Monday, March 8, 2010
Advice on collaborative journalism perhaps most relevant for Canadian journos
Of particular interest are Steiger's descriptions of the way his which his non-profit, foundation-funded investigative newsroom so successfully collaborates with mainstream news publications, both print and broadcast (which, unsurprisingly, want to work differently with ProPublica).
As Brean
notes at the end of his piece, unless something drastic occurs in the Canadian economy or with Canadian philanthropy, the ProPublica model is unlikely to be reproduced north of the border. As a result, Steiger's experiences with collaborative journalism might well be the most practical and immediate take-aways for Canadian journalists looking to advance their own work.
Labels: Canadian Journalism Foundation, featured, National Post, Paul Steiger, ProPublica
Friday, February 26, 2010
Editor of ProPublica to speak in Toronto on Monday
Samara, in partnership with Massey College, is hosting Paul Steiger, editor-in-chief, president and CEO of ProPublica in Toronto on Monday March 1st.
Recently named one of Fast Company's ten most
innovative media companies, ProPublica is a non-profit investigative newsroom that produces journalism in the public interest. Prior to establishing ProPublica, Steiger was the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal for 16 years.
There are a small handful of seats still available. The event begins at 7:30 p.m. at the George Ignatieff Theatre, 15 Devonshire Place, University of Toronto. Please
contact Joshua Knelman if you're interested in attending.
This visit is part of an
ongoing series of seminars that seek to provide inspiring examples of innovations in public affairs journalism and create a gathering space for journalists and others interested in public affairs reporting to exchange ideas and learn from one another. Please
stay tuned for information on future events.
Labels: featured, media and citizens, Paul Steiger, ProPublica
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Why I left the Senate
Evan Bayh, the former governor of Indiana and a U.S. senator since 1999, announced his retirement from the Senate this week, and penned an
extremely thoughtful piece on why in last weekend's New York Times. The piece was about what ails the U.S. Congress, but its echoes reverberate up here, at least if o
ne believes what one reads about Parliament these days. Concerned Canadians should read
this piece.
Bayh comes from a political family. His father was a senator from Indiana too, and he remembers his family maintaining active friendships with colleagues across the aisle. Families visited each others homes, and shared meals together. That
never happens anymore.
Now, he says, members routinely force votes on trivial amendments to provide fodder for negative attack ads. It's pretty hard to work with people who are "actively plotting your demise."
He also observed that only twice in his 12 years in Washington have the senators all gathered for a non-ceremonial purpose. The first was to sort out how to conduct Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, and the second was just after 9/11, when they met to discuss the American response. Bayh writes,
"There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day, just Americans. The spirit of patriotism and togetherness was palpable. That atmosphere prevailed for only two or three weeks before politics once again intervened."
He then suggests a load of practical-sounding reforms that would improve things (campaign reform, changes to filibustering), and pledges to spend his final 11 months advancing those proposals.
I particularly liked one of his concluding paragraphs:
"Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible."
I hope he updates us in 11 months time.
Labels: Evan Bayh, featured, political culture, political leadership, Senate
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
All in the family
In
earlier posts, we've talked about our lack of a "political class" in Canada, and also noted
how few Canadians wanted their kids to pursue a career in elected office.
Thanks to Edmonton Journal reporter
Trish Audette for
highlighting these all-in-the-family political stories from Alberta, one from Calgary and one from Edmonton. Move over Bushes, these family histories give a whole new meaning to political dynasty.
Labels: Edmonton Journal, featured, political leadership, Trish Audette
Friday, February 19, 2010
NBC explains Canada to America
In honour of the Olympics, a nice
video tribute to Canada by NBC.
Labels: featured, NBC
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What your mom doesn't want you to be when you grow up
A recent Ipsos Reid poll asked Canadians if they would "encourage any family member to run for public office because it is a noble calling."
The result? Two of every three Canadians polled, or 66%, said no.
That's not a surprise. Given the negativity that surrounds much of the discussion around politics, not to mention the time and travel demands and public scrutiny associated with the job, I'd have thought it might even have been higher.
Most of the MPs in our project have kids. We often ask the MPs if they'd like their children to go into politics. We're in the midst of analyzing the results right now, but so far, it looks pretty split among three answers: no, direct yes and the slightly modified yes (i.e., sure, but only if they wanted to).
I'm curious what teachers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers (or any other profession, really) would say if asked if they'd like their kids to follow in their professional footsteps.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Friday, February 12, 2010
Volunteer with us
We are looking for a small team of volunteers to help develop Samara's next phase of activities. If you're interested in thinking about tough problems, researching and discussing ideas with others, please consider applying.
All backgrounds and levels of experience welcomed. More information is available
here.
