Former NWT Premier George Braden Died on Monday Night

George Braden was the first NWT government leader to be called “premier” in the NWT. I got to know George when I was completing my project on territorial devolution in the Canadian north.  At time, he was working for another former territorial Premier, Dennis Patterson, who is the Senator for Nunavut.  I had interviewed George in Ottawa, I think, several years ago and was amazed at the vast amount of knowledge he had and how generous he was in sharing it.

Several years later, when the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations invited me to contribute a chapter to its 2011 State of the Federation book, I readily agreed but only if George would co-author and happily, he agreed.  And boy was a glad, because his knowledge of territorial intergovernmental relations was vast and unparalleled.  Check out our chapter here (ungated) and you can find the entire book here.

George was a real joy to work with, whether as a co-author or simply as someone I could bounce my crazy ideas off of about the north.  We had, at one point, talked about doing a conference and book on the north, with Kirk Cameron.  The goal was to gather all of the territorial “founders” together to talk about “the once and future” political and constitutional development of Canada’s territories but much to my regret, we never put aside time to do it.

Here’s the story about George’s passing.

LISPOP Observes the 2015 Alberta Election

Few provincial elections garner as much attention as the current campaign in Alberta, about to reach its conclusion when voters hit the polls tomorrow. Furthermore, Alberta elections tend to be a foregone conclusion, with the incumbent Progressive Conservatives assumed to return to power. This was true since 1971, and before then, the Social Credit solidly held on to power for a generation. If polls are to be believed, and there does appear to be a consensus, on Tuesday voters in Alberta are likely to make history. This is certainly an election night to watch, and one that we here at LISPOP have been observing.

Here are three contributions.

1) Most recently, Geoff Stevens compares Alberta Premier Jim Prentice’s possible misjudgment in calling an early election to the similar fate that visited former Ontario premier David Peterson in 1990.

2) Simon Kiss challenges the long-held assumption that Alberta is Canada’s safe repository of right-wing ideology.

3) Christopher Alcantara commented on former Wildrose leader Danielle Smith’s ultimate political descent.

 

Polls show Alberta ready for change

Published May 4, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record and Guelph Mercury.

The desire for change is the most powerful force in politics. We are seeing that in Alberta where voters will go to the polls on Tuesday in a provincial election that appears destined to end the Progressive Conservatives’ 44-year stranglehold on power. All the pollsters agree: the New Democrats will take over in Alberta, their only reservation being whether the NDP will emerge with a majority or minority government.

Change? In Alberta? An orange government in the bluest of Canadian provinces? NDP Premier Rachel Notley? Wow!

But wait. Is it possible that the pollsters – all of them – are wrong? Continue reading

In theory, yes, and given the polling fraternity’s abysmal record in the last Alberta election in 2012, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. But it seems highly unlikely that they are all wrong this time. By last week, the various polls were all showing the NDP well ahead, with about 38 per cent of the popular vote, which given the fragmented vote on the right, might be just enough to eke out a bare majority.  The one thing the pollsters did not agree on was whether rookie Premier Jim Prentice’s Tories were in second place or in third, behind Wildrose.

As of Friday, the poll consolidator ThreeHundredEight.com put the NDP comfortably ahead with 41.8 per cent of the vote to 26.0 for Wildrose, 24.7 for the PCs and just 4.7 for the Liberals. By then, the desperate Conservatives had mounted a “fear” campaign to warn the people of the dreadful consequences of electing the socialist hordes. The campaign apparently fell flat. A new poll, by Forum Research on Saturday, showed the NDP at 42, Wildrose at 24 and Conservatives 21. Numbers like those would yield a majority NDP government with about 50 members in the 87-seat Alberta Legislature.

What happened to turn Alberta from Tory blue to NDP orange? There were several factors. To start with, Prentice was so overconfident that he called the election a year before it was required; he might have consulted David Peterson, the former Liberal premier of Ontario, who did the same thing in 1990, thereby paving the way for the election of Bob Rae and the NDP. Peterson could have told Prentice that voters don’t like being taken for granted or being pressured into unnecessary elections.

The collapse of world oil prices and its impact on Alberta’s economy, both in terms of job losses and lost government revenue, was a huge factor; it caused Albertans to question some of their political assumptions and allegiances. Prentice’s budget, with its tax increases (on individuals but not on corporations), austerity measures and a record deficit, made matters worse – and the premier dug his hole deeper when he suggested Albertans look in the mirror to see who is responsible for the province’s financial woes.

