Category Archives: In the news

| In the news, Media, Opinion

Senator Duffy?

Yeah, his head really is that big

Yeah, his head really is that big

Part of me still can’t quite believe it. Sure, journalists have been appointed to meaningless ceremonial posts by politicians before, but to poach English Canada’s biggest name in political journalism (well, political TV journalism anyway) and just make him a politician (from P.E.I.?) seems strange.

Sure, technically there’s nothing wrong with a journalist becoming a politician. It’s the other way around that’s a problem (except on RDI). But it just feels wrong.

For what it’s worth, the National Post explores the ethical issues in play here. There are questions about how Mike Duffy may have acted toward the Conservatives while mulling this appointment, even if he says he’s not a partisan.

I don’t think Duffy’s journalism was biased, and will probably for the most part stand the test of time. But I still think it was a mistake to accept a senate appointment. Just as it was for Jim Munson or Joan Fraser or any of the other journalists who went to the senate thinking it would raise their profile and whose names have been forgotten by average Canadians.

Then again, this Margaret Wente column alone almost makes the appointment worth it. Not to mention the fact that there’s so little news otherwise this time of year.

| Slow News Day

Premier’s Job 1: Tree naming

For any of you who thought we here in the True North Sane and Free were too good for the “War on Christmas” and other nonsense, Jean Charest would like to set you straight.

UPDATE: CTV also wasted time on this non-story. It’s funny how pundits can argue at the same time that nobody cares what it’s called and that it must be called Christmas because that’s our tradition.

| In the news, Media, On the Net

Post-election thoughts

Three election nights in as many months. I’m starting to get the hang of this.

The biggest surprise of the night was Mario Dumont’s decision to leave his party leadership. The obvious question that comes up now is: Who the heck is going to lead the ADQ? Can you even name another ADQ MNA?

Amir who?

The biggest electoral surprise is clearly Amir Khadir winning the Plateau riding of Mercier for Québec solidaire. Not only did he unseat the PQ’s Daniel Turp, but he surprised a lot of news outlets who hadn’t planned for one of the “autres” to get a seat in this election. (Our front page needed a last-minute redesign to add a fourth box for QS’s seat total.)

In the early stages of returns, the seat seesawed between Khadir and Turp, but another riding way off near Quebec City was also showing a QS lead (with one poll reporting), reminding everyone that these results were still early. That other candidate ended up dead last with 1,000 votes.

But as the night wore on, the lead became more constant, and slowly started to grow. Cynicism that Khadir’s lead would vanish when more conservative mainstream votes came in slowly started to vanish. As the party’s co-leaders (they’re really going to have to get rid of that co-leadership system) gave their news conference, the networks called the seat for Khadir, and another political party officially entered relevance.

Now, does this mean QS will be invited to leaders’ debates?

They almost got it wrong

CTV Montreal is very proud of the fact that they called a majority government first, just after 8:30pm. This means they’re cool and their penis is larger than everyone else’s, I think. The seats certainly looked to be going to a solid majority early on.

But around 9pm, the number of leading and elected Liberal seats started holding steady at 63-64. This was right on the razor’s edge. All it would take is a couple of Liberal-leading seats to shift to another party and Charest loses his majority. Part of me wanted exactly that to happen so that overeager news directors would have to explain why they got it wrong.

In the end, though, the Liberals got 66 seats, pending recounts, and their majority isn’t in doubt. Only a couple of ridings in the Montérégie area were close enough (the lead in votes is significantly less than the number of spoiled ballots) that a recount might change something.

Media analysis

I didn’t watch any of the live TV coverage (beyond glancing at the changing numbers on the screen), so I’ll leave commenting on that to you, or Richard Therrien, or Mike Boone, or Paul Cauchon.

There were liveblogs from Lagacé/Ouimet at Cyberpresse (you can cut the metrosexual tension with a knife) and Philippe Gohier at Maclean’s in case you want to re-live the night in real-time.

Here’s how the main news sources handled their online results:

