional sense have real and enduring utility outside city limits, but handguns and automatic weapons do not, outside of the pleasures of target shooting or collectors.
The argument that 'criminals don't register their guns' is a disingenuous straw man. It is, of course, partially true - but it is also a red herring. The goal is to restrict their access to weapons, with the acknowledgement that you can never eliminate it entirely, and to reduce gun crime by making it more and more difficult. in Switzerland, where nearly every household has several military-issue firearms, a result of their universal militia service, gun crime is among the lowest in the world. Their system of registration and accountability is one of the most important reasons why.
The other concern most often used by opponents of gun control is that "the government may take away my guns". I'm afraid that, with or without gun control legislation, if the government has reason to then they can certainly do that. Preventing unreasonable search and seizure is a part of the ongoing battle to maintain due process! Another, more reasonable, version of that argument holds that the government can retroactively ban certain weapons, making your formerly legal possession illegal. In my view almost all weapons should be allowed, provided the purchaser meets reasonable requirements, and thus the confiscatory concern should be addressed. Where there should be severe penalties is on the purveyance, and use in criminal activity of, illegal and unregistered weapons.
Given that we register our charitable donations with CRA, file for permits to move plumbing in our houses with city hall (in order to maintain our valid home insurance, if nothing else!), and register our vehicles with multiple authorities it hardly seems unreasonable to me that I should file that I own a deadly weapon.
People who really want to kill will find alternative methods, and there is no way to eliminate crime through legislation. Given the evidence of what stricter attitudes towards the responsibilities of firearms ownership, for example the British or the Swiss, does to crime and injury rates as opposed to the looser attitudes of the United States or Mexico I have to place myself in the stricter camp.
The problem with the Long Gun registry is that it is such a flawed and inadequate measure I'm not convinced it is more a part of the solution than it is a simple obstruction.
EDIT: It appears that the Registry has survived the private member's Bill to abolish it, by the narrowest of margins: 153-151 against. Now I hope there is a Bill introduced with changes to the legislation, to be followed by an open debate on the merits of said changes. Note the use of the word 'hope'.
To begin with it is a flawed peice of legislation, its startup costs were exhorbitant, and its operating costs remain higher than they should be. That said Canada's police chiefs say it is useful, and the current operating costs aren't so extreme that the program should be cancelled on that basis alone. It should, however, be subject to a full review, with the intention of making the program both more useful to law enforcement and cheaper. A committee of the House of Commons with representation from all parties would be the ideal mechanism for this, though it is hard to see how it would work in the current poisoned climate in Ottawa.
Do I think Canadians ought to be able to purchase and own firearms? The answer to that is, unhesitatingly, yes. Do I think they should have to register those firearms? The answer to that is yes as well. It is a question of responsibility; where society is trusting you with a weapon you should be accountable for the maintenance, safety and use of that weapon. We all register our cars for the very same reasons, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we be accountable for our weapons in the same way. This is especially the case for handguns and automatic weapons, whose designed purpose is for use on humans. Long guns in the traditional sense have real and enduring utility outside city limits, but handguns and automatic weapons do not, outside of the pleasures of target shooting or collectors.
The argument that 'criminals don't register their guns' is a disingenuous straw man. It is, of course, partially true - but it is also a red herring. The goal is to restrict their access to weapons, with the acknowledgement that you can never eliminate it entirely, and to reduce gun crime by making it more and more difficult. in Switzerland, where nearly every household has several military-issue firearms, a result of their universal militia service, gun crime is among the lowest in the world. Their system of registration and accountability is one of the most important reasons why.
The other concern most often used by opponents of gun control is that "the government may take away my guns". I'm afraid that, with or without gun control legislation, if the government has reason to then they can certainly do that. Preventing unreasonable search and seizure is a part of the ongoing battle to maintain due process! Another, more reasonable, version of that argument holds that the government can retroactively ban certain weapons, making your formerly legal possession illegal. In my view almost all weapons should be allowed, provided the purchaser meets reasonable requirements, and thus the confiscatory concern should be addressed. Where there should be severe penalties is on the purveyance, and use in criminal activity of, illegal and unregistered weapons.
Given that we register our charitable donations with CRA, file for permits to move plumbing in our houses with city hall (in order to maintain our valid home insurance, if nothing else!), and register our vehicles with multiple authorities it hardly seems unreasonable to me that I should file that I own a deadly weapon.
People who really want to kill will find alternative methods, and there is no way to eliminate crime through legislation. Given the evidence of what stricter attitudes towards the responsibilities of firearms ownership, for example the British or the Swiss, does to crime and injury rates as opposed to the looser attitudes of the United States or Mexico I have to place myself in the stricter camp.
The problem with the Long Gun registry is that it is such a flawed and inadequate measure I'm not convinced it is more a part of the solution than it is a simple obstruction.
EDIT: It appears that the Registry has survived the private member's Bill to abolish it, by the narrowest of margins: 153-151 against. Now I hope there is a Bill introduced with changes to the legislation, to be followed by an open debate on the merits of said changes. Note the use of the word 'hope'.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
'Fixing' what isn't Broken: Tampering with the Census
I have been startled this last few weeks to witness the extent to which a seemingly esoteric subject, the census, has become a political and conversational issue during the dog days of summer. Here in Calgary I have had a series of conversations about this topic, and so far all of them have been with people upset by the changes. Most people have been concerned by the prospect of impeding the gathering of good data, and everyone I have had the conversation with have been baffled by the government's decision to fix something that manifestly wasn't broken.
The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.
Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.
The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.
What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.
Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.
The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.
Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.
The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.
What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.
Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Link to Sue Huff on Expense Accounts
This is a link to a post by Sue Huff (an Edmonton School Trustee) on expense accounts and political culture. Well said, Sue.
http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=expense-accounts-and-the-safety-net-of-transparency.html&Itemid=1
http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=expense-accounts-and-the-safety-net-of-transparency.html&Itemid=1
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Enbridge's BC Battle
Well, it appears that the gloves are off in public for the opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline from Fort McMurray to Kitimat BC. This ad ran in today's Globe and Mail, as well as being widely posted online by the various signatories:
http://blogs.greenpeace.ca/?p=2573
From the the point of view of Enbridge and other players in the oil industry the majority of the signatory list can be referred to in shorthand as 'the usual suspects'. That being said there are a couple of reasons that this public statement is significant. First and foremost the lengthy list of First Nations groups is a serious threat to the very existence of the project. Laying out a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat that doesn't cross First Nation's land would be awkward, to put it mildly.
In addition the decision to challenge the pipeline on the basis of the risks on the maritime end is smart, on several levels. The ferry Queen of the North was lost in those waters in 2006 and the case has been in the news recently as the lawsuits wend their way through the courts. In addition this threat has enabled Greenpeace and other opponents of the pipeline to get the tourist and fishing industries on board with their opposition, as the organization and business lists reveal. Finally it enables them to challenge the pipeline without reference specifically to the domestic oil industry or the pipeline itself. This last demonstrates that Greenpeace and their allies have learned that threatening jobs and economic growth directly is a counterproductive marketing strategy.
It would be in Alberta's interests to see the development of this pipeline, or some similar project. Creating alternative markets for bitumen and oil outside of our current restrictions would help insure better access to markets, and perhaps a greater degree of competition for our raw product. Currently the pipeline grid means that our options are starkly limited in terms of refinery access - whereas a link to a deep-water port opens the world's refineries to us. Whether or not a modus vivendi can be found that makes this pipeline, or another like it, feasible is something that Alberta in particular and Canada more generally need to pay serious attention to.
* My thanks to @duncankinney for linking and discussing this with me today!
http://blogs.greenpeace.ca/?p=2573
From the the point of view of Enbridge and other players in the oil industry the majority of the signatory list can be referred to in shorthand as 'the usual suspects'. That being said there are a couple of reasons that this public statement is significant. First and foremost the lengthy list of First Nations groups is a serious threat to the very existence of the project. Laying out a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat that doesn't cross First Nation's land would be awkward, to put it mildly.
In addition the decision to challenge the pipeline on the basis of the risks on the maritime end is smart, on several levels. The ferry Queen of the North was lost in those waters in 2006 and the case has been in the news recently as the lawsuits wend their way through the courts. In addition this threat has enabled Greenpeace and other opponents of the pipeline to get the tourist and fishing industries on board with their opposition, as the organization and business lists reveal. Finally it enables them to challenge the pipeline without reference specifically to the domestic oil industry or the pipeline itself. This last demonstrates that Greenpeace and their allies have learned that threatening jobs and economic growth directly is a counterproductive marketing strategy.
It would be in Alberta's interests to see the development of this pipeline, or some similar project. Creating alternative markets for bitumen and oil outside of our current restrictions would help insure better access to markets, and perhaps a greater degree of competition for our raw product. Currently the pipeline grid means that our options are starkly limited in terms of refinery access - whereas a link to a deep-water port opens the world's refineries to us. Whether or not a modus vivendi can be found that makes this pipeline, or another like it, feasible is something that Alberta in particular and Canada more generally need to pay serious attention to.
* My thanks to @duncankinney for linking and discussing this with me today!
Monday, March 22, 2010
Canadian Impact of the GOP's "waterloo"?
Here is a link to an opinion piece by David Frum, former special assistant to President Bush in 2001-02 and a prominent conservative commentator south of the border:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html
In addition to the interesting take on the political dimensions of the Republican party's challenges there are a couple of storm cloud comments in this piece from the perspective of Canada and Alberta.
Frum begins by acknowledging that 'Obamacare' is now a done deal and that the idea that the Republican party will be able to simply repeal it is ludicrously simplistic. He then focuses in on specific challenges he feels that the GOP needs to address, starting with the means of paying for the program. He identifies minimizing the impact of upper-tier income-tax increases as a priority. "We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of these new taxes on work, saving and investment -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes."
Well Alberta, that is the sound of change coming south of the border. There is already a large faction of the Democratic party working to implement some kind of carbon tax, for one or both of the environmental or fiscal agendas. In the Republican party support for the idea has been more limited, but if Frum and other Republican thought leaders come to see it as a source of revenue to fund some of their liabilities, as well as a possible wedge issue to court certain factions within the Democratic vote, then the likelihood of a serious carbon tax regime of some kind in the next few years goes up markedly.
In addition he makes a couple of comments about the coming shift in the American health insurance market, the impacts of which will be felt on this side of the border as well. I will leave aside his discussion of the market mechanics of a free trade, if such a thing can be said to exist in this case, in health care. The more immediately germane comment is his fourth - that dealing with the potential impact of the punitive provisions of the new health plan on employers who don't meet the new rules. The American recovery is tender, and productivity south of the border, while not as bad as in Canada, is certainly nothing to envy. Given the impact of the American economy on our own we need to be alert for indications of how some of these elements of the plan will play out in practice.
Given the magnitude of the Republican mismanagement of American policy and finances under President Bush it is hard to feel an sympathy for the GOP when Frum concludes "the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html
In addition to the interesting take on the political dimensions of the Republican party's challenges there are a couple of storm cloud comments in this piece from the perspective of Canada and Alberta.
Frum begins by acknowledging that 'Obamacare' is now a done deal and that the idea that the Republican party will be able to simply repeal it is ludicrously simplistic. He then focuses in on specific challenges he feels that the GOP needs to address, starting with the means of paying for the program. He identifies minimizing the impact of upper-tier income-tax increases as a priority. "We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of these new taxes on work, saving and investment -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes."
Well Alberta, that is the sound of change coming south of the border. There is already a large faction of the Democratic party working to implement some kind of carbon tax, for one or both of the environmental or fiscal agendas. In the Republican party support for the idea has been more limited, but if Frum and other Republican thought leaders come to see it as a source of revenue to fund some of their liabilities, as well as a possible wedge issue to court certain factions within the Democratic vote, then the likelihood of a serious carbon tax regime of some kind in the next few years goes up markedly.