He came to epitomize cynical old-style politics when he tried to destroy the official opposition by using policy concessions to buy off the Wildrose leader and eight of her caucus members. He was outperformed by Rachel Notley in the leaders’ debate. She and her New Democrats came to represent change, while Prentice and his party stood for the status quo or worse.

Forty-four years is quite a record. Let’s think back to 1971 and what was going on away back then. The Vietnam war was raging. Charles Manson and three women followers were convicted of murdering Hollywood star Sharon Tate and seven others. The Toronto Telegram died and the Toronto Sun was born. It would be another two years before the Watergate scandal would burst on the world. The top song in the Canada was “Sweet City Woman” by The Stampeders. There were no cell phones yet, and personal computers were not generally available in 1971.

And in August, 1971, with political change in the air, a young Calgary lawyer named Peter Lougheed led a band of Tories to an upset election victory in Alberta. The rest is – or was – history.

Springtime in Alberta…

“Springtime in Alberta” is one of my favourite Ian Tyson songs and it’s proving to be somewhat prescient in light of the current election campaign.

Just like spring time in Alberta
Warm sunny days endless skies of blue
Then without a warning
Another winter storm comes raging through

Although the polls are show a remarkable lead for the Alberta NDP, something most people would have considered to be impossible just three weeks ago, many people also seem to think that another winter storm may yet blow through this campaign, just as it did in the dying days of the 2012 campaign. This time, though, it might not be the Wildrose losing its lead, but the NDP.

I won’t go out on a limb to make a prediction, but I do think that the lead in the public opinion polls should be taken more seriously than most people currently are and that a change in government is possible. The graph below shows the results of each public opinion survey published in the 2012 and 2015 elections. Obviously, the NDP has a big, big lead in current public opinion surveys and it’s getting bigger in the last day or two. Continue reading

These results do not count for undecided voters, and that will certainly be something to watch in the next 4 days.

ab_polls
As people point out, the Wildrose Party had a substantial lead in 2012, and that evaporated. This is true. But it is worth pointing out that polls can differ from final vote intention for two reasons. Not to put it too bluntly, but they can get public opinion wrong or public opinion can change between the publication of poll results and the casting of ballots.

The fear with most polls these days, and particularly in this campaign, is that because they are online surveys of voluntary panel participants or automated “robo-polls,” they can overestimate those who have the strongest motivation to stick around and participate. IN this case, it seems plausible to think that the polls could be overestimating opposition party support, given how long in the tooth the PC dynasty is and some of its more spectacular instances of “foot in mouth disease.” Are the 2015 polls overestimating support for the NDP and underestimating support for the PCs? Maybe. But it’s worth it to cast a close eye on the final data point on the 2012 graph. The field work for that poll was done the day before the election and the results were published that night. It showed more than a 10% point jump in support for the PCs and a corresponding drop for the Wildrose. And there were still another 12-24 hours until people interested in casting a ballot, did so. There are a lot of voters who tell survey researchers that they make up their mind on who to vote for the day of the election. To me it seems at least as plausible to suggest that the 2012 polls were actually accurately gauging public opinion over the course of the campaign but that many voters made a final switch at the last minute back to the PCs. Polls weren’t necessarily wrong; they were just measuring decided vote intention, which, it perhaps bears emphasizing, can change once undecideds make up their mind.

The other reason that some people are hesitant to believe that the NDP could win are because it is Alberta and, in the words of Premier Prentice, “Alberta is not an NDP province”. Essentially, this the belief that Albertans are fundamentally opposed to government intervention.

This argument is one of the more common ones but is it far too simple to accept and rule out an NDP victory on Tuesday. The graph below shows the difference between Alberta and Canadian public opinion on a more or less random set of questions from the Canada Election Study. For each item, I took the percentage of Canadians that selected the most liberal option and subtracted from it the percentage of Albertans that selected the same item. The y-axis shows the difference in percentage points between Canadians and Albertans selecting the most liberal option. Positive values suggest that more Albertans selected the most liberal option than Canadians; negative values suggest that more Canadians selected the most liberal option.

cdn_ab_gap

Two things stand out to me in this graph: First, on most of the items, the gap between Albertans and Canadians has been getting smaller. Perhaps this is a product of demographic change in Alberta, as people have flocked to the province to participate in the growing economy, perhaps not. Either way, the gaps between Albertans and Canadians don’t seem to be that large. Keep in mind there is an margin of error associated with each measurement of 2-3 percentage points. There is a slight tilt toward conservatism, but it’s not so dramatic that we should think an NDP win on Tuesday to be impossible. In fact, in 2008 and 2011 there were more Albertans expressing a willingness to increase personal income taxes, than in the rest of Canada. Moreover, the gap between people who strongly disagree that job creation should be solely left to the private sector has been dropping.

