Author Archives: Zach Armstrong

Transparency vs Opacity

Posted on by
Reply

There’s no question accountability and transparency have taken centre stage recently. Frankly, I’m not sure why it’s taken this long. Prime Minister Harper was elected on a platform of accountability and transparency but has been a leader in opacity since taking office (see Afghan detainees, F35, gazebos, Del Mastro, Penashue, anti-terrorism, Duffy-Wight, Wallin, Glover-Bezan, etc.).

Understanding the desire for transparency, Justin Trudeau set a new standard during the Liberal leadership race. Last week he continued that leadership: he announced that Liberal MPs and Senators will begin disclosing their hospitality and travel expenses online for all to see. Yesterday, the Conservatives and New Democrats had an opportunity to join Trudeau and the Liberals by passing four motions:

  1. That Parliament begin posting MPs travel and hospitality expenses online.
  2. That Parliament begin posting MPs expense reports online.
  3. That the Auditor General audit the House of Commons administration; and
  4. That Parliament develop public guidelines to ensure proper spending.

Trudeau’s motions were clear: the rules for spending public money should be straightforward and available to the public so they can evaluate MPs spending for themselves. Trudeau said “sunshine is the best disinfectant,” but actions speak louder than words.

Instead of supporting these motions, the NDP decided to play political games. They denied unanimous consent, then Nathan Cullen introduced a motion of his own:

“That the Board of Internal Economy investigate the potential use of the Members’ Travel Points System to attend paid speaking engagements.”

A clear dig at Trudeau, who proactively disclosed his income from speaking engagements in February. In a rare show of cross-partisan cooperation, Cullen’s motion was adopted with unanimous consent.

Trudeau supported the NDP motion. The Liberal Party supported the NDP motion. They have nothing to hide. Can the NDP say the same?

In for the Wynne

Posted on by

The Ontario Liberal Party is choosing a new Leader, and I’m supporting Kathleen Wynne.

Kathleen knows how to win. Kathleen was first elected in 2003 as the Member of Provincial Parliament for Don Valley West. She defeated a Cabinet Minister. In 2007 she defeated John Tory, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, by almost 5,000 votes. In 2011 she defeated another Progressive Conservative by almost 12,000 votes.

Kathleen talks to supportersKathleen knows how to govern. Kathleen has been Minister of Education, Minister of Transportation, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. She understands that Ontario’s diversity is Ontario’s strength. She knows that solutions for the south might not work in the north, and that solutions born in Toronto might not survive in small-town Ontario. She can bring opposing sides to the table and help us find the way forward.

Kathleen got into politics to defend her kids’ schools from Mike Harris. She is a mom and a grandmother and she cares deeply about the future of our province.

I believe in Kathleen.

Tomorrow, I’m running as a delegate in London North Centre. If you’re eligible to vote, I encourage you to do so, and I hope I can count on your support.

Let’s take another step forward, together.

- Zach

The Tale of Two Truppes

Posted on by

Recently, several voters in London received a fundraising letter from Susan Truppe, the Conservative Member of Parliament from London North Centre. I’m going to look past the outright lies contained in the letter, and simply point you to Glen Pearson’s post where he describes the most egregious example.

I take issue with one section in particular, where the letter describes the incredible “exposure” Susan has delivered for London (underlining appears as it does in the letter):

“Susan has had the opportunity to rise in the House and honour the accomplishments of London North Centre citizens and businesses more times in one year than had been offered in the previous 4 years. This exposure helps her access the resources she needs to help resolve constituent concerns and broaden visibility for London and Southwestern Ontario.“

First, is the author of this letter suggesting that opposition members are not given proper resources “to help resolve constituent concerns”? Second, is this the kind of national and international exposure the author is referring to:

“Mr. Speaker, I know families in London and, in fact, all Canadians are worried about the very serious allegations that have been made against their former Liberal MP…The Liberals have not been in government since 2005 and, if these allegations are true, then they are still stealing.” -Susan Truppe in the House of Commons, October 19, 2012

Is this the type of national and international exposure that supports “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity” for London families? We already know the answer to that question. When Stephen Harper was first elected Prime Minister in 2006, the unemployment rate in London was 6.5%. When Susan Truppe was elected in 2011, it was 8.5%. Today, it stands at 9.0%. For all their focus on jobs, we aren’t seeing much in the way of results.

The time will come when Susan Truppe will have to worry about her own job, and Londoners won’t forget that ours were left behind.

Engagement is Meaningless without Action

Posted on by
Some leaders of the recent civic-engagement movement stand outside of London City Hall.

Photo: Metro/John Matisz

Metro News recently released an article about a “surge of…civic engagement groups in London”. Groups like Citizen Corps, the Citizens Panel, Better London, and City Symposium are all worthwhile and are doing great things for our city; however, they will do little to actually change the way London operates.