In addition he makes a couple of comments about the coming shift in the American health insurance market, the impacts of which will be felt on this side of the border as well. I will leave aside his discussion of the market mechanics of a free trade, if such a thing can be said to exist in this case, in health care. The more immediately germane comment is his fourth - that dealing with the potential impact of the punitive provisions of the new health plan on employers who don't meet the new rules. The American recovery is tender, and productivity south of the border, while not as bad as in Canada, is certainly nothing to envy. Given the impact of the American economy on our own we need to be alert for indications of how some of these elements of the plan will play out in practice.
Given the magnitude of the Republican mismanagement of American policy and finances under President Bush it is hard to feel an sympathy for the GOP when Frum concludes "the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament
The Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament, a non-partisan outgrowth of the 208,000 member Facebook group, is hold a rally outside Mr. Harper's office on Saturday. I'll be attending, and hope some of the other Calgarians that read this blog will too.
Date: Saturday January 23rd
Time: 1 pm
Location: Outside Mr. Harper's office at 1600 - 90th Avenue SW, Calgary
www.noprorogue.ca/calgary/
Date: Saturday January 23rd
Time: 1 pm
Location: Outside Mr. Harper's office at 1600 - 90th Avenue SW, Calgary
www.noprorogue.ca/calgary/
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Letter to the Herald
I wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald this week, which appeared in the Sunday edition.
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that this extended break is to allow the government to consult with Canadians over the economy. If that is the case, I will expect my MP, Rob Anders, to be in his office every day between now and March 3. In addition, I expect to see consultation meetings within the constituency scheduled immediately. I'll be checking, and I encourage others to do the same.
Thomas Muir, Calgary"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Check+them/2425734/story.html
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that this extended break is to allow the government to consult with Canadians over the economy. If that is the case, I will expect my MP, Rob Anders, to be in his office every day between now and March 3. In addition, I expect to see consultation meetings within the constituency scheduled immediately. I'll be checking, and I encourage others to do the same.
Thomas Muir, Calgary"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Check+them/2425734/story.html
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Public Assets
Over the past week both the government of Canada and the government of Ontario have begun looking into the possibility of asset sales to help with their budget deficits.
In the case of AECL there are issues with giving away the growth potential of the business, but the real objection lies in the area of intellectual property. The CANDU reactor patents, while there has been a dearth of recent sales, have generated revenue in the past and there is a real prospect of significant growth in nuclear power over the next decade. The recent bankruptcy of Nortel, which the government should have prioritized supporting ahead of American auto makers, meant that a number of patents were sold off at fire sale prices. The liscencing fees that Canadian governments and companies will now have to pay to access those technologies will cost considerably more than a support package would have. To repeat the mistake with AECL would be simple incompetence.
The Ontario case provides an even more powerful case for retaining the assets. The LCBO generates approximately $1.5 billion in net revenue, and the OGLC another $600 million. In other words the structural hole in Ontario's budget would be at least $2.1 billion larger next year, and every year going forward. Both the liqour monopoly and the lottery are cash cows that support the program spending of other departments, and to sell them off in order to make one year's defecit smaller is like accepting a pay cut in order to shrink this month's credit card bill!
The deficits themselves are bad enough, though the current low interest rates will most likely put off the real pain from them for at least 6 months or so until they start to rise significantly again. These proposed asset sales will not raise enough money to cover the shortfalls even for this year, and will cost our citizens money even in the short term, much less the long term. They are, in short, political optics masquerading as policy - and a damned bad policy at that.
Canada: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-puts-its-nuclear-pride-on-the-block/article1404807/
Given the scale of the deficits - an expected $55 billion for the federal and approaching $30 billion for Ontario - the decision to examine this option is unsurprising. It is also an extremely bad idea should it be taken past the examination phase, however.In the case of AECL there are issues with giving away the growth potential of the business, but the real objection lies in the area of intellectual property. The CANDU reactor patents, while there has been a dearth of recent sales, have generated revenue in the past and there is a real prospect of significant growth in nuclear power over the next decade. The recent bankruptcy of Nortel, which the government should have prioritized supporting ahead of American auto makers, meant that a number of patents were sold off at fire sale prices. The liscencing fees that Canadian governments and companies will now have to pay to access those technologies will cost considerably more than a support package would have. To repeat the mistake with AECL would be simple incompetence.
The Ontario case provides an even more powerful case for retaining the assets. The LCBO generates approximately $1.5 billion in net revenue, and the OGLC another $600 million. In other words the structural hole in Ontario's budget would be at least $2.1 billion larger next year, and every year going forward. Both the liqour monopoly and the lottery are cash cows that support the program spending of other departments, and to sell them off in order to make one year's defecit smaller is like accepting a pay cut in order to shrink this month's credit card bill!
The deficits themselves are bad enough, though the current low interest rates will most likely put off the real pain from them for at least 6 months or so until they start to rise significantly again. These proposed asset sales will not raise enough money to cover the shortfalls even for this year, and will cost our citizens money even in the short term, much less the long term. They are, in short, political optics masquerading as policy - and a damned bad policy at that.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A Response to Reboot
I want to post some initial responses to Reboot Alberta.
To begin I want to thank Dave King, Ken Chapman and the other organizers for making this event happen; and to thank Bryna and Xanthe for their great work keeping everything running so smoothly. I would also like to thank everyone who attended for providing an impressive combination of intensity and goodwill that made the open-ended organic format of the weekend work so well. Reboot Alberta turned out to have been perhaps the single most interesting conference or event I have ever attended.
At the first session on Saturday someone said “There is a real feeling that the existing parties are failing to address our needs” during the preamble to their remarks. This is as good a starting point as any for how and why this disparate group of people gathered in Red Deer on the Grey cup weekend to talk politics, policy and citizenship. The variety of interesting and articulate people at Reboot was exceptional. There were current and former elected officials, ranging from school trustees to cabinet ministers, partisans of all parties from both the elected and back room crowds, commentators and business people. This diverse crowd of interesting and articulate people gathered together to explore how public life in Alberta might be improved and what it means to be ‘progressive’, if anything. I was impressed by the respectful intensity of the weekend – everyone had something to offer but everyone also wanted to hear what others had to say and the result was an extraordinary experience.
