Click image for our live coverage of the Liberal Leadership Convention. GO HERE FOR ALL OUR COVERAGE.

Liberal Leadership Candidates Drop the Ball on Cities
By Gregory D. Morrow

Apparently, Canadian cities¹ are doing just fine, if the Liberal leadership candidates’ silence on urban issues is any indication. Perhaps the candidates simply want to disavow themselves of Paul Martin’s “New Deal for Cities (and Communities).” Or perhaps they see the New Deal as a done deal. Maybe they think cities are beyond federal jurisdiction. Or maybe they claim that their platforms “span the issues” relevant to cities, thus no explicit urban policies are necessary. Whatever the reason, cities have not been on the radar of any of the leading candidates.

This silence is worrisome because it perpetuates the belief that policies should be divorced from the realities of geography — i.e. that it is OK to forward universal, top-down, one-size-fits-all policies, without taking in account the unique challenges and opportunities of different cities and regions (or even the basic differences between urban, suburban and rural circumstances). Yet, in an increasingly global world where the basic economic unit is the region (urban or not), our livelihood depends on both maximizing the unique assets of different cities and regions to leverage their competitive advantage and reducing the disparities between them. The overarching goal is to ensure all regions, urban and rural, service- or resource-centered, are thriving and self-sustaining. If the Liberal Party is to have credibility on economic and social issues, it must develop a more thoughtful package of urban and regional policies. Failure to do so endangers our international competitiveness and our quality of life.

The move away from Fordist mass production and trade-protected resource-based economies of the immediate post-war period towards increasing free trade, globalization and flexible-specialization production processes over the past 30 years, especially in the absence of federal urban policies, has produced a distinct pattern of development — urban agglomerations (the rapid growth of cities, and in particular, their urban edge) and, simultaneously, the decline of resource-based cities and towns and rural communities. This geography of globalization produces uneven development that exacerbates regional disparities and reduces the quality of life in both the declining regions (lost jobs, rapid population decline, crumbling infrastructure, lower health outcomes, etc) as well as in rapidly-growing city-regions (traffic congestion, pollution, doctor shortages, unmet infrastructure demand, etc). As I’ve argued elsewhere, confronting the new geography of globalization requires addressing the different challenges of unique regional circumstances. For example, in dense urban areas, transit, affordable housing, social and immigrant-settlement services are priorities. In rapidly-growing suburban regions, traffic congestion, smog, and meeting the infrastructure demand are priorities. In declining resource-based towns and rural areas, economic development to attract private investment and new jobs is the first priority. And contrary to the belief that urban and regional policies infringe on provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has an important role to play in strategically positioning our regions as economic engines, while at the same time, reducing disparities between them. In fact, this role is constitutionally mandated — Part III (Equalization and Regional Disparities), Section 36(b) of the Constitution states that: “Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to … furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities.”

Yet, despite the importance of urban and regional policy to our social and economic livelihood, it appears that the Liberal leadership candidates have dropped the ball. Despite long lists of policy topics — environment, foreign policy, aboriginals, agriculture, health care, etc — remarkably, not one candidate specifically addresses “cities”. Michael Ignatieff acknowledges the urban and regional imperative when he says “The great undiscussed national unity issue in Canada is the growing disparity between urban and rural and between our metropolitan areas and our regions.”² But, his platform doesn’t address the cities agenda. Ignatieff’s only references to cities are boilerplate: “investing in low emission public transportation for our metropolitan areas,”³ and “the recognition of our cities and a plan for ensuring that they have the financial means to meet the challenges that lie ahead.”⁴ Bob Rae’s policies on cities and regions are equally absent. His only reference is in a speech given to the Economic Club of Toronto, where he said, “we need more and better mass transit systems in our cities to combat gridlock, conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our cities more livable and appealing.”⁵ Remarkably, despite a platform built on sustainable development and social justice, Stephane Dion doesn’t talk about cities at all. Gerard Kennedy is not much better. He talks about cities only in reference to the “urban/rural destination divide” for new immigrants. Ken Dryden talks about the need “to lessen the differences in day-to-day living between urban and rural living,”⁶ but offer no policies to get there. His only other mention of cities, like others, is boilerplate: “promote initiatives to move away from auto-centered urban transport to a system that would prominently feature public transport and the development of integrated communities that promote bicycle use and walking.”⁷ Scott Brison, Joe Volpe, and Martha Hall Findlay likewise have said nothing about cities.

Reducing regional disparities and securing a competitive advantage for our unique cities and regions is both a unity issue, a social issue, and an economic issue. As Liberals meet this week to debate the future of their party, and quite possible, the country, let’s hope they insist that their future leaders take seriously the need for urban and regional policies; failure to do endangers our international competitiveness and our quality of life.

Gregory D. Morrow is an urban planner and is currently a PhD candidate at the University of California, Los Angeles. Most recently, he was a Lecturer in Urban Studies & Planning at MIT. He has written a forthcoming book on the origins of city planning in Toronto.