And if public opinion isn’t convincing enough, government actions also paint a more complex picture. The PC governments that have governed Alberta have been far more flexible than their caricature suggests. In the 1970s, the Lougheed government purchased an airline and directly subsidized the nascent oil sands industry. Despite a turn to the right under Premier Klein, the government of Alberta remains the only government in Canada with a Crown corporation dedicated to retail financial operations (i.e. it owns a bank). Currently, Alberta has the highest per capita expenditures on health care , but they have the lowest taxes.

But to me, this is not the mark of an ideologically conservative population, but quite a normal one, one that wants things good things without paying for them. Up until now, the Progressive Conservatives have had the fiscal resources to provide both those for Albertans. To me, that is the bigger reason for the PCs’ longevity: not any kind of deep, ideological commitment to right-wing governance in the population. And the combination of a tough recent budget that raised taxes and fees, an early election despite fixed-election legislation and frankly, a brutally, inept campaign mean that the polls should be taken seriously.

It is, in fact, springtime in Alberta.

Full public disclosure: Publish water bills?

Published Apr. 30, 2015, in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Over the last several years, accountability and transparency issues have been at the forefront of discussions and news coverage of Canadian politics. The usual targets have been politicians such as former MP Bev Oda, former Alberta premier Alison Redford, and senators Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin. Other popular targets include the “sunshine list” of public-sector employees at all levels of government, such as professors, teachers and police officers, among others.

The usual narrative in these stories is how we need more accountability and transparency in our governments. In practice, this means the government should post more public information about these politicians and employees, such as salaries, benefits and expenses, and to include as much detail as possible about their office, travel and technology expenditures.

Read more…

 

Rethink policies on extracurricular activities

Published Apr. 23, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Over the last several months, Ontario teachers have been negotiating new collective agreements with their school boards and in some cases, with the Ontario government.

As students inch closer to graduation day, some parents have started to worry about the possibility of teacher strikes or school lockouts, the former of which is occurring in Durham this week. Others are concerned about the possibility of “work to rule,” where teachers protest the pace of their negotiations by ceasing all extracurricular activities to focus solely on teaching the curriculum.

In most cases, work-to-rule is the first line of defence for teachers when collective bargaining hits a wall. This strategy is designed to put pressure on the school boards to negotiate in good faith without jeopardizing the ability of students to complete their studies.

When work-to-rule happens, however, many parents and students complain bitterly about how unfair it is that they must suffer as innocent bystanders in the dispute between teachers and school boards.

Read more…

“Albertans Have Spoken!” or Maybe Not: The Curious Coverage of Danielle Smith

Earlier this week, Danielle Smith failed to win the PC nomination in her riding and the knives were out.  Some commentators and politicians mentioned how “Albertans have spoken” or how “Albertans” didn’t like her floor-crossing behaviour and punished her accordingly. Continue reading

There are a lot of angles to this story but one that hasn’t been corrected is this fallacy that Albertans passed judgement on Smith.  Albertans didn’t judge Smith.  It was the PC members of Highwood who did that. To say that Albertans didn’t like Smith’s decision and so Albertans punished her by supporting Carrie Fisher is a little disingenuous.

A better test of Albertan views about Smith would have been if she had won the PC nomination but lost her seat in the upcoming general election. Unfortunately, we won’t get a chance to see how that test would have played out.

 

The Sunshine List is all breadth and no depth

Published Apr. 1, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Did you know that the Region of Waterloo’s chief administrative officer, Michael Murray, made $263,355.12 last year?

We know this thanks to the Public Sector Salary Disclosure — more commonly known as the Sunshine List — which provides a yearly financial picture of the province’s highest public sector earners.

Unfortunately, the list cannot tell us much else and leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions about value and efficiency.