Labels: featured, volunteer
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
How to measure a good democracy
I'm working my way through this report on Canada's democratic engagement, released recently by The Institute of Wellbeing, an organization that develops and regularly produces statistical reports on various aspects of Canada's well being.
The researchers have done a very thorough job of pulling together the literature on these topics from Canadian and international sources - a tremendous service. They then list indicators grouped into three areas: individual's engagement; the Canadian government's engagement and Canadians' global engagement.
One can quibble with many of the indicators, but this is a good start. No one said democracy was easy to measure, and the paucity of current and historical data on these matters doesn't help either. As a result, the index relies on a lot of the traditional sources and concludes many of the same things about declining voter turnout and engagement.
Hopefully with time they'll consider investing in original research, and in the meantime, it's worth considering a wider discussion on what else we should be measuring.
Labels: democracy, featured, Institute of Wellbeing, media and citizens
Monday, February 8, 2010
So what about us?
Writing about the political paralysis facing our neighbours to the south, a paralysis many observers believe has worsened over the past year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg points a finger at one suspect - or group of suspects - who often escapes scott-free.
We the people.
This
very provocative piece, Weisberg suggests that instead of blaming various politicians or cable news stations, the American public needs to stop simultaneously demanding then rejecting change on any number of issues (witness health care, climate change, economic stimulus). To quote from his piece, "our collective illogic is mostly negligent rather than militant... we like the idea of hard choices in theory [but] when was the last time we made one in reality?"
It's a good question. And how are we faring here? As at least one writer
points out, we don't really do the tea party thing. We'd rather just stew in the status quo. Earlier this year, columnist Gary Mason
almost pleaded that we engage in some discussion on the host of long-term challenges that confront us - from healthcare to pensions to the environment.
That said, there are plenty of movements afoot, nearly all of them citizen-led. Last weekend,
a group assembled in Edmonton to advance discussions on Alberta's future. Next week,
another will gather in Toronto to figure out how to strengthen relationships between people and civic institutions. In March,
others will meet in Ottawa to plan for Canada's 150th birthday, and later in March,
another group will do the same. Type
TEDx into Google and you'll see lots of Canadian discussions in the works.
And here at Samara, we're
doing what we can to get at the disconnect among politicians, our media and citizens. Please stay tuned. Advice, ideas always welcome.
Labels: apathy, Change Camp, Conference on Alberta's Future, featured, Gary Mason, Jacob Weisberg, John Ibbitson, media and citizens, sesquicentennial, Slate, TEDxTO
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Canada's "amateur" political class (II)
One big driver of turnover is electoral defeat, accounting for two-thirds of the total turnover (retirement comprises the rest). Thanks to the kind folks at
the Pundits' Guide, I've been able to browse their
extremely thorough analysis on incumbency, which suggests it's higher than this casual observer may have thought. In other words, once an MP gets a seat they have a pretty good chance of keeping it, particularity if you're in the Conservative party.
Here are some
facts from their site:
- In the 13 elections between 1968 and 2008 about 78% of incumbent MPs were re-elected.
- The flip-side of this coin means it's pretty tough for someone challenging the seat to win. Over the same period, that happened only 7.7% of the time.
- While the odds of keeping your seat are pretty good, they're not as good as they'd be if you lived in the States. In the 19 elections that took place between 1968 and 2009, the re-election rates for incumbent members of Congress was over 94%.
In both Canada and in the U.S., your party affiliation affects these numbers. Up here, for the seven elections between 1988 and 2008, the
incumbancy rates were:
- 96.7% for the Reform/Canadian Alliance
- 96.2% for the Conservatives (CPC)
- 88% for the Bloc
- 84.4% for the Liberals
- 67.8% for the NDP
- 46.7% for the Progressive Conservatives
Just the facts ma'am. Anyone have any thoughts on why?
Labels: Alice Funke, Bill Stanbury, featured, MPs, political leadership, Pundits' Guide
Monday, February 1, 2010
What about women?
One of the most common questions I'm asked, maybe because of my own gender, is whether Samara's exit interviews take a particular look at women in politics.
The answer is yes and no. Yes, because we are interviewing women (our pool, which draws form those who left public life during or after the last two Parliaments, includes 36 women, or about 26% of our total interviewees). This is a bit higher than our current Parliament, where women comprise just over 22% of the total.
No, because we're not specifically asking them to talk about their life in politics as women. We're asking them about their life in politics. Ditto our approach with all possible sub-groups of politicians (e.g., immigrants, Liberals, Maritimers, lawyers, backbenchers etc.).
We're in the midst of analyzing the results of our first 65 interviews, and we're interested to see how much variability there is in perspectives based on gender and on other variables.
