Stephen Harper (aka Adam Sutler) promised to end the practice of having recent government employees become lobbyists of their former employers:

“If there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich trying to lobby a future Conservative government, if that’s true of any of you, you had better make different plans, or leave,” Mr. Harper said then.”

It sounded like a positive step for government accountability and ethics. And yet, we now find that such high and mighty talk only applies to people who worked for Ministers. Well, that’s convenient, isn’t it?! Given that the Conservatives and their predecessors have been in opposition for the last 12 years, I guess this new accountability doesn’t apply to any Conservative staffers, only Liberals ones! Apparently it is OK to have worked for any MP other than a Minister, then turn around an lobby your ex-boss once he or she is in power. It makes a mockery of Harper’s claims of reform.

Here’s another example of Adam Sutler’s (aka Stephen Harper) ministerial mind control, courtesy The Dominion:

Event Cancelled Due to PMO Gag Order: Organizers

“Canada’s Role in Afghanistan,” a panel hosted by the University of Calgary’s Center for Military and Strategic Studies (CMSS),” was cancelled due to Prime Minister Harper’s recent decision to place major limits on the media’s access to ministers, organizers say.

CTV reported that the Prime Minister’s Office issued an order restricting interaction with the press to discussions of the “five priority areas identified in the [Conservative] campaign.”

“In order to keep a grip on such events (those that distract from priority areas), PMO will approve of all ministerial events,” the order allegedly said.

A CMSS spokesperson told The Dominion that “only David Sproule, Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan, was able to attend the panel. Therefore, we decided to cancel it.”

The CMSS spokesperson affirmed that it is their belief that the decree made by Harper’s office led to the immediate unavailability of the other speakers, which were to include Omar Samad, Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Canada.

At press time, the Foreign Affairs department had not responded to requests for information about Samad’s cancellation.

Anthony Fenton

Another day, another example of the Stephen Harper’s (aka Adam Sutler) contempt for democracy. And yet another example of how he has betrayed his pledge to run a more accountable and open government. I will once again, remind readers that my opposition to these moves are not driven my partisan concerns, but — given the title of this blog — the basic requirements for democracy. Consider the following article — I’ll just quote some of the highlights:

Harper’s staff, media battle over access issues
Updated Mon. Mar. 27 2006 7:20 PM ET
Canadian Press

Security on Parliament Hill barred reporters from attending a pair of Stephen Harper photo opportunities Monday as the Prime Ministers Office flexed its media messaging muscles.

The made-for-TV confrontation between security and reporters outside Harper’s office door graphically illustrated the deteriorating relations between a PMO seeking total message control and news media defending their hard-won access.

It’s a battle that may be beginning to resonate beyond the cozy precincts of the Peace Tower as the Conservatives threaten to hold secret cabinet meetings and withhold information about visiting heads of state.

“Harper ran on a campaign of open and accountable government,” New Democrat MP Charlie Angus said Monday.

“And the first thing we see him doing is putting plywood up over all his windows and barring access to the doors. My question is, why? What is Harper afraid of?”

The personal disdain of Harper and his closest advisers for the national media is well known from a variety of past and present party sources.

Emmanuelle Latraverse, a Radio-Canada reporter and president of the press gallery, said the PMO is attempting to claw back access rights that have taken years to win.

“It’s a privilege to govern and our duty as the press in a free society is to pick and choose the issues that we cover,” she said.

“By restricting access to cabinet ministers, it amounts to restricting the issues that we can cover properly.”

Of course, partisan Conservatives will defend the Prime Minister and trash non-partisan criticism like mine. They will be sure to label the mainstream media as Liberally biased (borrowing heavily from the Republican play-book) — just like all those public opinion polls that turned out to be exactly correct (but I guess the cries died down after January 1 when polls shifted to the Conservatives). I suppose that somehow in the minds of Conservative supporters restricting media access justifies running their government in secret. I guess the ends justify the means. The theory — as explained by the PM’s director of communications Sandra Buckler — is that we are just supposed to trust that the government is doing its job when she says “I don’t think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being well run.” And how do we know if the only thing Canadians hear is what the PMO as deemed appropriate? It’s an affront to democracy, pure and simple. Say what you will about the Liberals, but at least they were allowed to talk to the media. But how cares, really, it’s only democracy, right?

