One of the most hotly contested local nomination battles in the country concluded today with Justin Trudeau winning the Liberal nomination in the Montreal riding of Papineau. He was touted as the underdog going into the race since most did not believe he had enough second-ballot support to win (as it turned out, he didn’t need it, just barely winning on the first ballot — he got 690 votes, he needed 635 on the first ballot to win). So, for some, Trudeau’s win will come as a moderate surprise. To others, his win will be greeted with a roll-of-the-eyes, with the belief that Trudeau was “given” the nomination because of his name. I think the latter respondents would do well to re-think that position, especially in light of how difficult this nomination battle was.

I had the opportunity to talk to Trudeau when I covered the Liberal Leadership Convention in Montreal last December. I came away thinking that Trudeau was, like all politicians, part drama (indeed, acting is part of his background), but mostly I felt he was sincere in his desire to help the least fortunate among us. He faces a catch-22: he has been judged harshly because he will be compared to his father (with some unfairly concluding that he doesn’t have his father’s intellect), but he has also be judged by others, especially in Quebec, precisely because he is too much like his father in his belief in the unity of Canadian citizenship. Damned if he is, damned if he isn’t.

Personally, I believe that Trudeau has been given unfairly harsh treatment, since most of us have not yet seen who he is or what he can do. Make no mistake, Justin Trudeau won today’s nomination in part because he is the son of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. But that doesn’t mean that Trudeau is unworthy of the nomination in his own right. Indeed, winning nominations (and elections for that matter) has always been something of a popularity contest. So that his brand-name helped him win should be no more or less punished than many candidates who win because of their name (Peter MacKay, for example?). Trudeau has used the notoriety his lineage has given him to fight for worthy causes and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have seen how his articulate and passionate (some might say romanticizing…) speeches have the potential to rally people (especially young people) to act. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Why should we expect him to be his father’s equal? He will be his own person and make his own contribution in his own way. I think it is incumbent upon us to let him prove himself before harshly judging him. He has fought and won his nomination. That was a first test. But he still must face Vivian Barbot in the next election. It will be another close battle. And should he win, I think it would be fair to say that having won a tough nomination and a tough election that he will have earned his way into Parliament. The ball is in his court — he must prove himself. But he should be allowed to do so without being pre-judged because he is a Trudeau.

Is it just me or has the reporting on the Conservative climate change plan been just terrible? I continue to read that the Conservative plan will meet Kyoto targets by 2025. No, it will not. Kyoto targets are based not on reductions from greenhouse gas levels from today (i.e. 2007), but rather on reductions from greenhouse gas level from 1990. The Conservative plan calls for a 20% reduction from today by 2020. That actually represents a 5% increase from 1990 levels, not the 25% reduction from 1990 levels that Canada has committed to. The charitable explanation is that the Conservatives are trying to “spin” their plan as meeting Kyoto only a little late. But that’s patently false. They are in fact, lying; their plan does not meet even our 2020 targets (let alone our 2012 targets which are virtually unattainable).

It’s hard not to see this plan as anything but political cover. The defense is at once brilliant and underhanded, demonstrating that the Conservatives have never stopped campaigning and will not stop until they get their majority government. The Conservative defense? We can’t be blamed for Liberal inaction. In other words, its not our problem that the Liberals didn’t do anything. There’s no question that the Liberals didn’t get it done. But the Conservatives aren’t getting it done either. And they are using the Liberals inaction to cover for their own inaction. Yes, it’s bizarre. You can see that the purpose is not to reduce greenhouse gases, but rather to demonstrate that the Liberals couldn’t get it done (which is true). It’s merely fodder for the next election campaign — political football. Meanwhile, we aren’t reducing our greenhouse gases.

The fact is, the Conservatives are not committed to reducing greenhouse gases — indeed, the Conservatives own numbers show that Canada will be 5% above 1990 levels. They fail to understand the vast untapped jobs and economic benefits of developing and exporting green technologies. They fail to understand that Canadian companies that emit less will gain a competitive advantage over their American counterparts.

The thing is — somebody always pays for pollution. It doesn’t just go away. The Conservatives, however, have decided that polluters don’t need to pay; in the Conservative plan, consumers and taxpayers will pay. It’s all well and good to encourage consumers to buy more efficient, low-emissions vehicles and ask them to replace incandescent light bulbs and older energy-consuming appliances with more efficient alternatives. But if you look at the numbers, these are tiny fractions of our CO2 emissions. We’re not dealing with the giant 300-pound gorilla in room — which is this: one-third of our carbon dioxide is produced by just 10 coal-fired power plants, 7 of which are in Alberta and 2 in Ontario. In total, 40% of Canada’s greenhouse gases are generated from by the power industry. The sum total of every house and apartment in Canada is at best 4%. So even if every single house and apartment in the country improved its energy efficiency by 25%, that would only result in a mere 1% reduction in greenhouse gases.

