In keeping with the average 18-month lifespan of a minority government, the Liberal party called for an election just shy of 2 years into their government.

To speak about the most pertinent issues on Canadian voters’ minds, the future of Canadian politics, their respective parties’ platforms, and the success of the last 6 years with the Liberal government, 2 candidates running against each other for MP of a riding in the GTA, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, were interviewed. Throughout these conversations, the Liberal, the Honourable James Maloney MP, pushed strongly for widespread traditional issues within Canadian politics and confidence in the incumbent government, while the NDP candidate, Sasha Kane, fought for radical change in response to population-specific disparities within Canada.

A main risk factor of lower voter turnout during this election is the lack of time for citizens to learn about each candidate and their platform given the short election period. In the 2019 federal election, Ms. Kane noted that there appeared to be far more time to converse with constituents, while she feels that the fast pace of this election has not allowed for her to meet as many people as she would like to. However, on the contrary, Mr. Maloney would argue that the illusion of a longer election period in previous years only existed due to the fact that a larger majority of citizens were aware that it was an election year given the 4-year duration of the government, and thus campaigning may have started slightly earlier. “Every election is fast-paced because you’re out on the ground, running around and meeting people”, he stated in response to questioning about the particular brevity of this one. He also defended that “this election should not come as a surprise [given the average 18-month duration of a minority government] for people who have been following the media”. However, this begs the question, that for those in the country who are less politically oriented, how will this timeline affect their engagement, as well as their cooperation with the incumbent’s calling of an election?

Unlike other shorter-notice elections, however, there is a factor at play that has the potential to resonate with the less politically apt population, or even those who might be inclined to believe that the Liberals are trying to rush an election for personal gain. This factor of course, has been the COVID-19 pandemic, whose infection rates are on the rise again. Due to the Liberals’ minority government, had they returned to resume government in September, it is reasonable to suspect that the opposition parties would have defeated the government, leading to an election in mid to late fall when it would likely be less safe to conduct one due to the projected increase in cases. By calling for an election slightly earlier in the year, voter education and engagement may be improved as the warmer season allows for constituents and candidates to meet in larger groups outdoors, hold events, knock on more doors, and most importantly, vote. Thus, by holding the election now, while it is sooner than expected and seemingly rushed, it will result in the most engaging and safe election possible. Though some parties maintain the belief that holding an election now might result in older populations “not voting as much because they may not feel comfortable enough to go out with Covid”, as Ms. Kane observed, as well as a closing of polling stations within churches and schools, there does not appear to be a more effective time to hold this election, unless voting and campaigning were to be moved fully online, which may compromise engagement in a much larger portion of the older population, as well as voter fraud and security.

There also appears to be a large disparity not only between which issues both parties focus on, but also surrounding their approach to change within these issues. During a conversation about the issues at stake for Canadians during this election, Mr. Maloney placed a heavy emphasis on the overarching issues that may come as no surprise, such as the pandemic and the economy, specifically how it pertains to recovery from the pandemic. He said, “we have to make sure that people are able to keep their jobs or get their jobs back, and that businesses are able to keep running so that the economy keeps moving. With regards to health and safety, everybody realizes that the pandemic’s not over, kids are going back to school, parents are nervous, everybody’s concerned about a fourth wave, and the best way to deal with this going forward is making sure that everybody gets vaccinated.” It became clear that the Liberal party’s platform is one that has remained fairly noncontroversial or divisive, as well as similar between elections, with 3 reliable pillars being the climate, the economy, and better healthcare. Mr. Maloney even admitted to the issues being similar to those of 2019 with magnification in severity: “There’s a lot of important issues that have become significantly more important due to Covid since the last election”.

One main theme that resurfaced time and time again, appeared to be a reassurance of the success of the status quo. Throughout this campaign, the Liberals have worked a great deal to gain confidence amongst Canadian voters, using debate opportunities to remind them of their accomplishments within the last 6 years, and how the country and Liberal MPs’ respective ridings have improved. With regards to the Liberal party’s handling of Indigenous communities, Mr. Maloney said, “Indigenous communities continue to be a big priority for our government, and we’ve put our work where our talk is. Perry Bellegarde, the outgoing chief of the assembly of the First Nations for 10 years, says that this government has done more in this area than any other government in Canadian history.” This type of lauding of the last 6 years points to the idea that Liberals themselves place less significance on change, or at least, less than their progressive opponents, and that they are more focused towards improvement. It also shows their belief that their plans have provided satisfaction to citizens thus far, as Mr. Maloney pointed to an example that he observed throughout the pandemic, saying, “some of the programs that we implemented to help small business through this literally saved them. They talk about the rent subsidy and the wage subsidy, a lot of those small businesses might not be here today without those programs. I think people are generally pleased with the way the federal government has responded to the pandemic and the programs we implemented to allow people to continue. Sure, we didn’t get everything perfect, I’m the first one to admit that, but we did a really good job.”

