Save a liberal vote and elect the NDP member from Quebec as Speaker. That recommendation assumes that we all think he would be fair. Being an MP in a group that doesn’t have Party status won’t be very rewarding so he might jump at it.
I get what you are saying Evan and from the immediate politics it makes sense.
I do think though we are all focusing on the game in front of us and ignoring what is on the horizon, which is going to be increasingly severe climate disasters that also increase in frequency. Insurance companies are preparing for it but government is not.
What an excellent essay! I fully agree with all of these priorities. It's beyond time to seriously examine these issues and find novel ways of dealing with them. Let's hope Mark Carney has the wherewithal, and I think he does, to approach governing differently. He must find a way to resolve issues which alienate and isolate.
I broadly agree we are losing a lot of ground on crime related concerns. I worry that a lot of them are local "order" (street cleanliness, infrastructure maintenance in bus stops, benches, chipped paint, etc, and of course presence of drug users) that are hard to affect with federal levers.
Barcelona is a city packed with tourists but is is also cleaner than Ottawa because there is a 24/7 crew of garbage collectors and street sweepers, plus maintenance workers. This is of course a niche example but I do think a lot of concerns of safety, order, and crime are bolstered by the poor state of things in communities. Yes, reducing actual crime is essential, but you also have to go for the sense of things going poorly, especially in communities that came to Canada seeking safety and consider that letting their kids go to the park alone is the thing that makes living here worth it.
It absolutely is. And it showed me how many of the cool urbanist things many of us like really do require municipal investment in people working to provide services, quite the challenge in Canada!
I have to push back on the suggestion to focus on Quebec or the BQ, over a suggestion to put more focus on the Reform movement and so-called “Western” Canada (North-Western territories). I understand there is a greater population density in Southern Quebec, but that isn’t where the greatest political divisions are at this specific moment in history.
The complex way Canada formed has many unique regions with a unique history, and unique set of historical grievances and distinct cultures. There is far too much pan-Canadian talk as if the history of Canada is one single story (often narrowly focused on the southern part of the story).
The creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 by the federal government out of parts of the North West Territories (which Canada and the Hudson’s Bay did NOT “own”, and which require treaties under the Royal Proclamation of 1763) generated as unique a culture (and set of grievances) as we see with Quebec's unique culture (and grievances) relating back to the ending of the Seven Years War in 1763.
BC and most of the expansions of Quebec into NWT don’t have real treaties (so-called “modern treaties” aren’t treaties at all, but agreements between Canadian governments and Canadian corporations), in violation of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which is the foundation upon which Canada was built.
Even as 60-70% of Canada’s population is south of the 49'th parallel, there are all these myths promoted by political elites to divisively talk about "Eastern Canada" that controls federal politics. Most provinces were unilaterally expanded northward into the North West Territories, an extreme form of political gerrymandering, granting southern settlers control over the Actual North which has never been allowed to be Strong or Free.
I think the greater crisis to be focused on can be seen in the merger (hostile takeover) of the Federal Progressive Conservative party by the Reform party.
What I believe to be the most viable solution to that is to end the concept of "vote splitting" and pan-Canadian parties by adopting ranked ballots (preferably in multi-member districts with STV), allowing these extremely dissimilar political movements to have their own parties. This would allow parliament to become more representative of Canadians within each region rather than politics be controlled centrally by pan-Canadian parties.
I don’t think any election since 2003 (or really since 1987) can be understood without understanding the internal division within what is now called the “Conservative Party” between the Reform and Federal Progressive Conservative factions.
I like this essay but I have to quibble about forced rehabilitation for drug users. If a person is willing to rehab great, but even that is tough as many slip back anyway, but if a person is unwilling the moment they walk out of the rehab program they will be looking for the next hit. While homelessness has many causes, much of the recent homelessness is caused by being evicted for non-payment of rent due to high rents and layoffs for various reasons and that is only going to get worse.
I generally quite like your columns but I disagree with your pandering on some of these issues. If you want to guarantee a liberal majority how about sticking to the game plan. Don’t get side tracked and lose focus on rebuilding Canada’s economy. Is there a crime problem in Canada? The cons made it an issue just like Trump has in the US. Don’t jump in and get distracted. Don’t pander to Quebec it alienates the west. Don’t pander. Lead. Rather than suggesting Carney spend more time in Quebec I would suggest you spend more time on Conservative substacks. A lot of it is completely irrational. They don’t care about Quebec, crime or housing. They care about dissonance and tearing down the system. They admire Trump. They quote scriptures as if divine providence will set the world straight. (No double …). Many of them want to move to a different country where they can be free.