  • CTV had its own custom election system which failed in a very important way: It couldn’t process a win by a candidate outside the three main parties. Seat totals don’t include Québec solidaire, and Amir Khadir is not listed as elected in Mercier, nor is QS or the Green Party listed under “party leaders”. It also doesn’t list incumbents.
  • Canoe (TVA/Journal) had a very basic, non-Flash elections page. A table of results by party, and individual tables of results for each riding. Québec solidaire was listed under “Autres”.
  • CBC, which has been at online election results longer than everyone else, had an interactive election map with colour-coded ridings. The map format made it easier to find ridings visually, but it also meant if you wanted a Montreal riding you had to “zoom in” three times. It also had a separate page with results tables by region (and links to tables by riding). No indication of incumbency here either, which surprised me.
  • Radio-Canada had a different online election setup (do these people not talk to each other? Surely it’s easier to translate existing software than create an entirely new system?). It’s not much to look at.
  • Cyberpresse, Le Devoir and The Globe and Mail used a flash widget provided by Canadian Press/Presse Canadienne. The interface was slick, with square tiles representing each riding. When you click on them, they jump out and form a staacked bar graph. But it was also incredibly basic. It didn’t even provide percentage totals for each candidate. The tile system also made it more difficult to find ridings visually, compared to a real map.
  • The website of the director general of elections (which The Gazette pointed to for results) had the advantages of being official and fast. But around 8:45pm, it stopped updating (while CP and CBC’s feeds kept going), panicking reporters and editors who were using it for results. It came back around 9:15 and stayed reliable for the rest of the night. The table system is simple, which is good, but because it’s an official site it doesn’t declare candidates elected like the news networks do, and it also doesn’t note incumbents or incumbent parties.
| In the news

Chicago politics

Selling a senate seat? Blackmailing a newspaper into firing writers? Gotta be the governor of Illinois.

(Side note: “Before that, he served as a U.S. Congressman for Illinois’ 5th district from 1997 until 2003, according to his online biography.” – Could they not confirm membership in the U.S. House of Representatives with a more official source?)

It’s a fun week for politics. Though backroom undemocratic kingmaking in our government is far less sexy.

“It’s just politics,” Bob Rae said about 10 seconds ago. How true.

| In the news, Montreal, Opinion, Photos

Coalition of the unions and separatists

Spot the non-union flags at this protest

Spot the non-union flags at this protest

On Saturday, I went downtown to Protest Central (the Guy Favreau building) to check out the pro-coalition protest. I had wanted to stop by the “Rally for Canada” anti-coalition protest, but that never materialized in this city.

Coming out of the building, I noticed a lot of presence from labour unions. I did some quick number-counting. There were 150 flags with union logos on them. The number of signs, flags and banners without union logos were so few that I have pictures of them all below.

The numbers, and the speeches given during the rally, showed something worrisome: this protest wasn’t about the grass roots standing up for democracy. It was about unions and separatists wanting to push the government more toward the left.

Continue reading →

| In the news, TV

Don’t forget to vote

Lisette Lapointe, the PQ candidate in Crémazie riding, campaigns in the Sauvé metro station last week.

Lisette Lapointe, the PQ candidate in Crémazie riding (and Jacques Parizeau's wife), campaigns in the Sauvé metro station last week.

The polls are now open in 75 125 ridings (my civics knowledge sucks) across Quebec, and the voters have 22.5 10.5 hours (my math sucks) to make their choice. Polls close at 8pm tonight.

If you need help, the DGEQ website has information available. If you’re not registered to vote, sorry, but you’re screwed. Unlike in federal elections, Quebec doesn’t allow registration on voting day. The deadline was last Friday. Better luck next time.

Now go vote. I’ll be busy editing election copy tonight, but I’ll see you in the aftermath. Be sure to let your local journalist know of voting-day irregularities.

TV results schedule

For those watching the returns on TV tonight, here’s what the networks are planning:

  • RDI’s election special starts first at 6:30pm, a full hour and a half before polls close. Rad-Can joins in at 7:30.
  • CBC and Newsworld have live coverage starting at 8 p.m.
  • CTV Montreal has local anchors Todd Van der Heyden and Mutsumi Takahashi quarterbacking coverage starting at 8 p.m. CTV Newsnet will be picking up the feed from CTV Montreal, also starting at 8.
  • TVA and LCN go all-election at 8.
  • Global Quebec, not wanting to give up Prison Break and Heroes, only goes live at 10pm.
  • CPAC has no scheduled election coverage
  • TQS will have wall-to-wall election coverage with live returns throughout the night and reports from hundreds of journalists based in all 125 ridings and … oh just kidding, they’re ignoring it entirely. Maybe André Arthur will mention it tomorrow.

Online, most news outlets will be running data from Canadian Press. I’d recommend CBC or the DGEQ website directly for results.

| In the news, Opinion

Just how big is this majority?

I’m hearing a lot about this 62% majority that’s being used as a talking point for the Liberal-NDP (Bloc) coalition government in Ottawa. But it’s not entirely clear where the calculation for that number comes from. Perhaps for that reason, I’ve seen numbers like 61% and 66% pop up on signs or in statements.