The annual Sunshine List is the result of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, legislation brought forward by the Mike Harris government in 1996.

The act requires that organizations receiving public funding from the Province of Ontario disclose the names, positions, salaries and taxable benefits of employees who are paid annual salaries of $100,000 or more. Currently, this legislation applies to the Government of Ontario, Crown agencies, municipalities, hospitals, public health and school boards, universities, colleges, Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation, and other public sector employers who receive a significant level of funding from the province.

Read more…

Forget Robert Munsch, kindergartners need skills training

Published Mar. 21, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Recently, the government of Ontario announced that it would be asking employers and industry groups to participate in a process designed to transform how universities are funded and operated in Ontario.

In many ways, this announcement is unsurprising in that it is simply the latest development in a long-term trend toward pushing universities to become places that focus more strongly on training students to meet the needs of the Canadian economy.

Universities, according to this vision, need to become sophisticated versions of community colleges, providing students with high-end skills and training to meet the current and future demands of the marketplace.

Predictably, this recent announcement has generated considerable opposition and disgust among my academic colleagues. I, on the other hand, applaud the government for taking this bold and visionary stance in provincial education policy.

Read more…

A deep chill descends over Parliament Hill

Published on Nov. 24, 2014, in the Waterloo Region Record.

Back in the olden days, when prime ministers still deigned to speak to provincial premiers, they would hold gatherings called first ministers’ conferences. This happened fairly often, perhaps once a year, depending on what was happening in the country at the time.

The prime minister would invite his provincial counterparts to Ottawa to talk about the economy, the Constitution, the state of the federation, pensions, medicare or even that old chestnut, the reform of the Senate.  The premier of Ontario always sat on the PM’s right, the premier of Quebec on his left, with the others placed around the table in the order of entry into Confederation.

If he was in a good mood, which he often was, their genial host would invite his guests home for drinks and dinner. They might pose for a group photograph, then hold press conferences to tell the Canadian public what they had discussed and decided, or left undecided.
Continue reading

Thinking back on it, it was a comforting ritual. Things might be going badly in the land – whether because of international issues, persistent unemployment, hyper-inflation or the threat of separatism – but at least the leaders, regardless of partisan affiliation, would gather to try to sort out problems and seek solutions. The process was reassuringly Canadian.

That was then. This is now. In the Sun King era in Ottawa, Stephen Harper does not hold federal-provincial conferences. Now that he has a majority government, he doesn’t think he needs to.

It’s not so much that he actively dislikes individual premiers (although he manages to control his affection for Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne), as it is that he actively resists the notion of meeting with them en masse. That would mean sharing the big national stage with a gaggle of mere provincial politicians, who would undoubtedly try to make him spend his money to fix their problems. He has cabinet ministers who can take care of whatever it may be that is troubling these lesser leaders. And why should he have them home for dinner?

The premiers think of themselves as partners in Confederation. He treats them as uninvited guests at the national table.

The chill between Ottawa and Toronto is deepening. Premier Wynne wants to meet Harper to discuss such legitimate issues as infrastructure, the auto industry, improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, and violence against aboriginal women and girls. She wrote to Harper in September to request a meeting. Last week, two months later, she got a reply but no agreement to meet. “I encourage you to work with the responsible federal ministers to make further progress in these priority areas over the coming year,” the prime minister wrote.

Why the snub? It has everything to do with partisan politics. In the past – though not always, admittedly – federal and provincial leaders tried to keep out of each other’s patch in election season. Not today. Wynne is openly campaigning for Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals in the pre-launch to the federal election of 2015, just as Harper and his people vigorously supported Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives in the Ontario election this year.

The federal election next October will be won or lost in Ontario. In Wynne, the Liberals have a potent ally. She has a fresh majority mandate and is considerably more popular in the province – especially in Toronto – than Harper is. So don’t expect him to do her any favours between now and election day.

The breakdown in relations between Ottawa and Ontario has had one interesting effect. Left without someone to talk to in Ottawa, Wynne is working around Harper by making common cause with Quebec’s new premier, Philippe Couillard, a fellow Liberal, starting with electricity swaps (they signed an agreement when they met in Toronto last week), climate change and pipelines.

For Ontario and Quebec to work together is in the best tradition of Confederation. That they are doing it today highlights the leadership vacuum that exists in Ottawa.