Great news out of Queen’s Park today — they launched their efforts on Electoral Reform. One small step for democracy!

If you live in Ontario, I would encourage you to volunteer for the Citizens Assembly which will be selected randomly in order to consider changes to the electoral system. Check out the website at:

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/index.html

As it happens I strongly disagree with the Toronto Star’s editorial on the subject, “McGuinty’s electoral rethink” — and wrote this response:

Re: McGuinty’s risky electoral rethink

I often agree with Star editorials, but on electoral reform, they are dead wrong. Our winner-takes-all system produces neither “strength” nor “stability”. How much stability is there when cities, families and businesses can’t plan ahead because a change in government means reneging on past agreements or changing the rules (often half-baked ideas concocted mid-election)? We need strong policies, not strong governments — and Canada’s most progressive policies were born out of compromise, when single-party power was limited by a strong opposition. Our system artificially accentuates party differences — pitting east vs. west, urban vs. rural despite shared concerns. A system recommended by the Law Commission of Canada that combines 2/3 local representatives (elected as per usual) with 1/3 regional representatives (elected by proportion of vote) gives us the best of both worlds — a system adopted by Westminster states such as Scotland, Wales and New Zealand and on its way in mother England. A simple minimum threshold of votes guards against small parties. A winner-takes-all system worked well in the past when we had 2 or 3 parties, but today, when nearly two-thirds of the people vote for someone else but the winning party gains a strong majority (as in 1997), you know the system is a crude approximation of reality. More importantly, the introduction of regional representatives would give a strong voice to regional concerns — on environmental issues, transit, growth management. For all the “strong” government we’ve had in the last two decades, we have among the worst records on child poverty, the environment, income disparity, aboriginal health, infrastructure investment, weakening public health, among others, so its time we were honest with ourselves. The system isn’t working as it should; we deserve better and we shouldn’t be afraid of thinking creatively about ways to fix it.

Gregory D. Morrow, Ph.D Cand.
UCLA School of Public Affairs

Plantizen — the planning & development network — made a list of its top 10 planning issues for 2005. Here’s what I think about them:

1. Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain
Terrible, as I noted previously. Eminent Domain hurts the little guy 9 times out of 10. Its purpose is to facilitate land assembly for large-scale developers (non- and for-profit). The premise is that wholesale change is better than smaller, incremental change. The history of mega-development — even in the name of the public good — has been dreadful.

2. Hurricane Katrina
An important planning issue that has everyone in planning scrambling to get down to New Orleans to help. Perhaps I am cynical but where the hell were the social justice advocates before the hurricane? That it took a massive crisis to mobilize the planning profession seems to me to run counter to what planning is. Isn’t planning supposed to pro-active, not reactive? It should serve as a reminder to everyone of the importance of planning — that is, thinking into the future to head off potential disasters. Unfortunately, given the scale of disaster, those groups with a ready-made toolkit just waiting to be implemented will be the winners. And make no mistake — it is the New Urbanists who came to New Orleans ready to deploy. Somehow that troubles me…

3. America’s Failing Infrastructure
Nothing new here. As local budgets get squeezed further and further, the regular investments necessary to maintain infrastructure are not made — everything from bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, you name it. That’s one of the things government is supposed to do — figure out ways to make regular investments in critical public assets (either by direct support or user-pay). Donors don’t give money to fix potholes, so the problem usually isn’t with new ribbon-cutting initiatives, but rather with the everyday maintainence.

4. The McMansion Backlash
Well, there’s a backlash in certain circles, but to your average hard-working family, it is a symbol of pride and achievement to finally move into one of those hideously designed mega-houses in the suburbs. Certainly, it’s not my goal. But, until we find a way to even out land values across a metropolitan region, people will always be trading off location for space. It’s a values question — how much space do you really need? To me, I find it difficult to imagine a family of four requiring more than about 2,000 square feet + garage. Do the math: living room (250 s.f.), dining room (200 s.f.), kitchen (200 s.f.), den/family room (250 s.f.), master bedroom (200 s.f.), master bath (120 s.f.), walk-in-closet (60 s.f.), bedroom 2 (180 s.f.), bedroom 3 (180 s.f.), bath 2 (120 s.f.), laundry (60 s.f.), entry/powder (80 s.f. ), circulation (100 s.f.) = 2,000 s.f.