So I did a bit of number crunching based on the results of the 2008 election. Here’s that comes up:

The figure that really matters is seats in the House of Commons. By that measure, the coalition represents 163 of the total 308 seats, or 52.9%. If we include the two independent members (Bill Casey of Nova Scotia and Quebec’s André Arthur, both of whom are closer to the Tories than any other party) on the coalition side, that figure rises to 53.6%.

If we go by votes for coalition parties vs. total votes in the 2008 election, which would be the most obvious choice, they represent 7,528,737 out of a total 13,834,294 votes, or 54.4%.

If we go by votes for coalition parties vs. total votes for the four major parties in the 2008 election, discounting the parties with no seats (and independents), we get 7,528,737 of 12,737,533 votes, or 59.1%.

If we go by votes for coalition parties plus 937,613 Green Party votes vs. total votes in the 2008 election, we get 8,466,350 of 13,834,294 votes, or 61.1% (the “61% majority” figure comes from here). Green Party leader Elizabeth May has endorsed the coalition, so this one is plausible.

If we go by votes for coalition parties plus 937,613 Green Party votes vs. total votes for the five major parties in the 2008 election plus independents, discounting only the 64,304 whackjobs who voted for the Western Block Party and their ilk, we get 8,466,350 of 13,769,990, or 61.5%.

If we go by votes for coalition parties plus 937,613 Green Party votes vs. total votes for the five major parties in the 2008 election and exclude independents entirely, we get 8,466,350 of 13,675,146 votes, or 61.9%. This is where the “62% majority” comes from (well, either this or the next point), but it completely discounts people who voted for anyone who didn’t vote for candidates outside of the five parties, pretending like their votes didn’t exist.

If we go by votes for coalition parties plus Greens plus independents and unaffiliated candidates vs. total votes in the 2008 election, we get 8,561,194 of 13,834,294 votes, or 61.9%. But this makes the huge (and unsupported) assumption that independents support the coalition.

If we go by votes for all non-Conservative candidates vs. total votes in the 2008 election, we get 8,625,498 of 13,834,294 votes, or 62.3%. But this assumes that all third parties from the Christian Heritage Party to the Marxist-Leninists (respectively the 5th and 6th parties in total votes) support this coalition, which I think is a bit of a stretch. It also assumes that everyone who voted for independent candidates also supports the coalition.

So which of these figures is the correct one? The coalition backers want the highest number, 62%, but the more realistic numbers are 54% or 61%, depending on whether or not you include the Greens.

What do you think? Are there other ratios that make sense here? What calculation makes most sense to you?

| In the news, Opinion

Coalition myths

While the two would-be prime ministers address the nation with their talking points, and talk radio is flooded with angry phone calls, it seems obvious that many Canadians (and politicians) are basing arguments on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of parliamentary democracy. In that spirit, here are some myths being thrown about and reality checks for each:

Canadians voted for a Conservative government and Prime Minister Harper: Canadians did no such thing. Despite the impression given during election campaigns, the prime minister (and hence his government) is not chosen by the voters (you may have noticed that the words “prime minister” were not on your ballots, nor were “Stephen Harper” unless you voted in Calgary Southwest). Instead, the prime minister is chosen by the 308 members of Parliament elected by the voters. A majority of those 308 members have decided that Harper should not be the prime minister.

The coalition wants to overturn the results of the election: I don’t see where that’s the case. There are no floor-crossings involved here (and even if there were, both the Liberals and Conservatives have benefitted from such crossings and ignored hypocritical calls from the opposition that the member resign and face a by-election to ratify the change in party). The election resulted in a minority government, which means that any measure needs support of more than one party to be approved.

The Liberals were forced to act to save Canadian jobs: Oh please. This is clearly a power grab. The Liberals saw their opportunity, but it was just a matter of time before this happened. A minority situation where three of the four parties are left-of-centre and the remaining right-wing party is the one in charge just wasn’t sustainable. The economy argument is a smokescreen.

Dion is so desperate to become prime minister he’s trying to get in by the back door: While I’m sure part of Dion is gleeful about the idea, and he’s definitely better at this kind of political maneuvring than he is getting popular support from Canadians, he isn’t reversing his decision to step down as Liberal leader. The leadership campaign will go on as planned and if the government lasts that long, the winner will become the prime minister.

Making a deal with separatists threatens this country directly: If this were true (and it’s not), the Conservatives are just as guilty. Many of its laws, including matters of confidence, were supported by the Bloc Québécois in exchange for matters the two could agree on like transferring more money to the provinces. Dion’s federalist bona fides are not in question. Besides, the argument is being made on the other side that the Bloc has sold its soul to the federalists by agreeing not to take down a coalition government for a year.