Something Old or Something New? Territorial Development and Influence within the Canadian Federation

9781553392071

 

 

 

 

 

Authors: George Braden, Christopher Alcantara, and Michael Morden.

Published in Canada: The State of the Federation, 2011, edited by Nadia Verrelli.

Publisher: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Description: Copy of chapter available here.

Learning to School: An Interview with Author Jennifer Wallner

9781442615892

Dr. Jennifer Wallner is assistant professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. She has published articles in many of the discipline’s leading journals, such as Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Comparative Political Studies, the Peabody Journal of Education, and Canadian Journal of Political Science. Her new book, Learning to School: Federalism and Public Schooling in Canada, was recently published by University of Toronto Press and explains how and why the Canadian provinces have achieved a remarkably coherent system of elementary and secondary education, without the intervention of the federal government.

Below is an interview I conducted with Dr. Wallner about her new book via email in 2014.
Continue reading

Alcantara: Why did you decide to write a book on this topic?

Wallner: Well, as you know, one big practical motivator for writing a book is the fact that we need to publish to get tenure! But, more substantively, this book evolved from my PhD dissertation. A student of federalism and public policy, I wanted to understand the ways in which the constituent members of a federation manage to craft coherent yet differentiated policy systems despite institutional fragmentation and societal diversity. I picked the education sector because it is critical to the success of any state and one of the most important services it delivers. What is more, in federations, the responsibility for schooling falls to the substate governments – or provinces in the Canadian context. This institutional design creates, on the one hand, unique opportunities for policy experimentation but, on the other hand, also ushers in the potential for incoherent and unequal schooling systems to emerge as the provinces pursue different practices. As I PhD student, I wanted to understand the evolution and management of the provincial elementary and secondary schooling systems.

Alcantara: So how different or similar are educational policy systems across provinces and territories?

Wallner: Before answering that question, I have to clarify something. Because of major differences in the respective institutional and economic capacities of the provinces and territories – let alone their historical independence and autonomy from the federal government – I decided to focus on explaining and understanding the evolution of the provincial systems alone. So – if we look at the provinces, in the main, the core components of their respective education systems demonstrate far more similarity than difference. I show this in three ways. I track the relative investments that are made, the achievements realized, and the substantive content of the policies themselves. To unpack the content, I break the schooling sector into five dimensions (administration, finance, curriculum, assessment, and the teaching profession) and detail what each province is doing. This is not to suggest that the are exact replicas or copies of one another – obvious differences include separate Catholic school boards in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario and the unique transition years between secondary and post-secondary schooling in Quebec, known as CEGEP. But – taking a broad view, the schooling systems are remarkably similar across the federation.

Alcantara: That is really surprising! As you know, the old school federalism literature talks about how federal systems are advantageous because they permit policy experimentation and so it’s somewhat surprising to hear how similar the provincial education systems are. So is this a case where the systems have always been similar right from the beginning? Or did the systems evolve and converge through policy experimentation and learning?

 Wallner: I was definitely surprised by the results! Once it was clear that there was convergence, I wanted to see if provincial similarity was a more recent phenomenon driven by such things as globalization or US influence. So, I decided to take a long view and adopt an historical approach and went all the way back to the 1840s when then-colonial governments of British North America began to enact policies for public schooling. It turns out that at first some interesting differences appeared among the colonies – and what would later become the provinces – as officials in the different areas pursued different options. However, following Confederation, provincial officials were keenly aware of the fact that they needed to meet and exchange information on their different education arrangements and so formed the Dominion Education Association. Teachers and school board officials also got into the mix by the 1920s and created their own associations that brought together representatives from coast to coast. This activity set down a tradition of dedicated information exchanges that helped facilitate what public policy people like to call ‘policy oriented learning’. And so – by 1945, many of the differences that had originally marked the provinces were already disappearing thanks to experts and officials learning from one another and adapting practices to fit within their respective jurisdictions.

Alcantara: How did these policy learning processes and networking exchanges become so permanent and robust and resistant to differentiation and the forces of change (e.g. economic shocks, international and local/regional labour trends, and the like)? Were they institutionalized in some manner?