There were a great many sessions running, and obviously I only participated in a small minority of them. There are three that I did participate in that I wanted to talk about, starting with the session on “What is a progressive”. The variety of the weekend was certainly visible in this sessions, which included a PC and Liberal who had rarely sat at an event together without coming to (verbal) blows who warily found that in many respects their concerns matched, if not their prescriptions. The session felt in many ways like we were looking for the walls of a dark room – we knew they were there but not where they were or how they were laid out. In the end there was a broad consensus on a few issues but no definition of what a progressive might be.
I also participated in two sessions around the idea of creating a new political party here in Alberta. Both sessions were large and lively, especially as they included people of every viewpoint on the matter – for, against, and uncommitted or waiting to see what form such a party might take. All of these positions were discussed and many ideas about what parties are and should be were fielded. In the event it looks like the people behind the Renew Alberta initiative are going to move forward with the creation of a party. For what it is worth I wish them luck, these kind of initiatives are essential for the health of our system. It was interesting to see the depth of dissatisfaction with the functioning of our existing parties, whether it be the culture of entitlement in some or of defeat in others, even from those who are committed members of one or the other.
The last session I participated in that I wanted to mention specifically was one on how to improve Alberta through the operation of the existing political system in the province. Thirteen of us (out of 90 or so!) decided that this was the mechanism of change we wanted to discuss, and that group ranged across the political spectrum and generations. I was struck, powerfully so, that this group of highly partisan type A personalities proceeded to have one of the most respectful, on-topic and frank discussions I’ve ever been a part of. No-one so much as interrupted, which is a level of civility I rarely see even among friends! The other striking thing about this session was that we all shared a great many concerns about the functioning of the system, even those from the government or governing party. Unfortunately solutions for these issues within the context of the existing system were thinner on the ground and we were essentially forced to concede that changes are needed.
That session brought out many of the issues that everyone at the event seemed to feeling. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the ‘dumbing down’ of politics and public life, and the nastiness that seems to have increasingly crept in. This is perceived by many, myself included, as a part of the general devaluing of our systems and institutions in general, even by those who are a part of them. I would argue that this is one of the most important areas for us to address, whether you define yourself a ‘progressive’ or anything else. As an element of that is the notable dissatisfaction with the way parties work – whether the frustration of those both within or without the existing ones or those engaged in starting new ones, whether the Wild Rose or the Renew Alberta people. The range and importance of these issues is certainly sufficient to explain the turnout and the passion at Reboot Alberta.
Finally there is the question of what, if anything, will come of the weekend. Firstly Reboot connected a number of people who otherwise would not have met, provided many short term benefits in terms if ideas and conversation. In the long term who knows what those ideas and connections will lead to? Secondly the fielding and discussion, in a very open and extended format, of a wide variety of interesting ideas provided a lot of learning opportunities. Perhaps even more importantly the format and people at this event generated a lot of energy - people left brimming with energy and ready to take action, whatever their field of endeavour. Finally, in addition to the other potential benefits, the experience was so singular that efforts are being made to maintain contact through a Reboot Alberta virtual community, an effort I certainly support and will be a part of. In short there is a very real potential that Reboot Alberta may have introduced an ongoing variable to public life in Alberta, and I am looking forward to seeing how that variable impacts the game.
Some other responses to be found here:
Alex Abboud - http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/rebooting-alberta-instant-reaction/
Chris Labossiere -http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/28/i-just-rebooted-myself-and-it-feels-good.html
Dave Cournoyer - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/reboot-alberta-211pm.html
Andrew Mcintyre - http://andrewmcintyre.ca/2009/11/29/rebooting-democracy-in-alberta/
DJ Kelly - http://djkelly.ca/2009/11/progress-and-respect/
Alberta Altruist - http://thealbertaaltruist.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-thoughts-on-rebootab-movement.html
Johnathan Teghtmeyer - http://atypicalalbertan.blogspot.com/2009/11/progressives-gather-to-reboot-alberta.html
To begin I want to thank Dave King, Ken Chapman and the other organizers for making this event happen; and to thank Bryna and Xanthe for their great work keeping everything running so smoothly. I would also like to thank everyone who attended for providing an impressive combination of intensity and goodwill that made the open-ended organic format of the weekend work so well. Reboot Alberta turned out to have been perhaps the single most interesting conference or event I have ever attended.
At the first session on Saturday someone said “There is a real feeling that the existing parties are failing to address our needs” during the preamble to their remarks. This is as good a starting point as any for how and why this disparate group of people gathered in Red Deer on the Grey cup weekend to talk politics, policy and citizenship. The variety of interesting and articulate people at Reboot was exceptional. There were current and former elected officials, ranging from school trustees to cabinet ministers, partisans of all parties from both the elected and back room crowds, commentators and business people. This diverse crowd of interesting and articulate people gathered together to explore how public life in Alberta might be improved and what it means to be ‘progressive’, if anything. I was impressed by the respectful intensity of the weekend – everyone had something to offer but everyone also wanted to hear what others had to say and the result was an extraordinary experience.
There were a great many sessions running, and obviously I only participated in a small minority of them. There are three that I did participate in that I wanted to talk about, starting with the session on “What is a progressive”. The variety of the weekend was certainly visible in this sessions, which included a PC and Liberal who had rarely sat at an event together without coming to (verbal) blows who warily found that in many respects their concerns matched, if not their prescriptions. The session felt in many ways like we were looking for the walls of a dark room – we knew they were there but not where they were or how they were laid out. In the end there was a broad consensus on a few issues but no definition of what a progressive might be.
I also participated in two sessions around the idea of creating a new political party here in Alberta. Both sessions were large and lively, especially as they included people of every viewpoint on the matter – for, against, and uncommitted or waiting to see what form such a party might take. All of these positions were discussed and many ideas about what parties are and should be were fielded. In the event it looks like the people behind the Renew Alberta initiative are going to move forward with the creation of a party. For what it is worth I wish them luck, these kind of initiatives are essential for the health of our system. It was interesting to see the depth of dissatisfaction with the functioning of our existing parties, whether it be the culture of entitlement in some or of defeat in others, even from those who are committed members of one or the other.
