LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

The brain-trust of the Samara Centre for Democracy had a piece in Policy Options last week that proposed the creation of permanent citizen assemblies to be housed within the Senate as an exercise in "deliberative democracy" for Canadians.  Their idea is that a representative sample of citizens selected by lottery would be sent to Ottawa to "learn about, discuss and make decisions on an issue," which raises all kinds of questions in my mind about what this does to our Westminster parliamentary system overall.  While there should always be a way to get people more engaged in the political process, I am dubious that this is the vehicle by which to do it.

Our system, were it functioning the way it is intended, is designed to have the input of ordinary citizens in the process.  This is ostensibly the point of grassroots democracy, where regular people join a party and participate in policy discussions that lead to policy resolutions that the party then votes on as a whole in biennial policy conventions.  They also take part in the process of candidate nomination, which can also function as holding incumbent MPs to account, particularly in "safe" ridings for a party.  A functional constituency association would be able to act as a liaison between the concerns of ordinary citizens and the parliamentary caucus in normal circumstances.

Unfortunately, we have drifted away from how this is system is designed to operate.  The increasing power of party leaders as a direct result of how we select them in quasi-American primaries has meant that parties have now flipped and instead of being bottom-up from the grassroots, they are now top-down from the leader, who decides on policies as part of the leadership selection process, and imposes them upon the grassroots instead of the other way around.  Leaders also exert too much control over candidate nominations, and the role of grassroots members is now more as a focus group outside of the leadership selection process, and time and again, we see parties essentially renting members or supporters for those leadership contests, who don't stick around.

With this in mind, I find myself immediately suspicious of what this citizen assembly proposal is aiming to do.  Instead of looking to fix our current system and restoring the grassroots engagement process within parties, we are instead greeted with a proposal to weld a completely unnecessary body into an existing parliamentary body the Senate and using it as an excuse to promote civic engagement, with little regard for how it intrinsically devalues the role of representative democracy and how it short-circuits the whole role of Parliament as a body by which to hold the government to account.

The first question to ask is what exactly we would be asking these assemblies to decide upon.  The Policy Options piece suggests that as a first step, an assembly could be convened to "consider priorities for social and economic rebuilding after the pandemic."  Under the model proposed, these assemblies would spend a minimum of 40 hours learning about the problem and having a "good-faith discussion" about it, minus all of the grandstanding and assignation of blame within the House of Commons.  I'm not sure that 40 hours is enough to learn about the economic and sociological issues that have been laid bare by the pandemic and the decades of policies that have led to this point, but that is not the point.  The point is that this process undermines our current democratic foundation.

When the assembly presents its report, the expectation is that government would act on it, under the vision that these assemblies are becoming a "third house of Parliament," but we immediately find ourselves in a problem of accountability.  If we expect a government that must maintain the confidence of Parliament to implement the recommendations of a bunch of random strangers, how are we to hold them to account?  They will insist that their hands were tied, or they will launder the accountability for decisions by way of these assemblies.  Governments of all stripes in this country already have a bad habit of ensuring that they are "forced" to make tough decisions usually by the courts and we have countless examples of just this.  These assemblies would just be one more way of governments finding ways of being "forced" to have tough decisions "imposed" on them by giving them to these assemblies, so that they can claim not to be held accountable for them.

I am also deeply disturbed by the fact that part of the motivation for these assemblies is to do an end-run around partisan politics, particularly in how the authors have framed their desire to place the structure of these assemblies in the "new" Senate a body which has developed a whole host of new problems that had not existed in its over-150-year history because of the way that the current prime minister cut it loose from the existing party structure, and left new appointees to fend for themselves.  The authors also fail to recognise that there are demonstrable problems with many citizens' assemblies, particularly in that they have a remarkable tendency to deliver outcomes that match the biases of those who are appointed to guide them, such as why assemblies on electoral reform always tends to come up with a form of mixed-member proportional.

"When used correctly, they are tools for giving people a sense of agency, facilitating learning, transcending polarization, engendering trust in democratic processes, and building agreement and acceptance of policy decisions," the authors claim of these assemblies, but this doesn't actually engender trust in the democratic process.  Rather, it undermines it in favour of farming out decisions to these unelected assemblies under the guise of progressivity and being a "leader" in democratic innovation.  We should instead be encouraging a return to a strengthened grassroots process that engages people within the existing party structures where there is accountability in Parliament and at the ballot box for policies and decisions taken.

Photo Credit: Senate Of Canada

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


It's a political cliché like no other: I'm for Main Street, not Wall Street (or Bay Street, in our case).

Yet, for generations, Main Streets have struggled, with big-box stores and shopping malls drawing consumer dollars away, and the reliance on the car a challenge for storefronts to adapt to when their surrounding and enabling infrastructure was built up a century or more ago.