However, the NDP seem to press the Liberals on their more general issues, seeking radical changes within specific sectors of those issues. Of course, the issue that arises when we ponder the radical changes proposed, becomes if this is the right type of change and if it will improve the status quo. Unlike the Liberals, the NDPs have never been elected to parliament to form a federal government, and thus have no previous work to defend, leaving them tending to find fault in their opposing parties’ platforms in order to shape their own while having little history to receive criticism on. When asked about her and her party’s main platform focus, Ms. Kane was quick to bring up inconsistencies within the Conservative party including anti-abortion laws and conscience rights, as well as environmental unfulfilled promises of the last 6 years with the Liberals, saying, “I know that Erin O’Toole said that he is pro-choice and that abortions should remain available, but then he also says that he wants to defend the conscience rights of healthcare workers. To me, that just sounds like another way to restrict access to abortions to women”. Despite the Liberals’ environmental plan getting top marks from Simon Fraser University’s school of resource and environmental management’s Mark Jaccard and Climate scientist and UVIC Professor Andrew Weaver, Kane and the NDP believe more needs to be done. “when it comes to the Liberal party, I think the main issue is the environment because they claim to care about the environment when in reality they have continued to not meet the Paris agreement, and they bought a pipeline.” The Paris Agreement targets are set for 2030.

In addition to pressing their opponents on the environment and anti-abortion laws, the NDPs place a strong emphasis on affordable housing and affordable social programming in general, specifically for millennials and young adults struggling after post-secondary. “Right now we need immediate rent relief before the end of the year, and making affordable housing is so important because housing is a human right, and right now the federal government defines affordable housing as less than 30% of household income pretax. Increasing affordable housing presents an opportunity for people to live in the city as well as build green housing, and build communities through social programs like free summer camps, daycare, therapy, and family services”, Ms. Kane pledged. By continuing to zero in on specific areas of larger issues and propose thorough but often radical solutions, the NDP seems to garner strong support from those who they target, but unlike the Liberals, create controversy by stirring up more opposition from those who would bear the brunt of said changes, such as those in the fossil fuels industry, supporters of healthcare workers’ freedoms such as conscience rights, and of course, high taxpayers.

A large driver of the divergence between the aims and views of the 2 parties is the age demographic, both the ages which they target and their ages themselves. It’s no secret that Liberals tend to win over older voters while NDPs younger voters, but the average Liberal MP candidate is actually 13 years older than the average NDP MP Candidate across the major cities in Canada. Both of these qualities speak to different strengths, with Liberals leaning towards more experienced candidates who know their ridings more thoroughly. As Mr. Moloney said, “I’m a local guy, I grew up in Etobicoke-lakeshore, I still live in Etobicoke-lakeshore. I’ve lived in this riding since I was 11 years old, I went to grade school and high school here, and that makes this job something very special to me, it’s an honour to represent a community that I’ve been a part of for so long. I want people to know that they have a strong local voice to understand the riding”, attesting to his insights into the evolution of his riding and Canadian voters’ needs as a whole. On the flip side, Ms. Kane is 23 years old, just out of post-secondary. This reliance on youth can be very beneficial, as it can invite fresh perspectives, idealistic thinking, and greater physical and mental agility in order to perform the job. Ms. Kane spoke to her party’s goal of empowering the next generation, saying, “we need to tell them their vote matters, tell them that they’re the future of this country, they need to be heard, what they say is important.” However, it can also invite naïveté, as well as an inability to commit a sufficient amount of time to the job as younger adults tend to be less financially established. Ms. Kane mentioned earlier in the interview that she had not been able to canvas as much as she would have liked to, saying, “I work full-time, so I can’t dedicate as much time as I would like to going out and meeting people and answering their questions”.