Quite simply, the Conservatives are giving the richest industries — the oil and gas industry and the power business — a free pass at our expense. The Conservative plan has no hard carbon dioxide targets for industrial polluters. Instead, the more producers pollute, the more they are allowed pollute (on a per unit of production basis) — this is what they mean by “intensity-based targets”. That means that those 10 big coal-fired plants that produce one-third of Canada’s carbon dioxide will be allowed to pollute more, not less. Instead, we need to put a price on pollution and every producer given hard targets. If producers pollute less, they can sell their unused allowance to companies that pollute more than their fair share. What does this do? It gives green producers a competitive advantage and punishes those that pollute. That’s what a cap-and-trade system does. It’s a market-based system that is a highly effective. How do we know? We used it to combat acid rain back in the 1980s.

That’s the cold hard truth about the Conservative climate change plan. The question is whether Canadians will be fooled or not.

After denying that human actions have contributed to the current climate change crisis for years, Conservatives are now poised to not only recognize reality, but are now proposing to reduce greenhouse gases (and even surprisingly backed an opposition motion that committed the government to meeting its Kyoto obligations). Moreover, they have committed to several measures that will be very visible for everyday Canadians: a couple examples include banning incandescent light bulbs (which use a lot of energy) and taxing gas-guzzling vehicles while providing rebates on fuel-efficient, low-emissions vehicles. So from the perspective of the average voter, the story goes like this: the Conservatives are doing something that the Liberals didn’t do in 13 years (although fair-minded folks might recognize that current Liberal leader Stephane Dion gained the respect of environmental groups for his work as Environment Minister in the last 18 months of Liberal rule).

And yet, environmental groups (Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, etc) have rounded criticized the Conservative plan. So the average voter is left wondering: who the heck am I supposed to believe here? Are the Conservatives committed to reducing greenhouse gases or not? Well, let’s take a look at the details.

The Conservative plan commits Canada to meeting half of its Kyoto obligations, 10 years later (i.e. reducing greenhouse gases by 150 megatons by 2020 instead of 300 megatons by 2010). Let’s recap what Kyoto means: in signing Kyoto, by 2050, we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from our 1990 levels; there are several benchmarks along the way and by 2020 we are supposed to achieve a 25% reduction. Instead, by 2020, the Conservative plan would leave Canada at 5% above 1990 levels. So the punch line is this: the Conservative plan doesn’t actually reduce greenhouse gases, it holds them more or less constant, but not right away, only by 2020. So the devil is in the details — on the surface it appears that the Conservatives want to reduce greenhouse gases, but their own projections show their plan will not do so.

The question that Canadians face going forward is: who is best placed to ensure that real action will be taken on climate change? The Conservatives’ credibility is obviously in question — they’ve long been what Dion calls “climate change deniers” and their plan merely promises to hold greenhouse gases roughly constant, not reduce them. The Liberals’ credibility is also damaged — on the one hand, they “didn’t get it done” in 13 years as Michael Ignatieff famously told Stephane Dion. But on the other hand, they have a new leader who is respected among environmental leaders and clearly committed to the environment. The NDP claims to support reducing CO₂ emissions, but is also compromised because strong environmental action means putting union jobs (particularly in the auto sector) at risk. And while the Liberals and Conservatives can and should be criticized for their lack of progress in the last 13 years, the NDP, which has held the balance of power for much of the last 3 years, has never made its support contingent upon reducing greenhouse gases (which it should have done if they claim to represent the interests of average working Canadians — poll after poll shows the environment is now Canadians’ #1 issue). Quebecers have another option — the Bloc — which has been a strong supporter of reducing greenhouse gases, but it too is compromised; like the NDP, it has had the opportunity to make their support contingent on reducing greenhouse gases, but instead fought for more equalization payments for Quebec.

So, there is reason for Canadians to be skeptical that any of the three major parties will “get it gone” on their own. Perhaps that explains why more and more Canadians are willing to back the Green Party, which in the latest Strategic Counsel poll (showing the Greens at 12%), is running ahead of the Bloc Quebecois (9%) and virtually tied with the NDP (13%). With the Greens running 33% higher than the Bloc, and running a full slate of candidates (except one in Saint-Laurent due to the Liberal-Green arrangement), it begs the question why Elizabeth May — the country’s only female party leader (at least of parties with more than 1/10th of 1 percent!) — should be barred from participating in the leaders’ debates.

But Green support is spread out across the country and our election system requires a concentration of votes in one electoral district to elect MPs, which suggest that even if the Greens are running ahead of the Bloc and NDP, they still could be shut out. So clearly the Greens have an uphill battle to win seats under our current system. Unlike the major parties, the Greens don’t have deep ties to corporate and union players, and thus rely heavily on public money given to parties based on their previous election performance (see how money influences party performance).