Likewise, municipalities, provincial and federal governments have worked over the past few decades to fund infrastructure renewal, incentivize facade upgrading, invest in banners or other aesthetic improvements, and otherwise catalyze Main Streets to succeed with mixed results.

Some efforts have seen great success, with local restaurants or cultural attractions becoming tourist destinations; others have experienced "one step forward, two steps back" results, as one small business closing causes a domino effect undoing years of baby steps forward.

But during COVID-19, Canada's Main Streets particularly in rural municipalities are being battered like never before.

Jon Shell of Save Our Small Businesses summed it in appropriately municipal terms when he said, "I see a lot of people trying to compare [COVID-19] to the recession caused by the 2008/9 financial crisis…That was a pothole. This is a collapsed bridge."

It is critical that a recovery plan for COVID-19 include aggressive measures to invest in our Main Streets.

As Kay Matthews, the executive director of the Ontario Business Improvement Area Association said, "Our main streets are resilient, they have survived in Canada for hundreds of years, they will survive again, but in order for them to move beyond mere survival they will need priority investment, nurturing and dedicated stewardship in order to thrive."

Such "priority investment" must come from all levels of government.

For their part, Premier Doug Ford's recent Ontario budget included a potential game changer for Main Streets.  The Tories' fiscal blueprint includes a commitment to enable municipalities to "provide a property tax reduction for eligible small businesses through the adoption of a new optional small business property subclass.  The Province will consider matching these municipal property tax reductions in order to further reduce taxes on jobs now and in the future."

For struggling small businesses, such tax relief will do much to stabilize such a frightening economic situation.

But municipalities also have to step up to the plate.

It is something of a trope of local politics that most municipalities have existing Main Street improvement plans for infrastructure renewal "sitting on a shelf".  There is no better time than the coming downturn from COVID-19 to stimulate economic growth by dusting off those revitalization plans in a manner that supports Main Street businesses for the long-term.

As the Canadian Urban Institute suggests in a recent report, "Main streets provide value for investment… main streets 'punch above their weight'… they provide significant portions of the city's tax base (usually around 10 to 15 per cent), a concentration of jobs, cultural institutions, and entertainment offerings.

The Institute goes on to say, "Big public investments, in community facilities, public realm upgrades, parks, public art in our downtowns have historically had great success in growing public confidence and stimulating local economies.  As we're thinking about recovery, considering value for investment will help to ensure public and private funds are used strategically to support economic growth and the vibrancy and livability of our communities."

It may be a political cliché to be for Main Street but it is also imperative for COVID-19 recovery.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


$381.6 billion.

That's the current projection for the federal deficit this fiscal year.  It was officially announced on November 30 in the House of Commons.

Don't gloss over this number.  Don't slough it off.  Don't explain it away.  Let this figure properly sink in for a minute or two.

Now, consider this.

The previous federal deficit projection for the 2020-21 fiscal year was $342.2 billion.  This figure was first announced on July 8, when the Tories and opposition parties forced the Liberal government's hand and demanded transparency with respect to COVID-19 spending.  That would have already been the largest economic shortfall in Canada since the Second World War.

This means the federal deficit projection has increased almost $40 billion between July 8 and November 30, or an average of about $10 billion per month.

Again, don't gloss over these numbers.  Don't slough them off.  Don't explain them away.  Let these figures properly sink in for a minute or two.

Here's one more point to consider.

Before COVID-19 struck, the federal deficit projection was an estimated $28.1 billion.  That's a difference of $353.5 billion since the first wave in March led to a national lockdown, many businesses closing their doors for health and safety measures, and the introduction of emergency relief measures to help Canadians survive this pandemic.

Most Canadians knew the federal deficit would increase dramatically during COVID-19.  This lengthy period of social distancing, wearing masks, washing our hands and limiting physical contact in our homes with family, friends and loved ones meant that individuals and businesses had to be protected.  We understood there would have to be a significant cost involved in doing so.

No-one ever assumed it would reach $342.2 billion, and then skyrocket to $381.6 billion.  This was far higher than most expectations and financial predictions.  The Liberals clearly weren't paying close attention to the programs they were introducing, and the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars they were spending.  It also shows why the Liberals didn't want to reveal these staggering figures until push came to shove.

This number could also end up being much higher, which is a frightening proposition.

How does the federal government plan on paying down this deficit?  When Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland tabled the economic statement yesterday, she announced there would be a stimulus package of between $70 billion to $100 billion over the next three years. "When the virus is under control and our economy is ready for new growth, we will deploy an ambitious stimulus package to jump-start our recovery," she said.

The Liberal stimulus package would reportedly help reduce the federal deficit to $121.2 billion in 2021-22, to $50 billion in 2022-23 and back to $24.9 billion by 2025-26.

Fair enough.  What programs will be introduced by Ottawa to help jump-start the shattered Canadian economy once more?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals didn't have a whole lot to say about a specific plan.  There will apparently be down-payments on so-called "transformative initiatives" like child care, job training and green initiatives.  How these flighty initiatives that most Canadians barely understand or care about right now will translate into a trusty sword to help slay the ravenous federal deficit monster is unknown at this stage.