The difference in age demographics surely impacts election results, but it also impacts the aforementioned issue of the way to go about change, and even more broadly, the parties’ views of the importance of democracy. Throughout the NDP platform as well as during the interview, reformist changes such as the criminalization of conversion therapy, universal pharmacare and dental care, lower climate targets even given Canada’s inability to meet the previous ones, and electoral reform were all mentioned. Ms. Kane also referenced a debate with her opponents, saying that she experienced a sense of urgency about the incumbent winning the riding again, taking issue that, “he said that Etobicoke is doing quite well, but you can see that people aren’t doing well. Like, I’m not doing well, my friends aren’t doing well [financially].” Meanwhile, when asked the same question, Mr. Maloney said, “When I go up to somebody’s door, I tell them, ‘look, you really should go vote, even if you don’t vote for me, because the government is the most important institution in our lives.’”

This all ties into say that the Liberals are a party that more strongly values experience, knowing your community, and focusing on issues to appease the whole of Canada, even if that diplomatic nature comes at the expense of full execution. Meanwhile, the NDPs are a party that looks to youth to lead the way, placing an emphasis on the future with a plan that they carry with the utmost confidence.

As you cast your ballots this September, looking into the future and debating the issues that are most pertinent to our nation at this point in time, we must ask ourselves a question: Do we trust the status quo and its government’s experience enough to allow them to guide us through this next term with improvements, valuing its ability to provide reliability and stability for a large cross-section of our population, or are we willing to take a gamble for a radical change, in hopes that it will bring prosperity and innovation to strengthen our soon to be young adult population, providing them with the resources to support our country.

In the long run, whomever we are led by, whichever strides we as a nation chose to take to tackle the issues of our past, present, and future, the democracy in our free, Canadian society, is the most important factor in our freedom, far exceeding the importance of one party being in power or their platform being implemented. “The government was around long before us and it’s gonna be around long after us, so people need to participate and to vote”, said Mr. Maloney.

The post The Federal Election through a Toronto Riding – What Canadian Voters Need to Ask Themselves appeared first on Toronto Guardian.

What is the Overton window? The Overton window is a concept developed in the 1990’s by Joe Overton of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Imagine a giant meterstick, at either end are the extreme policy positions of any political issue. Between the ends of the meterstick lie all gradations of those policies. Joe Overton’s theory was that only a portion of this policy spectrum or meterstick is within the realm of the possible at any time. This portion, or small area of political possibility is the Overton window. Only political policies within this window will meet with success. The gradations on the meterstick are:

-Unthinkable
-Radical
-Acceptable
-Sensible
-Popular
-Policy
-Popular
-Sensible
-Acceptable
-Radical
-Unthinkable

No matter how hard a political party campaigns for a policy deemed as unthinkable, as it falls outside the window, that policy will inevitably fail.

But how does this apply to a long con, you ask? And how does it apply to the Conservatives? The long con started with the creation of the Reform Party – who advocated for policies on the far right that were unacceptable to Canadians. This is old news, and the Reform Party only marginally pushed the Overton window right, but it had started. Stephen Harper and the merged Conservative Party of Canada moved it a little further right, especially when paired with a hawkish center-right Liberal leader like Michael Ignatieff. It wasn’t until Harper was contrasted with a more left leaning Justin Trudeau did it show Stephen Harper’s exposure to being outside the Overton window.

The advent of far right groups (Yellow Vests Canada), right wing/leaning media (Rebel Media, Post Media), and political parties in Canada (Bernier’s People’s Party) have been pushing the Overton window as far out of balance as I have ever seen it. The extreme political policies of far right groups in Canada are allowing the Conservative Party to move the Overton window right by advocating for similar policies as those on the far right, but stopping short of extreme views to seem moderate in comparison. With a weakened NDP that seems to be unable to effectively counter the far right, or push the Liberals to the left, the Overton window is moving away from balance – pushing what was once radical/unthinkable to the realm of the politically possible.

I find this trend extremely worrying. We need the Liberals to start pushing big thinking left side of the spectrum ideas like a fully funded national Pharmacare program, or a national childcare/daycare strategy. Yes the NDP are pushing for those ideas, but they have not been as big a factor as they were in the past – especially with the disaster of Jagmeet Singh’s leadership, and Thomas Muclair’s move to the political center in the 2015 election campaign.

The Carbon Tax was once a policy championed by Conservative/Republican political parties, in fact employed to help combat the acid rain crisis in the 1980’s. With the demise of the Progressive Conservatives and rise of the Reform Party, Canadian conservatism took on a strong western bias, nearly completely beholden to Oil and Gas interests. Conservatives in Canada now fight the Carbon Tax with a existential fervor once reserved for taxation, and the Carbon Tax has become a tool to combat climate for those on the center-left. That is a perfect example with how the Overton window has moved to the right on environmental issues.