The Liberals have a better plan to fix the economy: Nobody’s going to fix this economic crisis. The United States is in a recession and debt markets are in turmoil. There’s nothing a prime minister can do to fix that. They can make a small impact: the Tories want to reduce taxes and the Liberals/NDP want to increase spending, both of which will put this country back into deficit and increase the national debt. The best solution would probably be something in between, but there is no centre option here as long as the Liberals are in bed with the NDP.

The coalition will bring the stability and progressive policies needed to weather the economic crisis. Wow, I need to get some of what you’re smoking. The coalition will bring partisan gridlock to Parliament Hill in no time flat. Another election will quickly follow, in which Canadians will either punish Harper for his arrogance or (perhaps more likely) punish the Liberals for a transparent  power grab.

This crisis shows why we need a majority government: Whether this crisis is good or bad for Canada depends on which side you’re on. Majority governments are by nature more stable, because they’re run by a benevolent dictator. They also have a habit of being more fiscally responsible by being able to cut spending and make tough decisions. But minority coalitions are more democratic and involve more compromise and negotiation. And when one party attempts to do something unpopular, it can be overridden by the other three parties.

If the government loses a confidence vote, an election must be called: That’s not necessary. The King/Byng affair demonstrated that. The governor-general has the option to allow another group to become the government if she feels they would have the confidence of the House.

We must protest to ensure we get the right government: While both sides are appealing to public opinion, it’s highly unlikely that any of the four parties will listen to the public which has already divided so transparently along party lines. The Liberals and NDP have already made up their minds about forming a coalition. The Bloc has already agreed not to let it fall for a year and a half. And the Conservatives are going to fight to the last breath to keep Stephen Harper in power.

Any other misconceptions you feel need to be corrected?

Oh hell, I’ll just let Rex Murphy summarize:

| In the news, Montreal, Opinion

Student union money is easily embezzled

The Concordia Student Union has a budget of about a million dollars a year (actually, it’s probably more than that now, but within an order of magnitude). That’s a lot of money, and it’s managed by amateurs who swoop in without any experience. So it’s unsurprising that eight years ago, the union discovered that one of its executives made off with almost $200,000 over a year and a half by writing cheques to herself and hiding the evidence from the bookkeeper.

When the executive discovered what happened (at first they thought it was more like $30,000), it was reported to the council of representatives in a super-secret meeting. The press release came out a week later. It took four years before she was finally convicted, though the union still hasn’t recovered all the money.

This month, history appears to be repeating itself, and the CSU has apparently discovered another “financial irregularity” about “misappropriation of funds” which was presented to a super-secret meeting. No dollar amount is given, but one would assume we’re not talking about a few extra beers in the expense account. No one is named, of course, but it would have to be someone with access to the money, either an executive or an accountant.

For someone to do this at the CSU takes balls (and “creative accounting” skills) the likes of which I have never seen. The union put rigorous financial controls in place after the first fraud, including new financial policies and the hiring of a financial controller. It will be interesting to see how these safeguards were foiled this time.

Meanwhile, a bit further west down de Maisonneuve Blvd., the Dawson Student Union has a financial scandal of its own. It seems one of its executives racked up $29,000 in expenses on her executive credit card (well, I assume it’s a her – if a guy is spending that much on clothes and jewellry, there’s bigger problems afoot).

Whose bright idea was it to give apparently limitless credit cards to 18-year-old CEGEP students? I mean seriously, did nobody consider the rather obvious possibility that this might happen?

What the CSU and DSU have in common, despite the fact that stealing from them is like taking candy from a baby (a baby with a trailer full of candy), is that both were accredited as official representatives of their students, meaning the schools’ administrations have certain legal obligations involving student fees, and can’t interfere in their affairs.

I’m not suggesting differently here, but this is clearly a systemic problem. CEGEP and university students can’t be trusted with huge bank accounts. Rigorous financial controls need to be put in place, and those controls need to be verified on a regular basis by an independent third party.

Perhaps the government should step in here. The same law that says universities must hand over student fees to accredited student unions should also require certain financial control measures be put in place, and there should be regular inspections by the government to ensure that they are respected. Miss your audit by a day and you get a visit from a government agent. Even if you don’t, you still get a visit. Otherwise things like this will just keep happening.

And all of this is completely separate from the misappropriation of funds by student clubs and smaller associations. It was rampant in my time and I doubt it’s gotten much better.

| In the news, Montreal, Public transit

Quebec parties’ transit promises

Now that the debate is over, I guess we can assume that the party platforms are out there. I was interested in how each party is looking at public transit. Even though the economy and health care are the big issues, it’s never been sexier to be green.

