A Tale of Two Resumes

Resume Upon Becoming Party Leader

Trudeau, Justin P.J.

JT

Elected Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada on April 14, 2013

Age: 41

Bachelor of Arts, McGill University

Bachelor of Education, University of British Columbia

Masters in Arts, McGill University (suspended to run for office)

Small Jobs (rafting instructor, camp counselor, snowboarding instructor)

High School Teacher

Actor (CBC Miniseries The Great War)

Activist for various causes (Darfur, Avalanches in British Columbia, Mining in Northwest Territories)

Head of the Katimavik Youth Program

Public Speaker

Member of Parliament, Papineau (elected 2008, re-elected 2011)

Harper, Stephen J.

Harper

Elected Leader of the Canadian Alliance on March 20, 2002

Age: 42

Bachelor of Economics, University of Calgary

Masters in Economics, University of Calgary

Small jobs (Imperial Oil Mail Room, others)

Reform Party Operative and assistant to an MP

President, National Citizens Coalition

Member of Parliament, Calgary West (elected 1993, resigned 1997)

These resumes are strikingly similar. Upon becoming the leader of their parties, Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper had almost identical achievements. Both held two post-secondary degrees, both were  elected to Parliament in their 30s, and both had sat in the House for five years when they won their party’s leadership elections. Yet there are differences. Harper ran in the safely Conservative/Reform riding of Calgary West and served for a single term. Trudeau won a contested nomination and defeated a Bloc Quebecois incumbent in Papineau, with the most recognizable federalist name in the country. He then held it despite 2011 being a horrid election for Liberals. Besides elected politics, Harper was President of a small conservative lobby group, and a party apparatchik. While much has been made of the jobs Trudeau had before politics, there is something to be said for being a teacher (of French, social studies and drama), running a youth program (Katimavik), working in the outdoors (rafting and snowboarding) and being an activist for important causes (Darfur, avalanche safety). As well, Trudeau worked across the country, while Harper’s experience was largely confined to Alberta. Yes, neither of these men has the CV of Marc Garneau or Michael Ignatieff. But how far did that get them? Both Trudeau and Harper are masters of the political arts. Beyond that Trudeau does have some history, unlike the Prime Minister. If you think that the Liberals’ new leader lacks experience, just look at the man now in 24 Sussex.

Why I don’t Prefer the Preferential Ballot

Today in Canada, the issue of democratic reform has become something of a “cause celebre” for the opposition. It’s not without cause: the time has come for fundamental change to Canada’s institutions of governance. Yet these reforms are of such magnitude that they have to be done carefully: we must reform the right way. To replace our “first past the post” system of elections, the idea of the preferential ballot has garnered widespread support, particularly within the Liberal party. The current Liberal leadership race will use the system and many advocate its use in Canadian federal elections. Justin Trudeau, Martha Hall Findlay, and majority of delegates at the 2012 Liberal Biennial Convention back it, among others. Yet it’s wrong.

The system is simple. Instead of voting for a single candidate, voters would rank their choices. In my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, there were five candidates on the ballot in 2011. I probably would’ve ranked them as follows; 1: Liberal, 2: Green, 3: NDP, 4: Conservative, 5: Marxist-Leninist. (This also assumes I would have been of the age to vote!) If no candidate received over 50 percent of first place votes, “instant runoffs” would’ve been held, with the weakest candidate eliminated and their support distributed to candidates who their voters marked as second choices. This would’ve continued for as many rounds as would’ve been necessary for one candidate to gain a majority. The result would’ve been Ottawa-Vanier’s Member of Parliament being the consensus choice of at least half the voters. The system’s used in Ireland, Latvia and other democracies worldwide. Yet it is the wrong approach for both the party and the country.