5. “Condofication”
Here, we are referring to the conversion of rental units into condos, often forcing people to relocate. To me, converting to condo ownership from rental isn’t the problem. The problem is when there aren’t enough condos on the market and prices are therefore exorbitant. We need to find a way to facilitate the construction of more housing units, rental and condo, period. Affordability problems are typically a problem of cities blocking what the market would otherwise be happy to provide. This is a morals question — current zoning prioritizes R1 (single family) above all else. Too much city land is zoned R1 and not multi-family. More multi-family housing (rental or condo) and the overall cost goes down.

6. Google Democratizes Mapping
I must say I love Google maps and Google Earth. The applications are vast. The Toronto Star, for example, uses Google to map the locations of homocides in the city, with pop-ups about each of the victims and, if known, the circumstances of their death. This is a powerful tool, and an honorable way of recognizing, in this case, the lives lost. Environmental groups can also use it to plot the location of the most polluting sites. There are thousands of applications - Google should be applauded for making this tool available to the public.

7. Wi-Fi Networks and Economic Development
This one bugs me. Sure, I would like to have wi-fi everywhere I go. But, it’s hardly a public good. Of all the basic things that governments still aren’t going well — like providing good schools, encouraging affordable housing, providing public security, etc — they feel it is important to spend millions on setting up a wireless network across the city (or downtown core). What a waste of taxpayer money. There are plenty of private companies that are all too willing to provide such a service for those of use lucky enough to have wireless devices. The fact is, this benefits only a small segment of the population. Government action should be to provide services that benefit the most number of people — things that are neither practical nor affordable if done privately. When we’ve created a more just society, then we can start worrying about making our toys work better.

8. The New Suburbanism and Creative Class Debates
This one boils down to the age-old battle of downtown vs. suburbs. But the debate is actually quite dumb. Richard Florida’s Creative Class is provocative and there is something to the idea that young professionals want to live in funky places. Likewise, one cannot debate the importance of suburbs in urban politics, as Joel Kotkin suggests. But, this isn’t a polar argument. The fact is, suburbs by necessity will be more dense (starting from the inner ring out). Urban areas will also by necessity become more dense. The issue isn’t suburbs vs. downtown, it’s the conflicts in both places over the need for higher density environments.

9. “Peak Oil” and Planning For Alternative Energy
This is also a debate for the ages. There’s no doubt that the cost of oil has entered into a new era — the days of $25/barrel are over for the foreseeable future. However, the forecasts that I have seen show the price of oil dropping over the coming years — still above $50, but not rising. At these price levels, areas like Alberta’s oil sands become feasible to develop. Which, in turn, will likely cause the price of oil to drop. So, yes, sustainability is vital — and we should be working towards that goal regardless, but until the Saudis issue a press release saying, “sorry we’re empty”, it is very likely that oil will continue to dominate. Cities (nations, even) would be smart, however, to think of the big picture, though. More sustainable environments is not just about a potential oil crisis. It’s about pollution and smog. It’s about wasted productivity (to this point, we’ve been lucky to have land to expand so that commute times remain the same, but the scarcity of land is quickly becoming a problem). It’s about the destruction of local food supply. It’s about parents not being home for their kids. It’s about kids playing video games and getting fat. It’s about a lot of things. We shouldn’t be fooled to think that the only reason why we should be more sustainable cities is because of oil.

10. The High Cost of Free Parking
Don Shoup is bang-on. Los Angeles is the worst offender. In Boston, parking is so scarce, it becomes very expensive. So, if given the choice between driving downtown and taking the T (subway), you take the T. A couple hours parking in downtown Boston can cost you $15-20. The equivalent in L.A. costs $2-5. Most places give two hours of free parking. Hell, even valet parking — something reserved for the uber-wealthy in Boston — is only a couple bucks more in Los Angeles. So, of course people drive in Los Angeles. The fact is, we have been subsidizing car use for decades. It is time that parking and those that drive pay its true cost. That means more expensive parking and freeway tools. You use it, you pay for it.