I once viewed politics as cyclical in nature, but I now feel that is no longer the case. This push to the extreme right by Conservatives in Canada has me thinking in terms of the Overton window, and how the window is being moved right – and how that was the plan all along. That was the purpose of conservative media organizations, as well as astroturf organizations like the Fraser Institute and Canadian Taxpayers Federation – to lend legitimacy to the efforts pushing political conversation right in slow enough increments that the electorate would not notice and it becomes the norm.

Who would have thought that we would see the day where private delivery of public health care services would become an acceptable conversation to have in Ontario, like the Doug Ford government is now having. When you view it through the lens of the Overton Window, you see the Harris Government starting to move the window with its cuts to health care, municipal amalgamations, and hospital closures that have lead to the manufactured crisis Ford is referencing in his justification to attempt Privatization. This push for privatization was a long con that started years ago. We will see it nationally in the future with Conservative moves to privatize the Canadian Pension Plan and adopt industry created solutions to Climate Change that we know will fail.

At some point the word socialist or leftist became a dirty word, but we need a reinvigorated left. We need the return of big ideas, new initiatives, and mass protest from the left/centre-left to move the Overton window back to balance. If government, political parties, and media are failing us or refusing to see the long con game being played by Conservatives – it becomes incumbent upon us to demand those big ideas and initiatives that once was commonplace in Canada to retain the balance that creates good national policy, and not cater to special interests and niche political movements.

The post The Long Con And The Overton Window appeared first on Toronto Guardian.

The need for a Black caucus was identified as a direct result of a Black community leaders’ roundtable discussion at Queen’s Park with New Democratic Party leadership and MPPs. One of the recommendations that came out of that roundtable was the importance of formalizing representation, alongside direct engagement with the Black community as a distinct group.

“Black community members should see themselves represented and respected when they look at their government. Black Canadian leaders must be at the table when every decision is made. That’s why I’m so proud to announce the formal creation of the Ontario NDP’s Black Caucus, chaired by our Anti-Racism Critic and MPP for Kitchener Centre, Laura Mae Lindo,” said Andrea Horwath, Leader of the Official Opposition NDP.

Faisal Hassan, one of the inaugural members of the Black caucus, explained in an interview with Toronto Guardian that the Black community has come together and wishes to be given a voice at Queen’s Park, ensuring that their concerns are a priority.

“We have the largest Black caucus elected anywhere in the country,” Hassan noted while explaining that the caucus would focus on issues affecting the Black community, including finance, healthcare, education, the arts, and many more – all while listening to the community and actively seeking to address their issues. “Communities have been studied to death – whereas the NDP has a track record of actually addressing our concerns.”.

In total, the inaugural NDP Black Caucus consists of five NDP MPPs, including Dr. Laura Mae Lindo (Kitchener Centre), Faisal Hassan (York South-Weston), Dr. Jill Andrew (Toronto – St. Paul’s), Kevin Yarde (Brampton North), and Dr. Rima Berns-McGown (Beaches—East York MPP). The intent to create a Black caucus was first shared publicly by Opposition Leader Horwath on February 20th, as part of Black History Month celebrations; last week the caucus was officially created and began operations.

The post Ontario NDP forms the province’s first Black caucus appeared first on Toronto Guardian.

I knew it was an empty promise from the moment it was spoken, and I would know. I have inside knowledge on electoral reform from my experiences participating in the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform from 2006-2007.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was created on recommendation by the Select Committee on Electoral Reform of the Ontario legislature in 2005. I was one of 12,000 Ontario residents invited to put my name forward, I was then invited to a selection meeting in Ottawa. Eventually 103 Ontarians were chosen, and although I was not chosen, I decided to assist as alternate initially, then as a volunteer.

From September 2006, to late April 2007, the Citizens’ Assembly met nearly twice a month to examine the current electoral system and investigate what possible changes and improvements could be made. I attended several meetings and public forums and consulted with the public through information sessions. It was a fascinating process led by George Thomson, and Queen’s University Professor Jonathan Rose. We examined electoral systems worldwide, the processes involved in changing electoral systems, and the experiences of jurisdictions that changed electoral systems.