NOTES
¹ I use the term “cities” as shorthand for cities or regions (which may or may not be urban) or city-regions (which are urban agglomerations like the Greater Toronto Area).
² Michael Ignatieff, “Agenda for Nation-Building” (Fall 2006): 10.
³ Ignatieff, “Agenda” 14.
⁴ Ignatieff, “Agenda” 30.
⁵ Bob Rae, “Charting Canada’s Course: Why the prosperity agenda
matters in the search for a sustainable and just future,” Notes for a speech by the Hon. Bob Rae, To the Economic Club of Toronto (June 6, 2006): 7.
⁶ Ken Dryden, “A Big Canada: Politics With a Purpose. Politics With a Passion” (Fall 2006): 11.
⁷ Dryden, “A Big Canada” 17.

Stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for blow-by-blow coverage of the Liberal Convention. Behind the scenes blogging, audio interviews, analysis and more!

If you will be in Montreal and want to meet up, feel free to drop me a note — Greg

Percentage of MPs who oppose recognizing the Quebecois as a nation: 5.7%
Percentage of Canadians who oppose recognizing the Quebecois as a nation: 77%

9:30pm
With 57% of the vote reported, DemocraticSPACE has seen enough. We are projecting that Glen Pearson will be elected in London North Centre.

9:31pm (155 of 253 polls reporting)
Pearson — 33.8% (6803)
May — 27.8% (5529)
Haskett — 22.6% (4552)
Walker — 15.5% (3121)

Update:
FINAL RESULTS:
GLEN PEARSON — 34.9% (13,287 votes) – X
ELIZABETH MAY — 25.9% (9,864 votes)
DIANNE HASKETT — 24.4% (9,309 votes)
MEGAN WALKER — 14.1% (5,388 votes)
STEVE HUNTER — 0.4% (145 votes)
ROBERT EDE — 0.2% (70 votes)
WILL ARLOW — 0.1% (53 votes)

Stay tuned for live results… here we go…

8:51pm (1 of 253 polls reporting)
Arlow — 0% (0)
Ede — 0% (0)
Haskett — 14% (4)
Hunter — 0% (0)
May — 29% (8)
Pearson — 11% (3)
Walker — 46% (13)

8:54pm (5 of 253 polls reporting)
Arlow — 0% (0)
Ede — 0% (0)
Haskett — 21% (78)
Hunter — 0% (1)
May — 33% (121)
Pearson — 27% (100)
Walker — 19% (69)

8:57pm (7 of 253 polls reporting)
Arlow — 0% (0)
Ede — 0% (0)
Haskett — 21% (110)
Hunter — 0% (2)
May — 32% (168)
Pearson — 29% (152)
Walker — 17% (87)

Extremely early — just 2.8% of the polls reporting, but Elizabeth May has jumped out in front.

9:00pm (10 of 253 polls reporting)
May — 29.2% (237)
Pearson — 28.5% (231)
Walker — 21.9% (178)
Haskett — 19.9% (161)

9:03pm (15 of 253 polls reporting)
Pearson — 29.9% (363)
May — 28.8% (349)
Walker — 21.3% (258)
Haskett — 19.5% (236)

Pearson takes the lead.

(more…)

Gerard Kennedy says ‘nation’ motion is divisive. The resolution hasn’t even passed yet and already, its divisiveness has begun. Phil Fontaine is absolutely correct:

“Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don’t do nation building in this way.”

“What is unfortunate about this motion is the omission of any reference of first peoples. We should not be seen as peoples of a lesser status than others in Canada, including the Québécois.”

Update: Even Tory cabinet ministers are upset. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong has resigned from cabinet over the Quebecois/nation motion. The divisiveness continues…

“I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada,” said Chong.

Stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for live coverage of tonights results from the London North Centre by-election. We expect results to begin to flow starting at 8:30pm Eastern.

WHERE TO VOTE
OUR LONDON NORTH CENTRE BY-ELECTION PAGE.
WHO WE THINK DESERVES YOUR VOTE
ANALYSIS OF HOW THE VOTES MIGHT BREAK

WE WILL BEGIN LIVE-BLOGGING AT 8:30pm EASTERN.

Now that we have your attention, we will confess, without any reliable data from within the riding, we simply cannot make a call in this race. By-elections are notoriously difficult to predict, since the normal trends in party support are typically trumped by the personalities and circumstances involved. But what we can do is outline a reasoning that might help understand the dynamic at play.