In the interim, have a closer look at some facts about the female MPs in our interview pool and see how they compare with the larger group. For example, the women in our sample:
- Were 47 years old when they entered Parliament and 56 when they left;
- Served for 8.75 years (slightly less than the overall group, which was just under 10 years);
- Were more likely to be defeated. 56% of the women lost their election, where it was 48% for the larger group;
- Had a lot of legislative experience. 10 women were cabinet ministers and 18 were parliamentary secretaries; 4 served in both capacities;
- Are extremely educated. 78% publicly listed their college or university degrees;
- Were largely from the Liberal party. 3 were from the Bloc, 2 were Conservatives, 4 were from the NDP and 27 were Liberals.
Equal Voice is a great place to go for more facts and figures on women in Parliament. I'm also working my way through Sylvia Bashevkin's latest book on the topic.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, Sylvia Bashevkin, women in politics
Thursday, January 28, 2010
A view of the Ledge of B.C.
Talk to any politically-oriented person in B.C. for long enough and eventually Vaughn Palmer's name will come up. For those living east of the Rockies, Palmer is the provincial political affairs columnist for the Vancouver Sun.
A
reader of this blog sent me one of Palmer's posts, where he
recaps an interview he did with Jim Hume, who is retiring after 50 years of covering B.C. politics. I'm a sucker for these kinds of things, which are, when well done, part nostalgia for days gone by, part cute anecdote and part wise advice for the future.
I loved Hume's opening line: "You know, my mother said there'd be days like this, when journalists run out of ideas and have to interview each other. But go ahead."
He had some gripes for today's political media, reminding me a bit of
this great talk from Senator Hugh Segal. Among his comments, paraphrased for length: "It's not too ago that [media] luminaries would say after an election, 'Okay gentlemen, we've got a new government to bring down.' ... that feeling still pervades. Why do they want to bring down a government? The people elect an opposition. It's not the media's right or responsibility to be the official opposition, it's their right to challenge."
And like every retiring journalist, he was asked about the future of newspapers. His (paraphrased) words: "I think newspapers will survive. I believe that the great age of Facebook and Twitter and 'send us an email' ... and nobody checking facts - I think that will go. Maybe it's an old man dreaming of the past, but I think we saw what can go wrong with
bloggers in Copenhagen, where they did a very authentic-looking scam. It was caught, and caught in time, but eventually somebody is going to work one of those scams and the world is going to fall for it. I think that will spend the end."
Time will tell.
Labels: B.C., featured, Jim Hume, media and citizens, Vancouver Sun, Vaughn Palmer
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Is Canada's "amateur political class" a problem?
It's a good question. First, a few facts. To begin, we'll borrow from Ned Franks again, who shows
here that, on average between 1945 and 2008, 37% of MPs after an election were new. More recently, that number has gone down (in 2008 it was just under 22%) but the trend is by no means straight. For example, after the 1993 election over 72% of MPs were new. In 1980 it was about 23%, in 1949 it was almost 48%.*
We know a bit about why and the reasons behind it. The first is retirement. On average, about 12% of MPs choose not to run again, which accounts for about one-third of the turnover.**
Two profs at Memorial researched voluntary turnover and found a few things. MPs with narrow victories are less likely to run again, as are those who live far from Ottawa. Quebec MPs are also more prone to turn over, perhaps because of the call to provincial politics is stronger there.
Above all, though, their research suggests that those who come to Ottawa wanting to impact public policies tend to be twice as likely to leave as those who primarily want to serve their constituents or view themselves as members of their party.
The second, and bigger reasons is electoral defeat. On average, one-quarter of MPs lose their election.** I've not seen an analysis of this, but anecdotally MPs tell me that their personal profile gets one about 5-8% of their votes - the rest is due to perceptions of the party and the leader.
So if we think turnover is a problem, we can do one of two things. First, is discourage retirement. If the Memorial profs are correct, this'll require either a small country (!) or more power to individual MPs (which has been the
direction of much of Parliamentary reform in the last generation) or some other change in party management. The provision of pensions after 6 years of service probably don't help either if you want to get people to stick around.
A second, and more powerful, route is to reduce electoral turnover. This is where it gets tricky and pretty undesirable, frankly. We could gerrymander ridings, like in the U.S., so they're safer. We could have fewer elections. We could brainwash voters.....
So is it a problem? Maybe, maybe not. It's a good thing to have fresh minds and a comparatively open political system. Furthermore, it's unclear how realistically we can change it even if we wanted to (although better HR management in politics would be a most welcome change). To paraphrase a
wiser observer than myself, I guess the real question is whether our Parliament is too transient to properly do its job.
** Again, depends on the year. See
Franks page 6.