Firstly, the preferential ballot doesn’t fully solve the problem of wasted votes. Under the current system, any vote not cast for the winning candidate is wasted: it ultimately has no bearing on who ends up representing the riding. Although I was pleased with Ottawa-Vanier’s 2011 result (the re-election of Liberal Mauril Belanger), over 60% of the riding’s votes were wasted. The preferential ballot would lessen this problem, but not eliminate it. As soon as a candidate passes 50%, every other vote is nullified. If Ottawa-Vanier’s Conservative candidate had won on the second ballot, my first and second votes for the Liberal and Green candidates wouldn’t have mattered at all. The preferential ballot would mitigate, not solve, the problem of wasted votes.

Secondly, the preferential ballot is just as likely to encourage partisanship as compromise. While some politicians and parties will strive to be people’s second choice, many will encourage their supporters to leave the rest of the ballot blank, or rank fringe parties above their political rivals. At the 2012 Biennial Convention, one Liberal supporter pronounced that he would “rank the Conservatives dead last, below the Marijuana party”. This type of behaviour defeats the purpose of the exercise.

An example of a preferential ballot.

An example of a preferential ballot.

Thirdly, the preferential ballot assumes that voters have strong feelings about all the candidates, especially the ones toward the bottom of their ballots. Will they really? I would very strongly support my first choice (Liberal, of course), and have tepid support for my second choice. But I really don’t like the NDP and Conservatives, my third and fourth choices. I would then be stuck with the decision to either stop ranking candidates and risk the complete wasting of my votes (if the Liberal and Green candidates were knocked off), or give an arbitrary ranking and my personal support to parties I oppose. With five parties holding seats in the House of Commons, this problem is likely to occur frequently.

Lastly, the preferential ballot isn’t proportional. Canada could still end up with a party getting 39.6% of the vote, but a majority of seats (the Conservatives in 2011). Parliament will be more representative, but not completely so. Shouldn’t we strive to have a Parliament that has the support of all Canadians, not just 50-percent-plus-one in 338 ridings? We need real proportional representation (but that is a topic for another time).

Supporters of the preferential ballot argue that it is more democratic than the current system. And they’re right; it is better. But it isn’t that much better. It only diminishes, without resolving, the issue of wasted votes. It reduces partisanship while at the same time encourages it. It forces voters to choose between the risk of wasting their vote or supporting a party they don’t agree with. Lastly, it’s not a real proportional system.

Democratic reform is serious and historic. We are contemplating the biggest changes to Canada’s structure of governance in our nearly 150-year history. If we want to create something for the next 150 years, we must do it right. This means not settling for something that’s just “better than first past the post.” This means rejecting the preferential ballot.

The Decline of our Politics: A Persuasive Speech

As a competitive debate and public speaker, I spend large amounts of my life at events involving young people expounding on the many problems facing today’s world. This is the persuasive speech category, one of the largest events at every public speaking competition is the, for which each competitor speaks for up to 13 minutes. Each competitor presents a problem facing society and then proposes a solution. For the 2012 International Independent Schools Public Speaking Competition (IISPSC), I chose to speak on a topic close to my heart. The IISPSC is an annual four day tournament, bringing together nearly 50 schools from across Canada, as well as the United States, India, Cyrus, Britain and several other nations. This year’s competition was held at Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School in Okotoks, Alberta, south of Calgary. Below is a speech I wrote, memorized and delivered at the event, on the decline of Canadian politics. I tried to talk about the drop off in voter turnout rates, the lack of Parliamentary decorum and the disappearance of political accountability. In some ways it’s an extension of a lot of the themes I’ve written about here, and on twitter. The idea is to drive home a central message: our politics are unworthy of our nation.

It’s May of 2012. Walk around the city of Montreal, and you’ll probably soon hate just about every person under the age of 30. Why? The streets are filled with them. They’re yelling, screaming and banging on pots and pans. In total, there are almost half a million students protesting. Their frustration? The provincial government’s plan to raise university tuition. In retaliation, the students have shut down the city. Seeking change, these young people are speaking out.  