The last session I participated in that I wanted to mention specifically was one on how to improve Alberta through the operation of the existing political system in the province. Thirteen of us (out of 90 or so!) decided that this was the mechanism of change we wanted to discuss, and that group ranged across the political spectrum and generations. I was struck, powerfully so, that this group of highly partisan type A personalities proceeded to have one of the most respectful, on-topic and frank discussions I’ve ever been a part of. No-one so much as interrupted, which is a level of civility I rarely see even among friends! The other striking thing about this session was that we all shared a great many concerns about the functioning of the system, even those from the government or governing party. Unfortunately solutions for these issues within the context of the existing system were thinner on the ground and we were essentially forced to concede that changes are needed.
That session brought out many of the issues that everyone at the event seemed to feeling. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the ‘dumbing down’ of politics and public life, and the nastiness that seems to have increasingly crept in. This is perceived by many, myself included, as a part of the general devaluing of our systems and institutions in general, even by those who are a part of them. I would argue that this is one of the most important areas for us to address, whether you define yourself a ‘progressive’ or anything else. As an element of that is the notable dissatisfaction with the way parties work – whether the frustration of those both within or without the existing ones or those engaged in starting new ones, whether the Wild Rose or the Renew Alberta people. The range and importance of these issues is certainly sufficient to explain the turnout and the passion at Reboot Alberta.
Finally there is the question of what, if anything, will come of the weekend. Firstly Reboot connected a number of people who otherwise would not have met, provided many short term benefits in terms if ideas and conversation. In the long term who knows what those ideas and connections will lead to? Secondly the fielding and discussion, in a very open and extended format, of a wide variety of interesting ideas provided a lot of learning opportunities. Perhaps even more importantly the format and people at this event generated a lot of energy - people left brimming with energy and ready to take action, whatever their field of endeavour. Finally, in addition to the other potential benefits, the experience was so singular that efforts are being made to maintain contact through a Reboot Alberta virtual community, an effort I certainly support and will be a part of. In short there is a very real potential that Reboot Alberta may have introduced an ongoing variable to public life in Alberta, and I am looking forward to seeing how that variable impacts the game.
Some other responses to be found here:
Alex Abboud - http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/rebooting-alberta-instant-reaction/
Chris Labossiere -http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/28/i-just-rebooted-myself-and-it-feels-good.html
Dave Cournoyer - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/reboot-alberta-211pm.html
Andrew Mcintyre - http://andrewmcintyre.ca/2009/11/29/rebooting-democracy-in-alberta/
DJ Kelly - http://djkelly.ca/2009/11/progress-and-respect/
Alberta Altruist - http://thealbertaaltruist.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-thoughts-on-rebootab-movement.html
Johnathan Teghtmeyer - http://atypicalalbertan.blogspot.com/2009/11/progressives-gather-to-reboot-alberta.html
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Modernizing the Party
Jason Morris wrote a blog entry on some changes he would like to see in the political process, the link is in my last post. One of his proposals was to vest more power in what he called the ‘super caucus’ – essentially nominated candidates as well as elected members. The idea is interesting, and reflects something I have long wanted to see at the Federal level. The idea serves two purposes: empowering local associations of the membership regardless of the current status of a seat and widening the pool of talent available to party leaderships. Both are good things, and I think that this is an idea every party should be pursuing, especially as it entails relatively little disruption in the existing process.
One of the basic ideas I would like to see enacted here in Alberta is the creation of a neutral 3rd-party election authority, along the lines of Elections Canada or Elections BC. This body would be created to take control over managing elections, hiring elections officials and the management of district boundaries. The removal of all of these things from the partisan realm is simply good management, as it removes several obvious conflicts of interest and creates stability in the management of these important logistical matters.
Perhaps more importantly I agree with Mr. Morris and many others that it is time for a major renovation of the political party, and there is no reason not to start here in Alberta. Political parties are a practical response to the requirements of democratic, in particular representative-style, government. From the beginnings of their modern form in 18th-century Britain they have been criticized for promoting ‘faction’ or partisanship over good governance. In fact the pamphlets known as Cato’s Letter’s by Gordon and Trenchard, dating from the early 1720’s, concerned with promoting and defending freedom of conscience and speech, spent a considerable amount of time on the issue. Perhaps ironically over this lengthy series of pamphlets there are very few debating points on the issue of parties, even today, that are not dealt with.
( Cato’s Letters: http://classicliberal.tripod.com/cato/ I recommend these highly, the writing is excellent and many of the issues retain their interest. In addition these were central documents in the evolution of both British and American thinking, with a contemporary impact as substantial as Locke’s. My apologies for the digression!)
What are the dominant characteristics of our parties today? First of all they are, relative to the population, small. This small size makes them, to greater or lesser degrees, closed clubs with a fixed membership. Secondly their membership is not representative of the electorate, being on the whole wealthier, older and whiter. Thirdly they are very much, and avowedly, top-down organizations that make little effort to engage with and empower the bulk of their membership, focusing instead on their elites. This makes them rigid, as well as reinforcing the preceding characteristics.
The changes in our information environment and the rise of social media threaten organizations like this with going the way of Eaton’s. Already the federal parties are trying to use social media, online forums and improved databasing; the issue is that they haven’t yet actually changed their cultures. One of the topics I most look forward to discussing at Reboot Alberta this weekend is how the political party as we know it can be reformed to make it more responsive to and representative of citizens, through the use of these new tools and media. It is my belief that we now have the opportunity to flatten the organization of our political parties, increasing the access for and importance of the individual members.
One of the basic ideas I would like to see enacted here in Alberta is the creation of a neutral 3rd-party election authority, along the lines of Elections Canada or Elections BC. This body would be created to take control over managing elections, hiring elections officials and the management of district boundaries. The removal of all of these things from the partisan realm is simply good management, as it removes several obvious conflicts of interest and creates stability in the management of these important logistical matters.