 Wallner: I should clarify something – it is not as if in 1945 all policy experimentation stopped and all the provinces looked alike with the education systems as we know them today. In some ways I wish it had been that simple. Instead, some provinces always continued to experiment often in response to many of those factors you mentioned above like economic shocks and labour trends. When new practices popped up in one province, the others could watch to see if they worked – like university-led teacher education programs, that started in Alberta and then spread across the rest of the country. So, what contributed to the permanence and robustness of the learning network? One of the major things that contributed to this was the creation of the Council for Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) in 1967. This is an organization for education ministers and their senior deputies alone. They have regularly scheduled meetings and a permanent secretariat based in Toronto that helps keep things going – even as governments change hands across the provinces after elections. I am not saying that everything is channeled through CMEC – but the Council helped to institutionalize the learning network and offers a focal point for information exchanges thus facilitating the necessary communication from coast to coast.

Alcantara: So what are the implications of your research findings in terms of a) what we should expect to see from provincial education policy in the future; and b) what policymakers might learn from your work?

 Wallner: Great questions! For many people, one issue that is already getting considerable coverage is the declining math scores in all provinces, except Quebec. I hope that officials are going to capitalize on Canada’s comparative advantage and draw lessons from Quebec to help improve things in the rest of the jurisdictions. Moving beyond what I covered in my book – another issue that receives considerably less attention but is one that needs to be addressed is the quality of schooling for Aboriginal children, and the new autonomy that the territories have over schooling in their respective regions and what that will mean for provincial and territorial cooperation in education.

On the lessons learned – I hope that three things come out from the book. First, and this is something we did not have a chance to get into here but schooling systems are in fact a collection of policies and practices that are often developed in isolation from one another. For example, some area of the bureaucracy will specialize in curriculum while another focuses on administration. Decisions in administration, however, can influence things in curriculum and so it is important to recognize the interconnections among the different dimensions of education policy. Second, interprovincial communication is critical and must happen regularly. It is only through actively exchanging ideas that we learn from one other and make overall improvements to our schooling systems. Third and most importantly is that provincial policy makers can build remarkably effective policy systems – like education – without the direct intervention of the federal government and without expecting each province to do exactly the same thing.

Alcantara: Now that this book is done, what are you hoping to write about next?

Wallner: I am turning my attention to other Anglo-American federations – Australia and the US – to unpack the different trajectories of the schooling systems in those two other countries. Both cases are fascinating in and of themselves and in comparison with Canada. Did you know, for example, that more than 30 percent of Australians attend private schools that are supported by public funds? Or that many US governors have little authority over schooling policy in their states? Both countries are also in the throws of considering some major changes to the way that schooling is managed, specifically with respect to the role that should be played by the Commonwealth and Washington respectively. Bottom line: this makes great fodder for political science and public policy research!

Scotland Independence and Implications for Quebec’s Sovereignty Movement

Some notable Quebec sovereignists are making their way to Scotland to observe the Sept. 18 vote with the hope that a victory for the independence movement there will provide pointers on a repeat performance in a future Quebec referendum. While sovereignists may derive some inspiration from their Scottish counterparts, the real lessons might begin Sept. 19.

Continue reading

If Scotland votes to secede, apart from the jubilation in the streets of Edinburgh, the real show will be about how Scotland manages its independence transition. The implications of this process are potentially profound. In some ways, the Quebec referendum of 1995 was fought by arguing the risks of the Oui side winning. There was talk about whether an independent Quebec could continue to use the Canadian dollar, whether Quebec “citizens” would still be able to hold on to their Canadian passports, whether Quebec pensioners would still be eligible to draw from the Canada Pension Plan, and so forth. Before the actual vote, all that political leaders do is debate these matters. So a “pre-independent” Quebec or Scotland functions inside a context of great uncertainty.

Should Scotland vote to secede, what happens next will be vitally important to Quebec’s sovereignist and federalist leaders. The fate of any future Quebec referendum partially hinges on whether the transition moves along relatively smoothly or whether Scottish (and British) society descends into major political (and economic) chaos. If there are long disputes about what it would take for an independent Scotland to continue using the British pound (and there is some indication this is a already main point of contention), or disagreements about access to oil reserves, or other inter-governmental entanglements, then Quebec sovereignists would look at this mess with discouragement. This transition, therefore, provides Quebecers with a simulation, of sorts. A positive and peaceful transition will add substance to any drive to regenerate Quebec’s sovereignty movement.

If you’re a betting person, here are some safe bets

Published Sept. 8, 2014, in the Waterloo Region Record.