From news interviews and party platforms, here’s what I’ve been able to piece together about what the parties have promised for public transit in Quebec.

The promises are about what you’d expect: practical but uninspiring from the Liberals, pandering and expensive from the PQ, non-existent from the ADQ and completely unrealistic from the Green Party and Québec solidaire.

Nothing radical or even particularly interesting comes out of the main parties (the PQ’s promises, in particular, involve many things that are already being planned), but it does give an idea of what portions of the electorate each party is targeting.

Liberal Party of Quebec

  • Increase the frequency of train trips to Laval and the South Shore suburbs by 35% within 12-24 months, an additional 230 train departures each week, or 264,000 seats
  • 10,000 new parking places at commuter train stations (a 35% increase)
  • Consider Montreal proposal for construction of tramways

Total cost: $260 million ($200 million through the province, $60 million from the AMT)

Sources: Charest promises increased transit to Laval, Longueuil

Parti Québécois

  • Extend blue line east
  • Build a tramway to Old Montreal
  • Create a direct rail link to Trudeau Airport
  • Create express bus lines on Henri-Bourassa Blvd.
  • Create an LRT from Brossard to downtown
  • Build a commuter train to Repentigny
  • Build a commuter train from Longueuil to Châteauguay
  • Create reserved bus lanes on Highways 13, 15, and 19
  • Increase public transit use 16 per cent by 2013 (double the current Liberal goal)

Total cost: $3.6 billion, not enough says Normand Parisien of Transport 2000

Sources: PQ promises $3.5B for public transit, Transit union boss backs PQ

Action démocratique du Québec

The ADQ has nothing in its platform (PDF) about public transit beyond a vague promise to “modernize its management”, though Mario Dumont has said in the past he would make public transit an essential service, removing from its unions the right to strike.

Québec solidaire

  • Reduced fare for low-income earners
  • In the long term, the complete elimination of transit fares
  • Encouraging the use of fully electric vehicles
  • Increase use of collective taxis in low-density areas where bus service is impractical
  • Unspecified extensions to metros, commuter trains and bus network on the island of Montreal

Total cost: $1.2 billion over five years

Source: Party platform

Green Party of Quebec

  • Create high-speed rail link between Quebec City and Windsor
  • Extend Montreal metro’s blue line east to Anjou
  • Build tramways in Montreal (including, apparently, on Pierrefonds Blvd. in the West Island), Quebec, Longueuil, Gatineau, Laval and Sherbrooke
  • Electrify existing rail links connecting Quebec City, Alma, Gaspé, Sherbrooke and Montreal
  • Reduce the cost of transit passes by 50%

Total cost: $40 billion over 20 years (includes non-public transport measures), financed by a carbon tax and road tolls

Sources: Party platform (PDF), Transport plan announcement

What do you think? Which party has the best public transit platform?

| Business, In the news, Technology

Bell wins throttling case

Bell Canada has won a case that went to the CRTC about peer-to-peer throttling.

In April, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers complained to the CRTC because Bell was using traffic shaping techniques to slow P2P traffic on both its network and the networks of DSL Internet resellers (because of Bell’s telephone monopoly, it is required to sell wholesale net access to companies at government-set rates).

The CAIP argued that this was unfair and unnecessary. Bell argued the opposite.

The CRTC took Bell’s side on the case, in a decision which is pretty well uninteresting otherwise. The only caveat: Bell will have to inform its resellers at least 30 days in advance of similar changes in the future.

Despite the apparentloss to net neutrality advocates, Michael Geist says it’s not the last word on the subject, and there’s still hope.

UPDATE: Geist has some quick reactions from Bell and the CRTC.

| In the news, Montreal, Public transit

STM releases 2009 fare rates

There were rumours that the fares would go up again (not exactly going out on a limb), but the STM last night made it official. The new rates (PDF) are as follows:

Regular Reduced
Monthly CAM $68.50 ($66.25 + 3.4%) $37 ($36 + 2.8%
Weekly CAM $20 ($19.25 + 3.9%) $11.25 ($11 + 2.3%)
Three-day tourist pass $17 (no change) N/A
One-day tourist pass $9 (no change) N/A
10 trips (Opus card only) $20 ($2/trip) $10.75 ($1.08/trip)
Six trips $12.75 ($2.13/trip, $12 + 6.3%) $6.75 ($1.13/trip, $6.50 + 3.8%)
Single fare $2.75 (no change) $1.75 (no change)

Transit agencies have to give 30 days notice for fare changes, which means they have until 11:59pm on Dec. 1 to announce any changes to take effect for Jan. 1, 2009.