Which isn't to say the federal government doesn't have a plan.  It does.  We won't find out most of the specifics until the next federal election is called, however.  As a guess, this will likely occur in spring 2021.

Trudeau will likely try to counter the staggering federal deficit with the ol' stimulus funding-cum-election strategy.  His messaging will include simple, easy to understand language, direct themes that resonate with Canadian communities, and an all-encompassing, "we're in this together" mentality that helps bring out a warm, fuzzy magic carpet for the PM to ride on.

For instance, he'll say that Ottawa was there for Canadians when they needed them most.  He created programs like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) to help individuals, families and businesses during COVID-19.  This new round of stimulus funding will enable Canadian businesses to thrive, consumer confidence to increase and the federal deficit to be tamed.

As is often the case with the Trudeau Liberals, they'll openly cheer increased spending measures and frilly green policies but plead the fifth when it comes to fiscal prudence, tax relief and reducing the size of government.  And make no mistake about it: there won't be a whiff of the latter when the election writ is finally dropped.

Will this strategy succeed?  The Liberals believe that words speak louder than actions a reversal of the old saying and will tug at heartstrings to win a third straight election.  If the Tories, NDP, Greens and other parties emphasize the eye-popping federal deficit, wasteful Liberal spending during COVID-19 and how long it could realistically take to pay it down, then all bets are off.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


A process.

That's what the Deputy Prime Minister calls you getting the vaccine that will keep you from getting sick, or maybe even dying.

"A process."

Chrystia Freeland, who is usually much more precise with words than her boss, actually said that this week.  Here's what she also said to a gaggle of Ottawa reporters: Canada is "well-positioned" on vaccines.  And: Canadians needing the potentially life-saving Covid-19 inoculation will need to wait "a while."

A process.  A while.  What, exactly, is a well-positioned process that takes a while, Deputy Prime Minister?

At her Monday press conference, Freeland also said this, in French: "Our federal government has contracts for purchasing the most successful candidate vaccines.  Canada has a group of vaccines that include all the vaccines that have produced positive results and include other candidate vaccines which we believe will be successful.  That is a good thing."

And it is indeed a good thing.  Pfizer and Moderna have developed vaccines that have been shown to be more than 90 per cent effective with every age group.  That's good news for humanity, generally, and Canadians, in particular.

But here's the problem: Americans and Britons and Mexicans and Germans and many, many other allies are starting massive and integrated campaigns to vaccinate their citizens soon.  As in, this month.

Canada?  Well, it's a process.  In a while.  We're well-positioned, though.

The Prime Minister was pressed on this last week.  He said: "If all goes according to plan, we should be able to have a majority of Canadians vaccinated by next September."  September.  Quote unquote.

You don't need a degree in geo-politics, or epidemiology, to get the difference.  Elsewhere in the world, millions of people are going to be lining up to be vaccinated in December 2020.

In Canada?  Months later, in September 2021.  "If all goes according to plan."

That ten-month difference is big.  Really big.  It's the stuff of electoral defeats, and Trudeau knows it.  So he has sent out Liberal proxies and fart-catchers to blame Stephen Harper and/or Jean Chretien.  Free trade is to blame, claim the straight-faced Trudeau folks, because we lost our drug-manufacturing capacity to evil free trade deals.

Well, no.  Check with the aforementioned Chrystia Freeland.  She spent many, many hours crafting a new free trade deal with the U.S. and Mexico.  Check with the many, many pharmaceutical firms in the province of Quebec who have been manufacturing drugs here for decades.  Ask them.

Besides, it's baloney.  Canada had a deal with China's CanSino to develop a vaccine.  Sources tell this writer that if the Trudeau regime had been a bit more savvy in its dealings with the Chinese, that deal could have been maintained.

But it fell apart.  The Canadian deal was struck in March, when the pandemic was raging.  Trudeau endorsed the deal in May but in the very same month, the Chinese abruptly changed their vaccine export rules.  They barred export of the CanSino vaccine.  Given the fact that China has illegally imprisoned and allegedly tortured two Canadian citizens, Trudeau shouldn't have been surprised by that.  At all.

But Trudeau didn't start looking for another deal, media have reported, until August.

And that, mostly, is why Justin Trudeau now has that deer-in-the-headlights look.  He knows that a ten-month wait will enrage Canadians, and almost certainly spell the end of his minority government.

It's not "a process," Prime Minister.  It's not something that should take "a while."

It's the most important thing of all: a vaccine to free us our economies, our children, our lives from the shackles of the coronavirus.

We don't want a process.  We don't want positioning.  We want the vaccine.

Now.

[Warren Kinsella was Chief of Staff to a former federal Liberal Minister of Health.]

 

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.