Perhaps more importantly I agree with Mr. Morris and many others that it is time for a major renovation of the political party, and there is no reason not to start here in Alberta. Political parties are a practical response to the requirements of democratic, in particular representative-style, government. From the beginnings of their modern form in 18th-century Britain they have been criticized for promoting ‘faction’ or partisanship over good governance. In fact the pamphlets known as Cato’s Letter’s by Gordon and Trenchard, dating from the early 1720’s, concerned with promoting and defending freedom of conscience and speech, spent a considerable amount of time on the issue. Perhaps ironically over this lengthy series of pamphlets there are very few debating points on the issue of parties, even today, that are not dealt with.
( Cato’s Letters: http://classicliberal.tripod.com/cato/ I recommend these highly, the writing is excellent and many of the issues retain their interest. In addition these were central documents in the evolution of both British and American thinking, with a contemporary impact as substantial as Locke’s. My apologies for the digression!)
What are the dominant characteristics of our parties today? First of all they are, relative to the population, small. This small size makes them, to greater or lesser degrees, closed clubs with a fixed membership. Secondly their membership is not representative of the electorate, being on the whole wealthier, older and whiter. Thirdly they are very much, and avowedly, top-down organizations that make little effort to engage with and empower the bulk of their membership, focusing instead on their elites. This makes them rigid, as well as reinforcing the preceding characteristics.
The changes in our information environment and the rise of social media threaten organizations like this with going the way of Eaton’s. Already the federal parties are trying to use social media, online forums and improved databasing; the issue is that they haven’t yet actually changed their cultures. One of the topics I most look forward to discussing at Reboot Alberta this weekend is how the political party as we know it can be reformed to make it more responsive to and representative of citizens, through the use of these new tools and media. It is my belief that we now have the opportunity to flatten the organization of our political parties, increasing the access for and importance of the individual members.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Political Labels
This post is largely in response to the growing dialogue surrounding Reboot Alberta, the site for which is here: http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
In particular This blog post from Chris LaBossiere: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/15/meet-chris-the-progressive-capitalist.html
and this one from Jason Morris:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/thoughts-on-how-to-do-politics-differently/
both speak to issues I have been giving some thought to lately and are worth responding to.
In essence Mr. LaBossiere's post has contributed to the conversation I have been having with myself about how to define political orientations and positions in our increasingly complex political firmament. Mr. Morris' post relates to my other major intellectual engagement with our political system these days - how do we modernize the structure of the political party to provide a better, more open and effective organization through which our citizens can contribute to the body politic? More on the latter in a post tomorrow, today I want to deal with the question of definitions.
The left/right dichotomy is over two hundred years old at this point, dating as it does from the National Convention of 1791, and over the years these terms' meanings have grown and changed constantly. Originally strictly referring (via seating arrangements relative to the chamber's speaker) to the political loyalties of the members, either royalist or montagnard. With the growth of economic factors in politics the terms grew to accommodate these ideas as well during the 19th century.
Where does that leave us today? In short it leaves us with an old, inflexible and ineffective terminology in general use for describing one another's political views. The result is a hampered dialogue, in which the label assigned frequently fails to convey any useful information, or at least insufficient information. We are in a similar position to a cook whose labels all read "bitter" or "sugary" - we have some information but not enough to make anything beyond the most basic dish.
This tool http://www.politicalcompass.org/ reflects some of the scholarship from the world of political science by marking out people's views on two axes - Authoritarian/Libertarian and communitarian/capitalist. By adding only one more variable a much more useful set of descriptors is created, but as Mr. LaBossiere points out the result still doesn't allow for much individuality. That, fundamentally, is the challenge for Canadian political institutions and representatives - they now exist in a highly individualized and open information environment. As a result citizens are demanding increased attention and, dare I say it, flexibility from their leaders and representatives. The era of the loyal voter, or the one-issue voter, is drawing to a close in Canada and other democracies simply because people are now able to engage with their interests and make choices in a much more flexible way than ever before.
For myself I am in most senses a 19th-century liberal - interested in the greatest possible individual liberty and minimal interference in the lives of its citizens by the state, while still believing that there are spheres appropriate for government action and believing that in those spheres government can accomplish much good. As a result, depending on the issue, I can swing from 'left' to right' quite dramatically; sometimes I am hard to pin down on even individual issues. For example I am a great believer in universal public health care, both on the principle that all citizens should have access to quality care and on the basis that universal provision, via the economies of scale, has proven to be cheaper and more efficient than any other method. Left and right in the same response.
One of the elements I most look forward to at Reboot Alberta is a discussion with a number of people whose thoughts I have enjoyed and been stimulated by about these topics.
In particular This blog post from Chris LaBossiere: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/15/meet-chris-the-progressive-capitalist.html
and this one from Jason Morris:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/thoughts-on-how-to-do-politics-differently/
both speak to issues I have been giving some thought to lately and are worth responding to.
In essence Mr. LaBossiere's post has contributed to the conversation I have been having with myself about how to define political orientations and positions in our increasingly complex political firmament. Mr. Morris' post relates to my other major intellectual engagement with our political system these days - how do we modernize the structure of the political party to provide a better, more open and effective organization through which our citizens can contribute to the body politic? More on the latter in a post tomorrow, today I want to deal with the question of definitions.
The left/right dichotomy is over two hundred years old at this point, dating as it does from the National Convention of 1791, and over the years these terms' meanings have grown and changed constantly. Originally strictly referring (via seating arrangements relative to the chamber's speaker) to the political loyalties of the members, either royalist or montagnard. With the growth of economic factors in politics the terms grew to accommodate these ideas as well during the 19th century.
Where does that leave us today? In short it leaves us with an old, inflexible and ineffective terminology in general use for describing one another's political views. The result is a hampered dialogue, in which the label assigned frequently fails to convey any useful information, or at least insufficient information. We are in a similar position to a cook whose labels all read "bitter" or "sugary" - we have some information but not enough to make anything beyond the most basic dish.