1) PARTY TRENDS
Our latest tracking of the polls (based on a weighted average of the last 5 polls) puts Ontario support levels as follows (change from 2006 election in parenthesis):

ONTARIO-WIDE CURRENTLY
Liberal — 38.4% (-1.5%)
Conservative — 36.0% (+0.9%)
NDP — 17.2% (-2.2%)
Green — 7.0% (+2.3%)
Other — 1.4% (+0.5%)

In our projection model, London North Centre performs on average for Southwestern Ontario for all four major parties (and Southwestern Ontario performs near the provincal average for all parties — exactly on the average for the NDP and Greens, and a slight advantage of 5% for the Conservatives and a slight 5% disadvantage for the Liberals. This reflects the likely change in support, not the overall support levels, which have typically favoured the Liberals.) So, applying these shifts to the 2006 election result would produce result of:

ADJUSTING FOR TRENDS
Liberal — 38.6%
Conservative — 30.8%
NDP — 21.6%
Green — 7.8%
Others — 1.2%

However, this assumes a general election, and most importantly, if Liberal Joe Fontana was running, which he is not. So, we need to look more closely at the party base, how much is up for grabs, and of course, the candidates themselves.

2) PARTY BASE vs. WHAT IS UP-FOR-GRABS.
Typically, a popular incumbent (or star candidate) can swing the vote by as much as 10% (remembering that, on average, only about 15% of voters cast their ballot by local candidate, versus 60-65% that vote by party). In a by-election, this is considerably higher, however, which is why they are difficult to project. Let’s assume the “base” for each party in London North Centre right now is roughly (as this is pure guesswork, informed by a look at the range of past results):

Liberal — 26%
Conservative — 20%
NDP — 14%
Green — 6%
Others — 1%

This suggests that about 33% are up-for-grabs.

3) HOW DOES UNDECIDED VOTE SPLIT?
Indications are that Elizabeth May is grabbing much of that undecided vote due to her strong campaigning — let’s estimate half. Glen Pearson probably gets a quarter of the undecided vote. And Dianne Haskett and Megan Walker probably split the remaining undecided vote. By this rationale — which is pure guesswork — we might expect the result to look something like this:

Glen Pearson — 33-35%
Dianne Haskett — 23-25%
Elizabeth May — 22-24%
Megan Walker — 17-19%
Others — approx. 1%

CONCLUSION
By the above logic, it would appear that the Liberals have the advantage, but it will be closely fought. This also suggests that the Greens could finish as high as second or as low as third, within a few points of the Conservatives either way. Most likely, the NDP will be fourth, using the above logic. Note all of this is pure guesswork on our part; without real data, there is no way to provide our usually reliable prediction. As always, the voters will decide…

Who deserves Londoners’ vote today in the federal by-election? It appears that it is a close 4-way race. Any of the Liberals, Conservative, NDP and yes, Green candidates can win. Let’s consider each in turn.

DIANNE HASKETT
Does Conservative Dianne Haskett deserve election? Avoiding the media for the first half of the campaign, and avoiding their questions the second half hardly seems to us to warrant endorsement. That she is a polarizing figure in London, on account of her seemingly far right views socially (she is closely tied to the Christian Right in the U.S.), should give Londoners pause. Haskett would add a number to the loyal Conservative ranks, but her campaigning demonstrates a commitment first to her Party’s leadership, and only secondly to being responsive to Londoners. Moreover, should Stephen Harper be rewarded for his opportunistic choice of dates — on the eve of the Liberal convention and on the heels of municipal elections? We think not.

MEGAN WALKER
Does NDPer Megan Walker deserve election? Earlier in the campaign, Walker’s people found nasty online comments made by one of Glen Pearson’s aides (whereby the aide disparaged women). Now, Walker is circulating anti-Green brochures that tell Londoners effectively that the Greens can’t win and a vote for them is wasted vote. The overall tone of Walker’s campaign has been negative. That she has the rather dubious honour of being the only NDP candidate whose Liberal opponent won the backing of the local union. So should Walker be rewarded for her negative campaign? We think not.

GLEN PEARSON
Does Liberal Glen Pearson deserve election? In a word, yes, he does. What’s not to like? He has been the executive director of the London Food Bank for the last 20 years, a captain in the London Fire Department, and has worked in Sudan campaigning for human rights, building schools and community development. The question before Londoners is whether to cast their ballots today for Pearson or, for example, in six months when Canadians will likely head back to the polls in a general election. If not for Elizabeth May, Londoners would have an easy choice. But…

ELIZABETH MAY
Does Green leader Elizabeth May deserve election? You bet. Londoners have an opportunity to single-handedly do more for Canadian democracy than any group of citizens has. By electing Elizabeth May, they open parliament and the national leaders’ debates to the Green Party. Some 660,000 Canadians voted Green in the last election, the highest number of votes in Canadian history for a party that did not gain a seat. A vote for May would give a strong voice in parliament not only for London (it’s not often that your MP is in the news everyday as an opposition leader), but also give a voice to the hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Green voters. More importantly, May is simply a likeable, well-connected, outgoing person who will use her office to advance London’s concerns and who has support across the political spectrum.

CONCLUSION
So, Londoners have an interesting choice for this unusually short mandate. While Pearson appears to be the right choice for Londoners in the long-run, this by-election is not about the long-run, given the impending general election. A vote for May would inject new life into the Canadian political scene in the short term. So a vote for May in the by-election, and a vote for Pearson in the next general election in a few months would give Londoners the best of both worlds.