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Yet when it comes to the major issues of our time, where are the young people? On climate change, the economy and health care, where are their voices? They’re not in public life. Barely 30% of young Canadians voted in the last election. Studies consistently show they’re disengaged and apathetic. Why? Because today in Canada, our politics are toxic. It’s a malaise unworthy of our nation—its history, its geography, and most of all, its promise.

The problem I would like to address today is the decline of our public life. The evidence is everywhere. Voting is at an all time low, Parliament is a zoo, and politicians are in disrepute. When I hear about my peers being disengaged, I can’t blame them. After examining the problem, I’ll propose ways to restore our democracy—making it more open, accountable and effective.

So, what is the state of Canadian politics today?

After their 2011 victory, the Conservatives promised to govern for all Canadians, as if all Canadians had voted. Actually, barely 61% of Canada voted. This was the second lowest turnout ever. Provincially, turnouts are usually in the 50s—last year in Ontario, below half. Worst of all are municipal elections. Halifax’s turnout rate was 36%; Ottawa’s 44%; Vancouver’s 33%.

These figures are tragic because an individual vote does matter. In the 2011 federal election, 6,200 votes was the difference between a majority and minority government. Even here in true blue Alberta, provincial ridings in Edmonton and Calgary had margins of victory under 200. Votes count. But with participation declining, we might ask, for how much longer is our democracy legitimate?

After elections, it doesn’t get much better.

Parliament has no decorum.

This month, Rob Anders, an MP from this city, accused Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair of playing a role in the death of his predecessor, Jack Layton. The NDP’s Pat Martin uses expletives on twitter, including telling one commenter to “f off”. Last November, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau screamed on the house floor that the Environment Minister was, to put it politely, “a piece of excrement.” My school’s Grade 10 civics class, in Ottawa, was attending Question Period the day. What kind of example does this set?

But it’s more about what MPs do. In our Parliament, private members have less power than almost any other in the world.

Earlier this year, NDP MP Bruce Hyer, was punished by his party for the grave sin of honouring a promise to his constituents, by voting to abolish the long gun registry. He now sits as an independent. Last May, BC Conservative MP David Wilks was caught on camera telling constituents that despite his reservations, he “had to” vote for the government’s budget and that there was “nothing he could do” as an individual member. Sad.

Legislation is now packaged into “omnibus bills”, which bundle several laws into a single bill to stifle debate. The 2012 omnibus budget bill was 498 pages long. The opposition submitted some 700 amendments it—none were accepted. Democracy, we might say, is being thrown under the omnibus.

Too many MPs don’t even show up anymore. In the last Parliament, 17 MPs missed more than a quarter of the votes. Several missed over half. It is estimated more skipped days without votes, but those records aren’t public. You know in most jobs, they don’t pay you if you don’t show up!

When governments don’t like the way their legislatures are behaving, they simply shut them down, proroguing them to avoid embarrassments. Stephen Harper has done it twice. Two weeks ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty did it in Ontario, avoiding the legislature’s almost certain condemnation of one of his ministers.

But is the problem really that big? Why does the decline of our politics matter?

First, when people don’t vote, we weaken the bond between the government and the people. Voting is a stepping-stone to civic participation. Furthermore; young people, poor people, ethnic minorities and new Canadians tend to vote in even smaller numbers, and are thus ignored by politicians.

When politics become this toxic, people feel disenchanted and disengaged. We see the effects of this in our streets, with the aforementioned Quebec student protests, as well as last fall’s Occupy movement. They should have occupied a ballot box!

But on a more personal level, why should you care? Well you’re bankrolling these shenanagans. MPs make a good salary, plus expenses and a gold plated pension. Think good government doesn’t affect you? What about roads, universities and hospitals. Yet with the litmus test of party orthodoxy and omnibus bills, how can we be sure our representatives are carrying out our wishes or even know what they’re voting for?