There are precious few safe bets in politics these days, but here are a few.

Safe bet number one: Stephen Harper will not win the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, for which he is being nominated by his admirers in B’Nai Brith Canada, the group that earlier gave the prime minister its Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism. It didn’t take long, just a few hours, for an online petition to spring up demanding that the Norwegian Nobel Committee reject Harper’s nomination; overnight it attracted 13,000 signatures. Elsewhere, the reaction ranged from outrage (among Palestinian Canadians) to laughter (among most non-Conservatives).

Continue reading

Safe bet number two: Andrea Horwath will not be the NDP leader when the next Ontario election rolls around in four years’ time. She faces a crucial NDP provincial council meeting this coming weekend – followed, if she survives that meeting, by a formal leadership review in November.

The council will want to know why she forfeited the influence the NDP had enjoyed with the then minority Liberal government by opposing its budget, which was loaded with goodies for the NDP. By rejecting the budget, Horwath precipitated a June election she could not win. She ran a poorly prepared and executed campaign. She alienated the party’s traditional labour base and many of the NDP rank and file with policies that moved the party to the right of the Liberals. The new head of the Canadian Labour Congress described her as a “coward.”

When the dust settled, Kathleen Wynne had a majority government and the NDP was still in third place – now cloutless and bitter. “Andrea is fighting for her life,” a longtime party worker told the Toronto Star. “Among a very large section of the activist base there is little more than comptempt for her.” Ouch!

Safe bet number three: Rob Ford will not be mayor of Toronto for 14 more years, as he says he intends to be. That would take him up to his 60th birthday.

Of course, nothing is “safe” when dealing with the unpredictable Ford. A few months ago, before entering rehab, most people – me included – would have bet against his reelection for a second four-year term. Now the race has changed. He is in second place, the underdog to front-runner John Tory, and underdog is where the populist mayor likes to be. I still don’t think Ford can win again in October, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

But 14 years? Nah, it couldn’t happen. Could it? Make it a small bet against.

But back to Stephen Harper and the Nobel Peace Prize. His supporters are certainly gung-ho, his detractors not so much. “You don’t know whether to laugh or cry,” says Hanna Kawas, the head of the Canadian Palestine Association in Vancouver. “It’s outrageous.”

But Frank Dimant, the CEO of B’Nai Brith, harbours no doubts. He praises Harper’s international leadership and the “moral clarity” he brings to issues of good and evil. “More than any other individual, he has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat – such as opposing Russian aggression and annexation of Ukrainian territory – and has worked to ensure that other world leaders truly understand the threat of Islamic terrorism facing us today.”

That’s a much larger and more influential role than most other leaders would concede to Harper. His support of Israel is unconditional and, I think, genuine. It is also good politics at home. But by being so one-sided, it doesn’t allow for Canada to play any useful role in the delicate diplomacy of the Middle East.

When it comes to Russian aggression in Ukraine, Harper roars from the sidelines and shakes his fist at Vladimir Putin. He will do anything for Ukraine, so long as the cost of any Canadian contribution does not jeopordize his pursuit of a balanced budget in time for the federal election in October next year. Unfortunately, deficit elimination is not one of the criteria for a Nobel Prize. Sorry, sir.

Canadian First Ministers’ Conferences and Heresthetic Strategies: Explaining Alberta’s Position on Multiculturalism at the 1971 Victoria Conference

Authors: Christopher Alcantara, Renan Levine, James C. Walz

Published Spring 2014 in Journal of Canadian Studies.

Abstract: The Province of Alberta seems an unlikely early advocate of multiculturalism; yet, several months before the federal government unveiled its official policy on this issue, it was an Alberta premier, Harry Strom, who demanded that multiculturalism be a condition for constitutional reform during the 1971 Victoria Constitutional Conference. What explains this puzzle? Using William Riker’s concept of heresthetics and the literature on Alberta politics, Western alienation, and Canadian federalism, the authors argue that Strom introduced multiculturalism at the conference as a strategic manoeuvre to bolster and defend Alberta’s compact perspective on federalism and to block any constitutional change that would prevent Alberta from recognizing itself as an equal and autonomous partner in the Canadian federation. The authors’ findings suggest that Riker’s concept of heresthetics may be useful for analyzing other instances of intergovernmental relations in Canada.