This tool http://www.politicalcompass.org/ reflects some of the scholarship from the world of political science by marking out people's views on two axes - Authoritarian/Libertarian and communitarian/capitalist. By adding only one more variable a much more useful set of descriptors is created, but as Mr. LaBossiere points out the result still doesn't allow for much individuality. That, fundamentally, is the challenge for Canadian political institutions and representatives - they now exist in a highly individualized and open information environment. As a result citizens are demanding increased attention and, dare I say it, flexibility from their leaders and representatives. The era of the loyal voter, or the one-issue voter, is drawing to a close in Canada and other democracies simply because people are now able to engage with their interests and make choices in a much more flexible way than ever before.
For myself I am in most senses a 19th-century liberal - interested in the greatest possible individual liberty and minimal interference in the lives of its citizens by the state, while still believing that there are spheres appropriate for government action and believing that in those spheres government can accomplish much good. As a result, depending on the issue, I can swing from 'left' to right' quite dramatically; sometimes I am hard to pin down on even individual issues. For example I am a great believer in universal public health care, both on the principle that all citizens should have access to quality care and on the basis that universal provision, via the economies of scale, has proven to be cheaper and more efficient than any other method. Left and right in the same response.
One of the elements I most look forward to at Reboot Alberta is a discussion with a number of people whose thoughts I have enjoyed and been stimulated by about these topics.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More Climate Change Policy Conversation
Just a quick post to share some information.
First of all a link to Jeffrey Simpson's article in today's Globe and Mail regarding Canada's policy toward the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference. To quote -
"Once before, Canada went to a climate-change conference, at Kyoto, and made promises it could not and did not keep. It would appear a repeat performance is in the making. Or, to put things differently: new government, same script."
The article is worth a read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/once-again-climate-change-promises-ottawa-cant-keep/article1342392/
On a more inormative note a report is now available on the topic from the Pembina Institute/Toronto Dominion Bank/David Suzuki Foundation & can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/climate-leadership-report-en.pdf
For other policy nerds the math which supports the above report, from MK Jaccard & Associates, can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/mkja-climate-targets-report.pdf
Thanks to Trish Audette of the Edmonton Journal for pointing me to the links.
Minister Prentice's response to the report was certainly not positive - "The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible" - but he hasn't advanced any data or analyses on behalf of the government. It is my profound hope that the government provides us with something more interesting than the obviously empty platitudes that have been advanced for the Copenhagen delegation. I am not wedded to any particular policy at this point, but I have become actively interested in doing research into the sustainability of our current economic models. I would also like to point out that Climate Change, or global warming if you will, is only a small part of the sustainability question. I look forward to a positive program from Minister Prentice at the earliest date!
Globe article on Mr. Prentice's response:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-change-report-irresponsible-prentice-says/article1344485/
*Late Edit* Read some thoughts on this from Ken Chapman on his blog here:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-leadership-and-economic.html
First of all a link to Jeffrey Simpson's article in today's Globe and Mail regarding Canada's policy toward the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference. To quote -
"Once before, Canada went to a climate-change conference, at Kyoto, and made promises it could not and did not keep. It would appear a repeat performance is in the making. Or, to put things differently: new government, same script."
The article is worth a read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/once-again-climate-change-promises-ottawa-cant-keep/article1342392/
On a more inormative note a report is now available on the topic from the Pembina Institute/Toronto Dominion Bank/David Suzuki Foundation & can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/climate-leadership-report-en.pdf
For other policy nerds the math which supports the above report, from MK Jaccard & Associates, can be found here:
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/mkja-climate-targets-report.pdf
Thanks to Trish Audette of the Edmonton Journal for pointing me to the links.
Minister Prentice's response to the report was certainly not positive - "The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible" - but he hasn't advanced any data or analyses on behalf of the government. It is my profound hope that the government provides us with something more interesting than the obviously empty platitudes that have been advanced for the Copenhagen delegation. I am not wedded to any particular policy at this point, but I have become actively interested in doing research into the sustainability of our current economic models. I would also like to point out that Climate Change, or global warming if you will, is only a small part of the sustainability question. I look forward to a positive program from Minister Prentice at the earliest date!
Globe article on Mr. Prentice's response:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-change-report-irresponsible-prentice-says/article1344485/
*Late Edit* Read some thoughts on this from Ken Chapman on his blog here:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-leadership-and-economic.html
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Reboot Alberta
In ironic counterpoint to the exasperation of my last point I have booked myself a trip to Red Deer in November to take part in the Reboot Alberta event.
This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."
I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.
Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html
Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html
This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."
I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.
Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/
Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html
Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html
Monday, October 26, 2009
Security Certificates Extinct?
While catching up on The Economist this morning I found this little article on the failure of Canadian Security Certificates law to pass muster with the courts. http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700736
It has been my opinion that the certificates are fundamentally flawed as a legal mechanism, and so their tenuous future is to my mind a good thing. The Anti-Terrorism Act already covers the procedures necessary, and is not an egregious exception to the general practice of our common law. What did catch my attention was the last paragraph, for several reasons.
"This is not a government that admits its mistakes, so there will be no public repudiation of the certificate programme for use in catching terrorists. It will be quietly discarded. But that may not be the last Canadians hear of it. One of the former detainees has publicly mused about suing the government now that he is free."
That summary is, sadly, quite accurate, and the lawsuit will more than likely be successful.
It has been my opinion that the certificates are fundamentally flawed as a legal mechanism, and so their tenuous future is to my mind a good thing. The Anti-Terrorism Act already covers the procedures necessary, and is not an egregious exception to the general practice of our common law. What did catch my attention was the last paragraph, for several reasons.
"This is not a government that admits its mistakes, so there will be no public repudiation of the certificate programme for use in catching terrorists. It will be quietly discarded. But that may not be the last Canadians hear of it. One of the former detainees has publicly mused about suing the government now that he is free."
That summary is, sadly, quite accurate, and the lawsuit will more than likely be successful.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Stimulus and Partisanship
I had this article brought to my attention this morning: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1147994.html
It is worth diving into the comments section as well, there is some interesting by-play there.