Today in Canada, we have elections in which few vote, Parliamentarians who behave like children and legislation that’s rubber stamped by elected officials and hidden from the public. Does our system need help? As Sarah Palin once said, “you betcha”.

Yet, there are several reforms that can cure this malaise. As all parties are equally guilty of the problem, all will need to be part of the solution.

Let’s start by reexamining voting. It’s time we had a serious conversation about making it mandatory. The system would be simple: every eligible voter would have to cast a ballot on election day, in advance, or by absentee ballot. Failure to do so would result in a fine, about 40 bucks. This would be an inconvenience, and it would cover the costs of the system.

Compulsory voting would allow the government to represent all of its citizens. Instead of appealing to partisans or “micro-targeting”, parties would make a broad based appeal to the entire electorate. Citizens would be more informed and engaged.

Mandatory voting has been very effective elsewhere. Almost three dozen nations have some form of it, most prominently Australia, a country similar to Canada. In its most recent federal election, the turnout rate was 95%. Despite being chosen by those compelled to vote, Australia isn’t run by the Rhino Party.

After this, let’s reform the way Parliamentarians behave. Conservative MP Michael Chong has proposed reforms to reduce the theatrics that dominate Question Period, which have become so bad that many schools in Ottawa have stopped brining their kids to watch it.

One is giving more time for questions and answers. If MPs can have more than 35 seconds to explain themselves, they won’t feel the need to resort to rhetoric and hurl meaningless zingers. Another is to compel ministers to answer the questions they’re asked, instead of passing them off to surrogates. No hiding! A third is to randomly select which MPs get to talk—keeping parties from fielding their “attack dogs” every day.

Beyond Mr. Chong’s reforms, attendance needs to be better monitored. Instead of just recording when MPs are present for votes, their whole attendance record should be public. Ladies and gentlemen, your boss knows when you’re at work. When it comes to Parliament, Canadians are the boss—and we should be able to know when our employees are on the job.

I also propose we ban the use of the omnibus bill. Remember that 498-page monster I mentioned earlier? This was better known as a “trojan horse”, as it was filled with lots that really wasn’t budgetary. This included a provision allowing the FBI and CIA to come across the border and arrest Canadians, in Canada. Hear about that when it was passed? I didn’t, and as you can probably tell, I’m a bit of a political nerd.

Backbenchers from all parties need meaningful roles. Too often, they’re little more than trained seals, taking orders from their house leaders. We should allow all MPs to vote according to the conscience they hold and the constituents they represent. As well, members from different parties should be able to co-sponsor bi-partisan private members bills. Surely we can do better than the four out of 441 that were passed in the last parliament.

Finally, there should be limits to prorogation. Governments shouldn’t have the divine right to close legislatures just to save their own hide. The opposition should have a say.

Today I’ve addressed a system in crisis. I’ve noted that voter turnout has fallen, the parliament is unruly and that MPs are beholden to an often extreme party line. This cuts people off from their government. Our politicians are failing us. We’re paying for it—literally and metaphorically. The way to address this is through reexamining voting, reforming Question Period and changing the way legislation is dealt with. One again, Canadians can see the possibilities of politics, not just its limits.

During the Cold War, Ronald Reagan told us that; “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream…we hand it to them so they can do the same.” The Cold War is over, but this is truer than ever.

Remember that the word democracy comes from the Greek “demo kratos”; meaning “rule of the people”.

We, the people, must rule.

To be Canadian means more than a series of clichés or a beer commercial. We are stewards of one of the world’s oldest democracies. It’s not a spectator sport. Nor can it be on auto-pilot. Ladies and gentlemen, young Canadians should not be in our streets, protesting higher tuition. They should be in our legislatures, crafting tomorrow’s Canada.

Before the election, looking back at the best political comedy of 2012

As election day is now upon us, it is a good time to look back and laugh at some of the best political comedy of this cycle. This year has seen some quality videos, poking fun at both men.