Most Canadians appear committed to Kyoto, with 61% wanting to still meet Kyoto targets and just 32% saying those goals are unattainable. Moreover, 60% of Canadians do not believe Environment Minister John Baird when he says that meeting Kyoto targets will cost 275,000 jobs.

So Canadians are in a pickle. Despite the environment being the #1 issue concerning Canadians, there is no obvious choice of which party to vote for — all three major parties are compromised in some way on the environment and the one party that you can guarantee will make their support contingent upon reductions in greenhouse gases — the Greens — face structural impediments to electing MPs (i.e. no funding base and broad support vs. corporate/union donors and concentrated support that the other parties have). Where does that leave the average Canadian concerned about the environment?

Canadians are often proud that their political processes are not dominated by the vast amounts of money spent to influence voters in the United States. But Canadians would also be naive to think that money doesn’t influence performance here in Canada. So while our campaign finance laws limit the total money spent, it still plays a big role.

I will offer one example. Take a look at what was arguably the most competitive province in 2006 — British Columbia. Here is a comparison of the average money spent per riding and the average votes received per riding.

The Greens easily had the best bang for the buck spent — with each vote costing just $1.30. This differs considerably from the other three major parties, which ranged from about $2.98 for the NDP to $3.88 for the Conservatives. The Liberals were in the middle at $3.34 per vote.

Put another way — the Conservatives spent 21 times what the Greens did and received 7 times more votes. The NDP spent over 12 times more and the Liberals spent over 13 times more and both received about 5 times more votes.

It really begs the question: how well would the Greens do if they were as well funded as the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP?

Liberal leader Stephane Dion has agreed to explore for electoral reform going forward. It appears that Green Party leader Elizabeth May not only managed to convince Dion not to run a candidate against her in Central Nova, but she also extracted a promise to seriously look at electoral reform. Dion doesn’t favour pure list-PR, but not many electoral reformers in Canada do (most prefer adding a small element of proportionality to our existing system of locally-elected representatives — mixed-member proportional (MMP) is often suggested as the best alternative for Canada). In the past, Dion is on record as supporting MMP, which was recently recommended by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly (and it is also the system being pursued in Quebec, New Brunswick and what was recommended by the Law Commission of Canada federally). In his interview with Jeff Jedras, Dion said:

What I dislike in (the current system) though is the over-exaggeration of regional concentrations of the vote. With 50 per cent of the vote in Ontario we have been able in the past to have almost 100 per cent of the seats, and with 1/3 of the votes in the West we were unable to have a significant number of seats. It gives the sense we’re a party for Ontario and a party unable to have support in the West, when it’s not really the case.

One day, assume that you have a government elected where it is Quebec that is out of the government because of this electoral system, with 25 per cent of the vote, and the government has no or few seats on Quebec, and you have a separatist leader trying to have a referendum at the same time. This would be very dangerous for the country.

Because of that, I’m open to consider (electoral reform), and to be frank with all of you I wrote a piece…that will be published soon advocating for consideration for a system that would be very close to the German one, that means you would have a threshold of five per cent to receive compensatory seats, and the compensatory seats would be given on a PR system. I don’t have time to explain it (all) today on the phone, but I’m open…to consider a change in the electoral system.

Keep an eye on what Dion says in the coming months, as the nation’s largest province enters a referendum campaign to decide whether to change to a mixed-member proportional electoral system (the referendum will be October 10, 2007).

I re-produce this in its entirety from the Citizens’ Assembly — their explanation of how MMP works.

Key Features

• The MMP system designed by the Assembly is a made-in-Ontario solution. It preserves the best of the electoral system we have now—strong local representation—and adds new elements to produce more proportional election results. This means that the share of seats each party wins will be roughly equal to the share of votes it receives.

• Citizens will be represented by 90 members elected in local ridings (70% of the legislature) and 39 members (called “list members”) elected provincially (30% of the legislature). The number of local ridings is reduced slightly but all citizens will gain representation overall through the combination of local and list members. Provincially elected list members provide Ontarians with a new pool of representatives to draw on. List members have a unique opportunity to focus on broader issues that may affect a region or the whole province.

• With a total of 129 members, the legislature will be restored to about the size it was from 1987 to 1999, when it was reduced from 130 to 103 seats. The Assembly members felt this was necessary to achieve proportionality, while retaining strong local representation.

The Way it Works

• Voters cast two votes: one for a local candidate (as now) and one for a party. The party vote is the popular vote and determines the total number of seats a party wins.

• Each party nominates a slate of list candidates for the province. Before the election, they must publish their lists and the process they used to create them. This allows voters to judge whether a party developed its list in a fair and open way, and how well its list reflects Ontario’s diverse population and regions.