I went to the CBC this morning to learn, in an article titled. “3 million said to be joining French job protest,” that there are 3 million people in France protesting the government’s plan to make it easier to fire young workers (it should be noted the plan’s goal is to make it more attractive for employers to take a chance on hiring young workers — a segment of the population with a staggering 22% unemployment).

I then went to Fox News to read the same story in an article titled, “Riots Rock France.”

So is France “rioting” or “protesting”? Which term you choose depends to a large extent on your political orientation, I think. To label protests as riots, to me, signals an attempt to marginalize legitimate democratic expression of dissatisfaction (i.e. protest).

More than anything, Fox News labeling protest as riot speaks of an American media that is both unaccustomed to protest and which does not see putting bodies into space as a legitimate form of democratic expression. This is a consistent tactic used by the American media to label those who protest as ‘radicals’. To me, this undermines a nation’s claim to be a democracy. Protest is necessary in a democratic state.

Big story in the Star today about the progress of the Don West Lands revival. Be sure to check out the full plan on the Waterfront Revitalization Corp’s website. It is a huge PDF (19mb), but it’s worth the wait. I can’t speak to whether the public process was good or not, but Joe Berridge of Urban Strategies and his team deserve a big round of applause for their work.

Being an urban designer myself, I can tell you that it is not easy to build into a plan the level of complexity and diversity that exists in real cities. On that count, the plan is a welcome precedent for other urban designers. Instead of treating the 79-acre site as a single monolithic neighbourhood, they recognized that real neighbourhoods are much smaller. The plan identifies 4 such neighbourhoods.

Also a welcome addition is the density. So often ‘density’ is a bad word in public planning meetings, with people equating density with highrise. The fact is, more often than not, you achieve higher density with mid-rise perimeter blocks than tall towers set back from the street.

With an expected 11,000 people to call the 4 neighbourhoods home, the area will have a density of 139 people/acre (and with 2 people per unit on average, that equates to 70 units/acre, which is about right for an urban neighbourhood).

Importantly, there is a recognition that it will take 15 years to build it out. All too often people want instant change — usually a recipe for disaster. The area is designated to have 25% affordable housing, although it remains to be seen how they actually achieve that. Parking is dealt with in the interior of blocks, and using parking structures. The streets are too wide, which usually happens these days. There is provision for a trolley along Cherry St. And there’s a big park that doubles as a flood plain for the Don River Delta.

The challenge, as always, will be to allow the area to grow with diversity and yet within some basic design guidelines. All too often zoning has the effect of killing diversity, as do too many guidelines. It will be interesting to see it unfold. But as a starting point, the plan is encouraging.

If the price of oil went up to $100 per barrel, how well would your city cope? SustainLane put together a list of the top 10 U.S. cities best prepared for such an oil crisis. They use a variety of criteria — congestion, transit, food supply, sprawl, etc. The top 10 are:

1. New York
2. Boston
3. San Francisco
4. Chicago
5. Philadelphia
6. Portland
7. Honolulu
8. Seattle
9. Baltimore
10. Oakland

No Canadian cities ranked, but you can bet the top 3, in order would be:
1. Montreal
2. Toronto
3. Vancouver

While you are at SustainLane, be sure to also check out their city sustainability rankings:

So much Canadian news to catch up on. Here’s a few random thoughts:

Ontario Budget — glad to see a commitment from the Province to Toronto transit. It’s long overdue. I believe until very recently, its on-going operations were funded entirely out of the fare box. Sounds impressive, but what it really means is that the Province hadn’t considered it a priority. I’m also happy to see the Liberals put a much needed investment in infrastructure generally. Rather than do regular maintenance and keep up with demand, Ontario has let it slip. Yes, it’s unfortunate that they did not balance the budget, but this is largely political, I think. It allows them to look like saints next year (an election year), plus it makes the federal imbalance argument look less credible if all the provinces are in the black.