A parody of  Eminem’s “Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up”, this splicing of Romney’s speeches comedic genius.

 

 

Bill Maher’s irreverent riff on the GOP nomination race is actually quite accurate–even Jesus couldn’t appease the hardliners.

 

 

This Chris Christie video is just one of the several (Ryan, Palin, Pawlenty and others) making fun of potential GOP VP choices.

 

 

A sequel to the Real Mitt Romney video, this one parodies MC Hammer’s “Can’t Touch This”, and includes appearances by Jennifer Granholm (former Governor of Michigan), Julia Gillard (Prime Minister of Australia) and Hulk Hogan.

 

 

Sesame Street’s Big Bird strikes back at Romney for his offensive comments during the first debate.

 

 

College Humour spoofs Psy’s “Gangnam Style” with a song about the GOP’s plutocratic nominee. (Watch for nuances like the dog cage on the roof of Paul Ryan’s car)

 

 

Chris Rock lets white people know why they should vote Obama (hint: he’s really one of them!)

 

America Votes, Ohio Decides

Ohio, the king of swing (states). Eighteen precious electoral votes. Everything today rests on this state and its 11 million residents. The next leader of the free world won’t be chosen by New Yorkers, Alaskans or Californians. He will be chosen by the good people of Cincinnati, Cleveland and Toledo.  President Obama and Governor Romney have made that much clear to Ohioans. There’s scarcely been a day since the summer without the visit of a candidate or a surrogate to the Buckeye State. It is hard to imagine either candidate getting to 270 electoral votes without Ohio’s 18. With no disrespect to Pennsylvania, Ohio is the keystone.

Yet despite this hoopla, Ohio is not the biggest or most important of the swing states. Fast growing Florida has 11 more electoral votes. The Buckeye state has lost one third of its electoral clout since the 1960s. It had 26 electoral votes in 1968, and has lost two in every redistribution since. Globalization and outsourcing have hurt the state’s industrial economy. Its demographic makeup is not changing with America’s. Ohio is over 82% white and a little over three percent Hispanic. Yet according to all the pundits, Ohio holds the keys to the White House. If President Obama or Governor Romney can succeed here, it’s likely they will elsewhere.

Ohio is a kingmaker. It has voted with the winning candidate in every election in the last 50 years. Few Democrats and no Republicans have won the White House without it. Tomorrow, my election day theme song will reflect the essential role Bro-hio will play. It really is “in the heart of it all”.

Election day theme song: Neil Young or the Black Keys?

Brilliant Political Mind, Devoted Public Servant

“Sixteen years ago, when I was elected leader of our Party, the Ontario Liberals had won exactly one election in fifty years.

We couldn’t do anything to help families because we couldn’t win an election.

That’s changed. 

We’ve won three elections in a row.

But more important is what those election wins have allowed us to do.

In every area that matters most to families: their schools, their health care, their environment and their economy — we’ve made huge progress.

We’ve gone from struggling schools to the best schools in the English-speaking world…

From Canada’s longest health-care wait times, to the shortest.

From dirty air to clean air. 

And the toughest drinking water standards, anywhere.

When it comes to the economy:

We’ve made our workforce the strongest and our taxes very competitive.

We’re renewing our infrastructure. We keep creating jobs.

Ontario has recovered 13 per cent of our jobs lost in the recession.

In the U.S., it’s 49 per cent.

We’ve positioned Ontario for decades of success.

Our government hasn’t been perfect. 

But when it comes to the big things that families count on us to get right: schools, health care, the environment and the economy — we’ve gotten it right every time.

Just this afternoon, we updated Ontarians on the state of our finances.

We’re once again ahead of schedule with our plan to balance the budget…

We’ve beaten our budget forecasts in seven of the last nine years.

I feel very good about where we are as a party and a province. 

But as Liberals, we’re always driving forward.

The opposition’s political games are holding Ontario back.

They’ve told us they oppose our plan for a two-year pay freeze for government workers.