I should state that I often participate in the events organized by these groups. I am a regular attendee of City Symposium, I have attended Citizen Corps’ Pints & Politics events, and I’m a member of Emerging Leaders. If you were to attend some of these events, you will quickly notice you keep running into the same people. This isn’t unusual given that the most “engaged” people will want to be everywhere, all the time, but it does create a problem when real action needs to be taken: in Fall 2014.

Let’s take a moment to recall the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement. In the Spring of 2009 the Tea Party sprang up as a grassroots movement in American politics. Tea Partiers tended to be Republicans, but also had a “dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican leaders”. A year and a half later, tea partiers effectively organized during the 2010 Congressional elections to have tea party Republicans elected across the United States. Today, there is a 66 member Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and moderate Republican incumbents are being knocked off during their nominations by tea party candidates.

In contrast, the Occupy movement began to develop in the Fall of 2011, protesting social and economic inequality. The protests spanned across the globe, some larger than others, but they mostly fizzled out over the Winter months. Today, less than a year later, Occupy has all but faded from the media spotlight. It remains to be seen if the Occupy movement effectively organizes during the 2012 election cycle but, as the primary season comes to a close, I think it’s safe to say they will not.

What can be learned from this comparison? Citizen engagement gets you no where without political action.

It’s fine to talk about the 0% tax plan, and to imagine some great city with artists and playwrights and world-class museums, but if you want it to change you’re going to need a new City Council, a different City Council. The citizen “engagement” groups must start engaging more people. New people, different people.

Two years from now, if the 0% tax plan doesn’t succeed, if we’re still languishing in high unemployment with no vision of a better future, Londoners will be ready for change. The only question is: will we be ready to lead it?

Democratic Reform for the Brave

Posted on by

If there is one area where every Canadian political party agrees it’s that the current system of government isn’t working. Harper’s Conservatives want to see the Senate reformed while Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats want the Senate abolished. The Liberal Party, as usual, doesn’t really know what it wants; however, the party recently approved a policy to push for preferential voting (voters would rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. instead of marking an x). Everyone understands the system is broken, but no one can agree on a solution.

Inability to change the way our government works is a political reality. To change our system of government requires a change to our constitution and changing the constitution is incredibly difficult, as it should be. Altering the constitution requires approval from the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as approval from at least seven provincial Legislatures (and those provinces must represent at least 50% of Canada’s population). Previous attempts to change the constitution resulted in the Meech Lake Accord (1987) and Charlottetown Accord (1992); both failed and, Meech Lake in particular, energized support for Quebec sovereignty. Today, opening up the constitution is considered political suicide.

Alas, I am young and impetuous. I think Canadians deserve a government that is willing to have hard conversations, compromise, and make decisions. It’s time to renew our belief in democracy and change the way things are done in Ottawa. If I was designing our system of government, here is what I would propose:

Number of ridings by province in various redistribution formats.A House of Commons based on representative democracy and representation by
population. MPs would be elected by first-past-the-post (our current system), and directly accountable to the people who elected them. The number of ridings/province would be based on the population of the province, with each province and territory receiving at least one MP. As the Table above outlines, under the current system (see Current # MPs) the six smallest provinces (MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, and PEI) and QC are over-represented in the House while the fastest growing provinces (ON, BC, and AB) are under-represented. In the Fair Representation Act, the Harper Government has proposed adding 30 additional MPs to the House (see Proposed # MPs) to account for population growth, at an additional cost of $14.8-$18.2 million/year (plus $11.5 million/election). My proposal (My Proposed # MPs) uses a fixed number of 308 ridings, redistributed after each census by a non-partisan committee (appointed by the Governor General). I understand this would reduce the power of the maritimes and the prairie provinces, but that’s where the Senate comes into the picture.

An equal, elected, and effective Senate based on proportional representation. Senators (nine per province, one per territory) would be elected based on each party’s proportion of votes in each province. This would provide a major boost to the maritime provinces (who would hold thirty-six Senators), as well as the provinces west of Ontario (another thirty-six). Ontario and Quebec (who would hold a majority in the House) are minor players in the Senate, with only nine Senators each. Moreover, rural interests would be protected in the Senate with predominantly-rural provinces holding a majority. Elected Senators could also provide political parties with representation from every province (the Liberals would have elected a Senator from Alberta in 2011!).

I admit: this is a simplified solution. It doesn’t examine the extraneous demands provinces will make once the constitution is opened. It also ignores the inevitable outcry from Quebec. I truly believe Quebec holds a special place within Canada and that their heritage and language deserves protection; however, I don’t believe Quebec should be afforded extra influence within our federal government. That being said, I believe the system I have presented is fair, balanced, and easy to understand. Perhaps the best part of this idea is that voting system would not need to change: we still used first-past-the-post for our MPs and use the proportion of those votes for Senators. One ballot, one vote. Everyone is represented by a specific person in Ottawa (their MP), and everyone’s vote “counts” (at least for Senator).