Quebec Budget — well, what can you say? A balanced budget is a good thing. The problem is that Quebec’s debt load is far and above the rest of the provinces. How much is Quebec’s debt? Well, their debt is 44% of the total value of all goods and services produced in the provinced (GDP). I can’t remember the exact figures I saw in the Globe and Mail on the weekend, but I recall the next highest province was around 31%, and the Provincial average was about 25%. So Quebec has a long way to go. Unfortunately, the Parti Quebecois will likely win the next election and ramp up spending once again. And they say majority governments are more stable?

Provincial Budgets, generally — once again, the increase of spending outpaced the growth of the economy. In Ontario, health spending went up 5.8% (which is, in fact, low by recent standards) with the economy growing by about 3%. More importantly, health spending now accounts for 46% of the entire provincial budget. Given that health spending is far outpacing economic growth, it is clear that health will continue to take up an increasing share of the budget. That’s not good news. Clearly, this is an economic sustainability problem. To compare: Ontario spends just 7% on post-secondary education. Wow. In fact, just 5 areas account for 80% of provincial spending: health, education, post-secondary education, welfare, and child services. On-going operations and everything else account for just 20% of the budget.

Rescue of Christian Workers from Iraq — good news, of course. But, it is disappointing to read the Globe this weekend and see that their organization (Christian Peacemakers) was reluctant to thank the troops who risked their lives to save them. While I was and am not a fan of the Iraq war, it is a war-zone. I’m with Margaret Wente on this one — people should stay out of Iraq unless you want to die.

Seal Hunt – well, what can I say about this? I certainly don’t agree with killing seals en masse. If it is a tradition and done in strict moderation (and not with babies), then OK — in that sense it’s like a lot of hunting. But the mass slaughtering of baby seals reflects badly on Canada. Surely, this is not a major portion of the economies of Atlantic Canada, is it? (maybe someone can give me the numbers on this?)

Liberal bash for Sheila Copps — it still doesn’t look like Martin folks are playing nice, as most of them skipped the affair. I suspect it was something of a meat-market, as potential leadership candidates walked the floor drumming up support. It appeared to be a definite insiders club. That image must change if the Liberals are to win back popular support with the folks.

Ignatieff set to run for Liberal Leadership – good. He’s definitely an elite, which probably doesn’t sell anymore in Canada, but I’m sure he’ll force the other candidates to think, and that can’t be a bad thing. If he can demonstrate an ability to connect with everyday folks, he stands a chance. While a Harvard big-wig might impress the elites, it’s hardly a virtue with the guys at the garage.

Harper is getting pudgy — so what? who isn’t? move on. What a waste of airtime and ink.

Tim Horton’s IPO – what self respecting Canadian didn’t buy Tim stock? Well, a lot didn’t because these IPOs are reserved by brokers for their richest clients. I hate that. Only 14% of the stock was available to Canadian retail purchases. What a joke. Guess what? They made a billion bucks. The rich get richer.

B.C. Ferry Accident – really sad for the couple who are lost. Second major accident of late. Troubling.

Montreal Synagogue Defaced with swastikas — get a life, people. The Nazis are gone. You lost, thankfully. Go find another hobby. Maybe Dungeon Dragons is more to your liking.

Apple Turns 30 – happy Birthday! My first computer was an Apple IIe. Ya, you know those workhorses, circa 1982.

Apologies on the scarcity of posts of late - I’ve been trying to finish up some writing and was in Montreal the latter part of last week. Apologies also for the blog going offline for a while a couple days back — not sure why but its working now.

While in Montreal, I had the distinct pleasure of talking with some very fine folks. I was honoured to be selected to interview as a finalist for the Trudeau Scholarship program, and had a nice chat with Elizabeth May (Executive Director of Sierra Club Canada), Paul Davidson (Executive Director of the World University Service of Canada), Dale A. Turner (Associate Professor of Government and Native American Studies at Dartmouth), and Dianne Draper (Head of the Geography Department at University of Calgary).

If you aren’t aware of the Trudeau program, you should be. Check it out at hhttp://www.trudeaufoundation.ca/. What a fantastic group of people working hard for change in 4 key areas — human rights and social justice, responsible citizenship, Canada and the World, Humans and their Natural Environment. It’s definitely my kind of community. Regardless of whether I am selected, I was happy to meet such great people.