• If a party elects fewer local members than its share of the popular vote, candidates from its list are elected to compensate for the difference.

• A party must have clear support—at least 3% of the popular vote across the province—for a candidate from its list to be elected.

(I’m bumping this up to see if anyone can add to the list)

This is an open thread — I would like to put together a list of current and past MPs and MPPs (specifically, MPs and MMPs from Ontario) who have publicly supported electoral reform (specifically, adding some element of proportionality to our current system). If you know of a current or past MP or MMP who supports electoral reform, please let us know by leaving a comment below (if possible, include a LINK to where they publicly stated their support). You can also email me if you prefer. I would also like to put together a list of those Ontario MPs or MPPs who oppose electoral reform (specifically, adding some element of proportionality to our current system). I also welcome hearing from current or former MPs and MPPs themselves (or their staffers) on their positions — again just drop me a note. I will start us off … I will add your submissions to the list as they come in.

SUPPORTS
Rick Anderson (Conservative, former advisor to Preston Manning)
Monique Begin (Liberal, former Minister of Health)
Carolyn Benett (Liberal, MP, St. Paul’s)
Patrick Boyer (PC, former MP, Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Ed Broadbent (NDP, former federal leader and MP - Ottawa Centre & Oshawa)
Michael Bryant (Liberal, MPP and Attorney General, St. Paul’s)
Mike Cassidy (NDP, former provincial leader and MP and MPP, Ottawa Centre)
Kim Craitor (Liberal, MPP, Niagara Falls)
Paul Dewar (NDP, MP - Ottawa Centre)
Michael Gravelle (Liberal, MPP and Caucus Chair, Thunder Bay-Superior North)
Tom Kent (Liberal, former Assistant to the PM)
John Oostrom (PC, former MP, York South-Weston and Willowdale)
Alan Redway (PC, former MP, York East, now Don Valley East)
Nancy Ruth (Conservative, Senator, Ontario)
Hugh Segal (Conservative, Senator, Ontario)
George Smitherman (Liberal, Deputy Premier, MP, Toronto Centre)
Garth Turner (Liberal, MP, Halton)

OPPOSES
Bob Delaney (Liberal, MPP, Mississauga West)
Norm Miller (PC, MPP, Parry Sound-Muskoka)
Scott Reid (Conservative, MP - Lanark Frontenac Lennox & Addington)

Information removed temporarily.

There are a lot of myths out there about the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system proposed by the Citizens Assembly (CA). I’d like to dispel some of those myths. I will start with the claim made by opponents that “MMP Means Huge Northern and Rural Ridings”. Why do people claim this? Since the CA has recommended reducing the number of local seats from 107 to 90, a 15% decrease, people assume that every riding will suddenly become large and unmanageable. This is simply not the case.

Why? Because most of the lost ridings will be in urban areas, where the ridings are very small. How do I know? Because as part of my submission to the Citizens’ Assembly (submission #1546), I also included detailed maps (see submission #2123) showing a proposal for an MMP system with 90 local seats, the same as was chosen by the CA. Obviously, the ridings will be determined by an independent Boundaries Commission that will hold public meetings to ensure local input is heard. But my maps give you some idea of what a 90-seat map might look like. Take a look at my maps — to me, anyone who thinks this compromises local representation is crazy. Please note that my 90 local ridings were created for my 139-seat regional MMP system; the CA’s model had 10 less list seats and they are not regional, so the ridings wouldn’t be exactly the same as this, but it wouldn’t look too differently.

CLICK HERE TO SEE WHAT A 90-SEAT MAP FOR ONTARIO MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

File THIS under asinine. A guy wants to uses Toyota Prius cars as “limos” in Toronto. And why not? They are low emission and go 60 miles per every gallon of gas. Except that Toronto has a by-law that mandates the size of cars, how much trunkspace it has, and how much legroom there is — which prevents the Prius from being used. Moreover, a “limo” service requires one stretch limo for every regular car. I mean, really, if a company has a fleet of cars that people think are too small or too uncomfortable, is it not within the realm of possibility that people will not take them? How is trunk size of a limo an endangerment to public health and safety? Isn’t that the purpose of city ordinances? The City says its important not to blur the line between taxis and limos. Yes, clearly, the world will crash if Priuses are allowed to carry passengers around the City of Toronto (note that Priuses are fine in the adjacent cities of Ajax and Pickering, and I haven’t yet read news of Armageddon there — and in Los Angeles, the Capital of Car, Priuses are widely used as limos). This is a classic case of a by-law existing where none need exist. Can you say over-regulation? If you think this is a stupid as I do, I encourage you to write to Howard Moscoe, chair of the city’s licensing and standards committee:

Howard Moscoe
Chair, Licensing & Standards Committee
City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Suite B30
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-392-4027
Fax: 416-392-4191
councillor_moscoe@toronto.ca