If Carney needs to add something to the massive work he has before him then the number one priority is to deal with the massive shakedown of the disinformation that is destroying the minds of Canadians. Just my two cents. Keep up the good work.
I surprised you pick crime and addiction as your number one priority. I would have expected the Canada - US relations to be the number one priority.
However when we talk about crime, bail and addiction, a couple of points (Carney style: first …).
Involuntary addiction treatment is problematic for more than one reason. Morally we cannot force people into treatment when there is a waiting list for voluntary treatment. There are obviously massive charter challenges. And finally, addiction treatment is only useful if there is support afterwards. Without support people just return to their old environment.
I am also not sure that the federal government wants to step into an area that is 100% provincial. I suspect the provinces will be quite happy to for federal government to take over and take the blame that comes with it.
I would suggest a different approach. I think it is time to call out and expose the provinces for dropping the ball. Establish some sensible metrics and force provinces to report these. Give them quarterly report cards and name & shame as required.
Let it sink in that we have averted the same mistake that the US made and for now be grateful and encouraged that we have a respected world leader and brilliant thinker as our next Prime Minister
Great essay and wonderful content throughout the election, thanks!
Since housing is under provincial jurisdiction, all transfers should have strings/accountability/audits attached. The Resistance Premiers robbed PMJT of Covid money and blew it on their own agendas.
Most things that are broken are areas where the feds have been sticking their fingers in. You mention policing but it is the way in which the Criminal Code has been changed and that is federal exclusively. For example, the open door bail system has let too many criminals out on bail to re-offend while waiting for trial.
Your concluding point is based upon "The thing about Carney that has always concerned me is he does not have an emotional relationship to Quebec ..."
I submit that Carney doesn't have an emotional relationship to Alberta either. Oh, he and his claque will tell you that he is from Edmonton but that means he is FROM Edmonton, i.e. he left if for other pastures many decades ago. For him to say that he understand we in Alberta is like him telling you, "I absolutely understand why people voted for Brexit." In other words, it is simply him deluding himself and that is dangerous if you folks in Central Canada don't want further discord from these environ; serious discord.
Yes. It's about time to deal with these topics with revised approaches. How does Carney/cabinet incentivize proper behavior from the provinces on provincial matters? The feds have enough to do with trade and defense and additional responsibilities require additional bureaucracy and cost. Maybe if we can develop and enforce cross Canada licensing for professionals, the same can be done for federal grants in housing, health care, and policing. Worth a shot because the status quo is not working.
" ... Maybe if we can develop and enforce cross Canada licensing for professionals, the same can be done for federal grants in housing, health care, and policing.... "
Kary, you really should read the Constitution Act, specifically Sections 92 and 92A. The items that you mention are PROVINCIAL responsibilities. Some folks argue that not all provinces have dealt with "A" or "B" and argue further that that "absence" justifies federal action. Actually, if the citizens of a province want "A" or "B" then they can have them simply by replacing the provincial government at the next election. You know, democracy.
But, in any event, those are provincial responsibilities. A lot of the problems in our country go back to the feds stepping in where they have no jurisdiction and trying to dictate to provinces what to do.
Just as one example of letting the provinces act is in the realm of publicly financed health care. That was introduced by a provincial government in 1962 whereas the feds only introduced medicare as we know it in 1966.
My point is, the Constitution allocated responsibilities and if the citizens of a province think something should be done or, if already done, should be done differently, they have the right to tell their provincial politicians to do/change, etc.
Simply this: assume that you and five other families are looking for a home and there are five homes available. The result is that likely the five of you will each find a home. Now, assume that the government allows in a further one hundred people and you now have one hundred and five people all trying to get those five homes.
In Canada's case, for many, many decades we have allowed more immigration than most countries on Earth but we have had a system that actually built more homes than normal population growth needed so all ended up pretty well. In the last period of time the Trudeau government allowed in many, many hundreds of thousands of people both as permanent immigrants and as temporary arrivals and that meant that there were far more people trying to find homes than homes were being built. Combine that with various problems from municipal and provincial governments in getting homes built and there is a crisis that needs to dramatically reduce - particularly - temporary foreign folks from coming unless and until we can get supply and demand back in synch.
Implementing Basic income will help resolve much of this. Look also to how indigenous resolve things like crime, versus incarceration
This!
Of all the things thst were ok to palatable in CPC platform, tough on crime was least.
It violates the Charter (Hi, the LPC created this and QC never signed on!) and I will auto-switch to BQ.
Visiting us is not enpugh
Immediate recognition of QC's distinct status and then we talk.
P.S. Good luck getting NDP or BQ to sign onto tough on crime.stuff...BQ might for a price!