I share the author's serious concerns about the systemic obfuscation regarding the stimulus spending. Whether or not there are partisan abuses of the system is hard to say, given that it is almost impossible to ascertain what money is in fact spent, or committed, and what stage of planning the projects concerned are at. Based on my research there are certainly enough gaps to be concerned, but not enough information to be definitive.
Obviously it is my opinion that this information should be easily and freely available - in as much detail as possible. Sadly this government appears to oppose, as both Conservative and Liberal governments have in the past, free access to public information. What the Harper government has managed, however, is to promote stonewalling to an art form. Given the reform roots and the passionate cries for transparency and grassroots engagement that informed that movement under Mr. Manning it is particularly depressing to see the lengths to which Mr. Harper and his government are going to prevent just such transparency.
It is worth diving into the comments section as well, there is some interesting by-play there.
I share the author's serious concerns about the systemic obfuscation regarding the stimulus spending. Whether or not there are partisan abuses of the system is hard to say, given that it is almost impossible to ascertain what money is in fact spent, or committed, and what stage of planning the projects concerned are at. Based on my research there are certainly enough gaps to be concerned, but not enough information to be definitive.
Obviously it is my opinion that this information should be easily and freely available - in as much detail as possible. Sadly this government appears to oppose, as both Conservative and Liberal governments have in the past, free access to public information. What the Harper government has managed, however, is to promote stonewalling to an art form. Given the reform roots and the passionate cries for transparency and grassroots engagement that informed that movement under Mr. Manning it is particularly depressing to see the lengths to which Mr. Harper and his government are going to prevent just such transparency.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Following the Wrong Road
The progress of Bill C-25, which will end the so-called 'two for one credit', though Parliament troubles me. Bill C-25 would end the common practice of giving criminals a two-for-one credit for time served in jail before being sentenced. Instead, the bill would have judges give them a straight credit for time served. The political optics of getting 'tough on crime' in this way are sufficiently obvious that they can be passed over without elaboration.
That said the idea that 'criminals need to be in jail' is both simplistic and incorrect. Obviously I am not talking about serial killers or sexual predators here, and my feelings about things like the Karla Homolka case are undoubtedly very close to the of Minister Van Loan. This class of criminal makes up a tiny percentage of the people brought before our courts, however, and as the exceptions are a truly terrible sample on which to base the rule.
Two issues are problematic with this bill: the lack of costing and the absence of discussion or planning for what this means for our correctional system. Apparently the bill has been costed, but the numbers can not be released because of cabinet confidentiality. This is completely unacceptable - the lawmakers of the land are being asked to vote into law a bill that the government doesn't want them to see the numbers for? Not to mention it is difficult to see how cabinet confidentiality applies in this case, as the bill is an open matter before the house and no national security interests are at issue. That being said data from Statistics Canada indicates that the bill will lead to at least a 10 per cent increase in the federal prison population, and costs well over $100-million a year.
The cost is, of course, just a number. In point of fact it isn't, unless the Cabinet knows something that they don't want us to know, a terribly large number either. More important than the dollar number is the increase in the prison population. What this bill completely fails to discuss is what correctional services across the country are supposed to do with these new inmates, or how to reduce the numbers in the future or prevent recidivism among those convicted of crimes.
Moving beyond the problems I have with the particulars, or more accurately the lack of particulars, are the flawed principles that motivate it. What our government is proposing to do, in a smaller and less explicit way, is to follow the path blazed in the United States over the past 20 years. The process of mandatory sentencing and restrictions on options other than prison has led to a situation where there are now 2.3 million people incarcerated and another 5 million or so on parole or probation in the United States. To put his in perspective approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored - an outcome that simply screams failure.
Restricting the Criminal Justice system's options is not actually helpful, as the administration of justice is as complex as the people the system serves. The government has not made a case that the 'two-for-one' practice is a serious flaw in the system. More importantly this bill strikes me as advancing an agenda of unthinking rigidity in the administration of Justice, the failed results of which are visible south of the border.
That said the idea that 'criminals need to be in jail' is both simplistic and incorrect. Obviously I am not talking about serial killers or sexual predators here, and my feelings about things like the Karla Homolka case are undoubtedly very close to the of Minister Van Loan. This class of criminal makes up a tiny percentage of the people brought before our courts, however, and as the exceptions are a truly terrible sample on which to base the rule.
Two issues are problematic with this bill: the lack of costing and the absence of discussion or planning for what this means for our correctional system. Apparently the bill has been costed, but the numbers can not be released because of cabinet confidentiality. This is completely unacceptable - the lawmakers of the land are being asked to vote into law a bill that the government doesn't want them to see the numbers for? Not to mention it is difficult to see how cabinet confidentiality applies in this case, as the bill is an open matter before the house and no national security interests are at issue. That being said data from Statistics Canada indicates that the bill will lead to at least a 10 per cent increase in the federal prison population, and costs well over $100-million a year.
The cost is, of course, just a number. In point of fact it isn't, unless the Cabinet knows something that they don't want us to know, a terribly large number either. More important than the dollar number is the increase in the prison population. What this bill completely fails to discuss is what correctional services across the country are supposed to do with these new inmates, or how to reduce the numbers in the future or prevent recidivism among those convicted of crimes.
Moving beyond the problems I have with the particulars, or more accurately the lack of particulars, are the flawed principles that motivate it. What our government is proposing to do, in a smaller and less explicit way, is to follow the path blazed in the United States over the past 20 years. The process of mandatory sentencing and restrictions on options other than prison has led to a situation where there are now 2.3 million people incarcerated and another 5 million or so on parole or probation in the United States. To put his in perspective approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored - an outcome that simply screams failure.
Restricting the Criminal Justice system's options is not actually helpful, as the administration of justice is as complex as the people the system serves. The government has not made a case that the 'two-for-one' practice is a serious flaw in the system. More importantly this bill strikes me as advancing an agenda of unthinking rigidity in the administration of Justice, the failed results of which are visible south of the border.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)