I’m happy to hear what people think: leave a comment with any questions or suggestions you have!

Edit (April 25, 2012, 10:30am) - A couple people have asked what the Senate would look like right now given the results of the 2011 Federal Election. Based on a quick check of the provincial-breakdown of results the Senate would include 42 Conservatives, 25 NDP, 22 Liberals, 2 Greens, and 2 BQs (a majority would be 47).

McGuinty plays the Game of Thrones

Posted on by

Yesterday Finance Minister Dwight Duncan presented the 2012 budget. Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals are touting it as strong action to reduce the deficit, grow the economy, all “while protecting the results we’ve achieved in health care and education“. I’m not going to get into the specific measures outlined in the budget. Instead, let’s take a look at the impending showdown at Queen’s Park.

Dwight Duncan delivers the 2012 Ontario BudgetTim Hudak says his “Progressive” Conservative caucus will not support the budget, calling it a “weak and disappointing response to Ontario’s jobs and spending crisis“. He suggests corporate tax cuts (shocker) and more aggressive spending cuts to balance the books. However, even before the budget was released, Hudak said he was willing to force an election over the budget, “if need be.” This leaves Andrea Horwath and her NDP caucus as potential kingmakers. Horwath has decided to consult “everyday people” to help her decide whether she should support the budget, wondering “whether or not they bought a pig in a poke when the elected the Liberals” last fall. (Don’t worry, you’re not the only one confused by that statement.)

What would happen in an election? The short answer is, no one knows. Two polls were released on March 15th, one suggesting the Liberals were 10 points ahead of the PCs and the other saying they were 12 points behind. In the October election a total of 17 ridings were won by a margin of 5% or less (9 by Liberals, 4 by PCs, and 4 by the NDP). If these are the “swing” ridings, clearly the Liberals have the most to lose. However, they also have the most to gain. In the 8 non-Liberal swing ridings, 7 had a Liberal in second place. The PCs would be poised to win 1 from the NDP and 6 from the Liberals, while the NDP could pick up 3 from the Liberals. So, after 5 weeks of campaign and hundreds of millions of dollars, we could end up with a PC majority or minority, Liberal majority, or a shockingly familiar Liberal minority. What is clear is that that electorate is extremely volatile and anything could happen.

“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.” -Cersei Lannister

So the first minority showdown has arrived and it’s particularly crucial for Dalton McGuinty. If Ontario ends up back at the polls and the Liberals lose, he will surely be done in politics. If the Liberals win an election and are sent back with a majority, he will be permitted to retire in a few years in a stable government situation. However, if the budget passes and McGuinty morphs into the deficit slayer, there will surely be a(n even stronger) push for him to run for the federal Liberal Leadership in 2013. When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.

Voter Suppression

Posted on by
The Lorax“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.   It’s not.” – Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

It’s been almost two weeks since the election fraud scandal (#robocon / #robocall on twitter) hit the national news. It has been the focus of Question Period every day since, and continues to be a major story on a daily basis.

First, a quick primer for my apolitical readers: on election day each campaign pulls together its volunteers and starts calling its supporters. This vast and chaotic operation is called getting out the vote, or GOTV. Millions of calls are made across the country by every political party in order to make sure their supporters cast ballots. Sometimes, campaigns use robocalls (pre-recorded messages) instead of live callers.

The investigation by Elections Canada began in the riding of Guelph shortly after the election. Allegedly, an individual or individuals, sent out a robocall to Liberal/NDP supporters. The message claimed to be from Elections Canada and informed voters that their voting location had changed, then provided incorrect locations. At the very least people were inconvenienced, at worst some people were prevented from voting. The investigation has since widened to officially include the riding of Nipissing-Temiskaming. In addition, Elections Canada has received over 31,000 contacts from Canadians regarding illegal calls in up to 57 other ridings.

Preventing people from voting is against the law, period. It’s disgusting, and represents the lowest of lows within a democracy, but it isn’t the only type of voter suppression. Every time you heard “Stephane Dion is not a leader” or that Michael Ignatieff “didn’t come back for you” you experienced voter suppression in its legal form: negative advertising and character assassination. The Conservatives have honed their ability to deceive voters and demean opponents over the past decade, and it has not been limited to Liberal leaders. Here in London North Centre there was a brutal campaign suggesting Glen Pearson spent half his time in Sudan instead of doing his job, a claim that is patently false.

I’m glad everyone is finally coming to terms with an obvious truth: the Conservatives will stop at nothing to win power. Unfortunately, until we start paying attention; until we start caring a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.