Save a liberal vote and elect the NDP member from Quebec as Speaker. That recommendation assumes that we all think he would be fair. Being an MP in a group that doesn’t have Party status won’t be very rewarding so he might jump at it.
Boulerice? I heard he is interested in becoming interim party leader…
Not officially a party though.
I agree!
Elizabeth May could be very good.
I get what you are saying Evan and from the immediate politics it makes sense.
I do think though we are all focusing on the game in front of us and ignoring what is on the horizon, which is going to be increasingly severe climate disasters that also increase in frequency. Insurance companies are preparing for it but government is not.
What an excellent essay! I fully agree with all of these priorities. It's beyond time to seriously examine these issues and find novel ways of dealing with them. Let's hope Mark Carney has the wherewithal, and I think he does, to approach governing differently. He must find a way to resolve issues which alienate and isolate.
I broadly agree we are losing a lot of ground on crime related concerns. I worry that a lot of them are local "order" (street cleanliness, infrastructure maintenance in bus stops, benches, chipped paint, etc, and of course presence of drug users) that are hard to affect with federal levers.
Barcelona is a city packed with tourists but is is also cleaner than Ottawa because there is a 24/7 crew of garbage collectors and street sweepers, plus maintenance workers. This is of course a niche example but I do think a lot of concerns of safety, order, and crime are bolstered by the poor state of things in communities. Yes, reducing actual crime is essential, but you also have to go for the sense of things going poorly, especially in communities that came to Canada seeking safety and consider that letting their kids go to the park alone is the thing that makes living here worth it.
Barcelona is so great
It absolutely is. And it showed me how many of the cool urbanist things many of us like really do require municipal investment in people working to provide services, quite the challenge in Canada!
I have to push back on the suggestion to focus on Quebec or the BQ, over a suggestion to put more focus on the Reform movement and so-called “Western” Canada (North-Western territories). I understand there is a greater population density in Southern Quebec, but that isn’t where the greatest political divisions are at this specific moment in history.
The complex way Canada formed has many unique regions with a unique history, and unique set of historical grievances and distinct cultures. There is far too much pan-Canadian talk as if the history of Canada is one single story (often narrowly focused on the southern part of the story).
The creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 by the federal government out of parts of the North West Territories (which Canada and the Hudson’s Bay did NOT “own”, and which require treaties under the Royal Proclamation of 1763) generated as unique a culture (and set of grievances) as we see with Quebec's unique culture (and grievances) relating back to the ending of the Seven Years War in 1763.
BC and most of the expansions of Quebec into NWT don’t have real treaties (so-called “modern treaties” aren’t treaties at all, but agreements between Canadian governments and Canadian corporations), in violation of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which is the foundation upon which Canada was built.
Even as 60-70% of Canada’s population is south of the 49'th parallel, there are all these myths promoted by political elites to divisively talk about "Eastern Canada" that controls federal politics. Most provinces were unilaterally expanded northward into the North West Territories, an extreme form of political gerrymandering, granting southern settlers control over the Actual North which has never been allowed to be Strong or Free.
I think the greater crisis to be focused on can be seen in the merger (hostile takeover) of the Federal Progressive Conservative party by the Reform party.
What I believe to be the most viable solution to that is to end the concept of "vote splitting" and pan-Canadian parties by adopting ranked ballots (preferably in multi-member districts with STV), allowing these extremely dissimilar political movements to have their own parties. This would allow parliament to become more representative of Canadians within each region rather than politics be controlled centrally by pan-Canadian parties.
I don’t think any election since 2003 (or really since 1987) can be understood without understanding the internal division within what is now called the “Conservative Party” between the Reform and Federal Progressive Conservative factions.
I like this essay but I have to quibble about forced rehabilitation for drug users. If a person is willing to rehab great, but even that is tough as many slip back anyway, but if a person is unwilling the moment they walk out of the rehab program they will be looking for the next hit. While homelessness has many causes, much of the recent homelessness is caused by being evicted for non-payment of rent due to high rents and layoffs for various reasons and that is only going to get worse.
It's also a violstion of Charter rights...you literally cannot force someone to.do.this
Agree with rest
I generally quite like your columns but I disagree with your pandering on some of these issues. If you want to guarantee a liberal majority how about sticking to the game plan. Don’t get side tracked and lose focus on rebuilding Canada’s economy. Is there a crime problem in Canada? The cons made it an issue just like Trump has in the US. Don’t jump in and get distracted. Don’t pander to Quebec it alienates the west. Don’t pander. Lead. Rather than suggesting Carney spend more time in Quebec I would suggest you spend more time on Conservative substacks. A lot of it is completely irrational. They don’t care about Quebec, crime or housing. They care about dissonance and tearing down the system. They admire Trump. They quote scriptures as if divine providence will set the world straight. (No double …). Many of them want to move to a different country where they can be free.