We currently have a plurality electoral system in Canada, commonly referred to as first past the post (FPTP). It simply awards the seat to the candidate with the most votes. There is no threshold for victory, nor is a majority required for victory. First past the post systems generally promote stable governments and are often dominated by 2 or 3 political parties. There are many disadvantages to FPTP systems, such as the difficulties for new parties to grow and find success, and the winner may not reflect the interests of all voters. Quite often a majority government can be elected having only 35-37% of the total vote. In a Westminster parliamentary system like Canada, that can leave a disproportionate amount of power with a party not elected by a majority of voters.

In recent years there has been a movement towards Proportional Representation (PR) in Canada. Proportional Representation is system of voting that generally attempts to match the percentage of votes that a political party received, to the percentage of seats that it is awarded. The complexities of these systems and the diversity of options have often been a hindrance in debates on electoral reform and electoral systems in Canada.

The three PR options commonly discussed in Canada are the Single Transferable Vote (STV), Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), and the Ranked Ballot. Yes, the ranked ballot is generally considered to be a majority electoral system. I list it here because it is an alternative to FPTP and can be used as a compromise system with those who are hesitant to consider proportional representation. With ranked ballots, a voter can choose more than one candidate and rank the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate does not receive 50% of the vote, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and their voters’ second choices are used, and the votes are counted again. This continues until one candidate achieves a majority. This system of voting often eliminates the need for strategic voting, as you have options to choose an alternative if your candidate of choice isn’t elected.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportional voting system that differs from the option of electing one representative in each individual riding (FPTP). In STV, voters elect a small team of representatives in a multi-member local district. For example, you could take 5 separate ridings, and turn them into one multi-member district that elects 5 representatives (MP, MPP, or MLA). This means that you can have a say on all 5 representatives elected. You rank the candidates based on preference, you can rank as many or as few as you like. You can rank across party lines. Counting votes can be complicated as it considers the ranked preferences of each voter. The main issues surrounding the Single Transferable Vote are the complexity of the system in relation to FPTP, the difficulties in implementing the system, and the potential for stasis in the vote. Variations of STV are used in Ireland and Australia.

Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) representation is a mixed electoral system in which voters get two votes. One vote to decide the representative for their specific local riding which would use the current FPTP system. The second vote would be for a regional candidate, known as a party vote. The party vote determines what proportion of seats each party should have regionally. Ridings are usually made bigger so that the number of elected representatives does not increase. For example, in Canada about 60% of the MPs will be local riding MPs. With your regional vote, 40% of the MPs will be elected as regional MPPs or MLAs. Variations of MMP are used in New Zealand, Germany, Scotland and Wales.

I have worked in politics for years as a volunteer, at the riding level, and in the national office of a political party – but I have never received an education in democracy like the one I obtained participating in the citizen’s assembly. It felt like the intensity and diversity of opinions grew with each meeting and public consultation. Finding a consensus to not only to represent what each member wanted on a personal level, but also to find an option that could be easily explained and understood by fellow Ontarians felt like a near impossible task from my perspective.

The work of the assembly concluded in May 2007; they recommended a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system. I did not have a vote or collaborate on the final report. My preference then and now is the ranked ballot, but I agreed with the findings of the Citizens’ Assembly.

The recommendation of MMP (mixed member proportional) was to be voted on by referendum in the 2007 Provincial election. I also knew that MMP would-be dead-on arrival.

Elections Ontario failed in its education campaign, it was confusing and underfunded. The work done by the Citizens’ Assembly was underreported, and the MMP option was completely misrepresented by the media. There was no meaningful debate, and it felt like the McGuinty Liberals abandoned the idea. We needed a electoral reform champion, and none was forthcoming.

The MMP proposal was rejected by 63% of Ontario voters.

I have no regrets about my participation in the Citizen’s Assembly, but the failure of the 2007 referendum has served as a warning to our Federal and Provincial governments about the complicated nature of electoral reform. This has been proven with the failures of electoral reform referendums in other jurisdictions in Canada.

In my opinion, it must be done by referendum. From what I observed in public consultations, perceptions and appetite for electoral reform generally split along party lines. Conservatives, or those on the right, generally want the status quo (FPTP). Liberals, like myself, and centrists generally support a ranked ballot, or STV. The NDP, or those on the left, have long called for straight proportional representation or MMP. Trying to find a national consensus from these disparate groups will be next to impossible, especially without the benefit of a government that has the political will to engage the voting public in a fully consultative process. A government must make a full investment in electoral reform to have the citizens buy into it.

It’s that simple, and that complicated.

The post Looking Back to Move Forward on Electoral Reform appeared first on Toronto Guardian.