That means we can’t make it law. 

So, we need to go back to the drawing board.

We’re going to make a sincere and determined effort to negotiate a wage freeze agreement with our labour partners.

Like the agreements already reached with 80,000 public sector workers.

We’re also going to consult with the opposition about what they would support to freeze wages.

To this end, I’ve asked the Lieutenant Governor to prorogue the legislature to allow those discussions with our labour partners and the opposition to occur in an atmosphere that is free of the heightened rancour of politics in the legislature.

And when the legislature returns, we will either have negotiated agreements in hand or a firm sense of what the opposition will support.

As the party and government of relentless progress, we’re always looking for new ideas and ways to renew ourselves.

And I’ve concluded that this is the right time for Ontario’s next Liberal Premier and our next set of ideas to guide our province forward.

Earlier today, I asked Yasir Naqvi, our party president, to convene a leadership convention at the earliest possible time.

I will remain as Premier until that leadership convention. 

And it will be my honour to continue to serve as the MPP for Ottawa South until the next general election.

I know I’ve asked some hard things of you. 

But I’ve always been inspired by the ideal that the older generations work hard to build a bright future for the younger ones.

And they do this, always, with love and an unwavering commitment.

I saw that in my own mother and father.

It’s what Terri and I have tried to do for our children.

And I see it in the eyes and actions of Ontario families, every day.

I thank you for the honour of serving as your Leader and your Premier…

In Ontario, the greatest province in the best country in the world.”

-Premier Dalton McGuinty, October 15, 2012

A little while after my birth, the hospital I was born in was closed by the Harris PC government. Since I was eight years old, our province has been privileged to have had an intelligent, compassionate and competent man as Premier. Dalton McGuinty is a brilliant political mind and a devoted public servant. Nearly a year ago, I was shouting “Forward, Together” as he spoke at a rally at Bob Chiarelli’s campaign office. Two weeks ago, I was cheering on his keynote during the OLP AGM at the Ottawa Convention Centre. Now, he takes his rightful place among this province’s great leaders. I will miss him.

No to Neo-Colonialism: Why Joint Canada-UK Embassies are a Bad Idea

In 1909, Canada founded its own Department of External Affairs. In 1927, we opened our first foreign mission, in Washington. In 1931, we gained the power to conduct our own foreign relations through the Statute of Westminster. Yet almost a century after these milestones, Canada is now making an effort to turn back. Today it was announced that Canada will be opening “joint embassies” with the United Kingdom in foreign countries. We’ve always had close relations with the UK, and this is supposed to fulfill the Conservatives’ promise of having the Department of Foreign Affairs achieve “better value for money for Canadians”. But why don’t we open joint embassies with Germany? With the United States? With France? We have close relations as well as “shared values” (as David Cameron described Canada and the UK) with all of those countries. Furthermore, Canada and Britain don’t have identical foreign policies—the Iraq War is a prime example. So why have joint embassies with them?

The answer is simple. Because the Harper Government has a neo-colonial agenda, and Canada is a neo-colonial country. The most obvious example is the obsession with the crown that the Harperites have consistently shown. Shoving an irrelevant, foreign monarchy down our throats has become one of the government’s top priorities. We see this with the annual royal visits and portraits of the Queen in all our embassies and government buildings, among other excesses. They also take a dim view of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Its budget has already been slashed, closing offices in Canada and missions around the world. Only two weeks ago, it abruptly shuttered our embassy in Iran, a move considered by many as “stupid”. But it’s more than that. The Harper Government has a view of our country that harks back to the days of the Empire. Establishing these joint diplomatic missions may have no practical affect on our foreign policy. But they perpetrate the image that we are not fully independent, that we still are linked to the “mother country”. It’s not time to get cheap and do the easy thing with our foreign policy. We are a G8 nation, one of the most successful and diverse countries on the planet, the second oldest democracy in the world. Abroad, it’s time we acted like it.