If Carney needs to add something to the massive work he has before him then the number one priority is to deal with the massive shakedown of the disinformation that is destroying the minds of Canadians. Just my two cents. Keep up the good work.
What’s your problem with Don Davies?
I surprised you pick crime and addiction as your number one priority. I would have expected the Canada - US relations to be the number one priority.
However when we talk about crime, bail and addiction, a couple of points (Carney style: first …).
Involuntary addiction treatment is problematic for more than one reason. Morally we cannot force people into treatment when there is a waiting list for voluntary treatment. There are obviously massive charter challenges. And finally, addiction treatment is only useful if there is support afterwards. Without support people just return to their old environment.
I am also not sure that the federal government wants to step into an area that is 100% provincial. I suspect the provinces will be quite happy to for federal government to take over and take the blame that comes with it.
I would suggest a different approach. I think it is time to call out and expose the provinces for dropping the ball. Establish some sensible metrics and force provinces to report these. Give them quarterly report cards and name & shame as required.
Let it sink in that we have averted the same mistake that the US made and for now be grateful and encouraged that we have a respected world leader and brilliant thinker as our next Prime Minister
"respected world leader"
Except in the UK. Except in ...
Great essay and wonderful content throughout the election, thanks!
Since housing is under provincial jurisdiction, all transfers should have strings/accountability/audits attached. The Resistance Premiers robbed PMJT of Covid money and blew it on their own agendas.
Crime and housing are still provincial!
Everything that is broken is provincial.
Most things that are broken are areas where the feds have been sticking their fingers in. You mention policing but it is the way in which the Criminal Code has been changed and that is federal exclusively. For example, the open door bail system has let too many criminals out on bail to re-offend while waiting for trial.
Your concluding point is based upon "The thing about Carney that has always concerned me is he does not have an emotional relationship to Quebec ..."
I submit that Carney doesn't have an emotional relationship to Alberta either. Oh, he and his claque will tell you that he is from Edmonton but that means he is FROM Edmonton, i.e. he left if for other pastures many decades ago. For him to say that he understand we in Alberta is like him telling you, "I absolutely understand why people voted for Brexit." In other words, it is simply him deluding himself and that is dangerous if you folks in Central Canada don't want further discord from these environ; serious discord.
Yes. It's about time to deal with these topics with revised approaches. How does Carney/cabinet incentivize proper behavior from the provinces on provincial matters? The feds have enough to do with trade and defense and additional responsibilities require additional bureaucracy and cost. Maybe if we can develop and enforce cross Canada licensing for professionals, the same can be done for federal grants in housing, health care, and policing. Worth a shot because the status quo is not working.
" ... Maybe if we can develop and enforce cross Canada licensing for professionals, the same can be done for federal grants in housing, health care, and policing.... "
Kary, you really should read the Constitution Act, specifically Sections 92 and 92A. The items that you mention are PROVINCIAL responsibilities. Some folks argue that not all provinces have dealt with "A" or "B" and argue further that that "absence" justifies federal action. Actually, if the citizens of a province want "A" or "B" then they can have them simply by replacing the provincial government at the next election. You know, democracy.
But, in any event, those are provincial responsibilities. A lot of the problems in our country go back to the feds stepping in where they have no jurisdiction and trying to dictate to provinces what to do.
Just as one example of letting the provinces act is in the realm of publicly financed health care. That was introduced by a provincial government in 1962 whereas the feds only introduced medicare as we know it in 1966.
My point is, the Constitution allocated responsibilities and if the citizens of a province think something should be done or, if already done, should be done differently, they have the right to tell their provincial politicians to do/change, etc.
Hi! Why is it that temporary foreign workers is a bad thing for housing & others? Sorry, I'm kind of out of the loop on this one.
Simply this: assume that you and five other families are looking for a home and there are five homes available. The result is that likely the five of you will each find a home. Now, assume that the government allows in a further one hundred people and you now have one hundred and five people all trying to get those five homes.
In Canada's case, for many, many decades we have allowed more immigration than most countries on Earth but we have had a system that actually built more homes than normal population growth needed so all ended up pretty well. In the last period of time the Trudeau government allowed in many, many hundreds of thousands of people both as permanent immigrants and as temporary arrivals and that meant that there were far more people trying to find homes than homes were being built. Combine that with various problems from municipal and provincial governments in getting homes built and there is a crisis that needs to dramatically reduce - particularly - temporary foreign folks from coming unless and until we can get supply and demand back in synch.