Labels: Andrew Potter, featured, Kelly Blidook, Kerby Matthews, Memorial University, MPs, Ned Franks, Ottawa Citizen, Parliament
Monday, January 25, 2010
The MP weekend diaspora...
For most of us, how and where we spend our weekends, probably doesn't have a significant impact on our professional lives.
Not so with MPs.
Although not a specific area of our research, the MPs' personal and family lives invariably come up. One trend we've noticed, also supported by the research of Queen's professor Ned Franks, is the change in how MPs increasingly structure their work and home lives - and the impact that this may be having on cross-party relationships on the Hill.
For instance, 40 years ago it was normal for MPs' families to move to Ottawa with them. Air travel was less accessible, MPs' travel budgets were smaller and dual career families were less common. Moving was often the practical option.
The result?
Regardless of party, Ottawa became a bit more like "home," especially as all newly elected MPs (and their families) found themselves dealing with many typical family matters, such as schools, doctors and little league teams, together. Along the way, cross-party friendships often formed particularly as families socialized away from the political arena.
Today, the House suffers from what Ned Franks describes as a "weekend diaspora" where most MPs leave Ottawa on Thursday and return to their constituencies and families. One MP we interviewed said he'd hosted a dinner party at his home one evening and everyone who attended said it was the first time in their years in Ottawa that they'd been invited to dinner in the home of a colleague.
It may seem like a small change, but Franks argues that this lack of day-to-day, non-political contact could be part of the reason why the House is now a less collegial place overall. I guess it's harder to yell across the aisle when you know you may run into that person at the grocery store or at your kids' hockey game.
Of course no one is arguing for a cross-party sing along (although what a fundraising idea...) but just that this change doesn't have to be permanent. Ultimately, the work of Parliament is about people and so anything that helps MPs see a bit more of the human side of each other can only help. Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, Parliament, political leadership
Friday, January 22, 2010
Brain candy, the Ottawa version
Perhaps in keeping with Ottawa's
recent nomination as among the "most intelligent places to live," I've stumbled across a few events, coming to a national capital near you, that look interesting.
First, IPAC and MASSLBP are turning their
minds to the future - 2017 to be exact. That year marks the 150th anniversary of Canada and they
rightfully want us thinking now about how we'll celebrate. The event includes a fabulous
roster of speakers, including Peter Aykroyd (yes, that's Dan's dad), who helped organize our 100th in 1967, Mary Simon on the north and U of T prof (and Samara advisory board member) Sujit Choudhry on demographics and democracy. It's March 11-12 and you can register
here.
Second, Canada2020 is hosting a free debate on the 2010 federal budget on February 3. As one MP we interviewed said, "the most important public policy document of any government is the budget," so it's worth considering the challenges involved in deciding what goes in it. Registration info is
here.
In addition, Shawn Atleo, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations will address Ottawa's Canadian Club on February 9, and US Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson will do the same on March 9. Info available
here.
Sadly I'm stuck in Ontario's provincial capital; however, if any readers can attend and
share a dispatch, I'd be grateful. If you want, I'll post it here too.
Labels: brain candy, Canada2020, Canadian Club, featured, IPAC, Mary Simon, MASSLBP, Ottawa, Peter Aykroyd, sesquicentennial, Sujit Choudhry
Thursday, January 21, 2010
It's the best sort of policy story
Here's a line you don't read too often: "it's the best sort of policy story: one where the policy works, the good guys win, and the public interest is served."
According to the Guardian's
Charles Arthur, Berners-Lee's motive was two-fold. First, the data are really the public's anyway, since the public "own the government." Second, he believes it will help companies and individuals to find out more about their surroundings and operate more effectively as a result.
P.S. Full disclosure: James and I were graduate students at the same place about the same time
Labels: Charles Arthur, David Eaves, featured, James Crabtree, Mark Surman, Michael Geist, The Guardian, The Prospect, Tim Berners-Lee, Toronto Star, Visible Government
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Seeking journalism fellows
Through our
journalism seminars we've come to know the wonderful people at Massey College. Among its activities, Massey offers an annual journalism fellowship that enables practicing journalists to spend the year at the University of Toronto.
Applications for their 2010 fellows are due on March 1, and are available
here.
Labels: featured, journalism, Massey College
Monday, January 18, 2010
A much-diminished Parliament? (III)
One
reader of this blog
raised some good questions about the average Parliamentary sitting days we have here in Canada in response to last week's
post. Here's my best effort at the answers.
First, he wondered how elections skewed the figures. Ned Franks estimates that Parliament sits, on average, about seven fewer weeks (or 35 days) in an election year. Maclean's Aaron Wherry
crunched the numbers by decade, removing election years. His analysis suggests a downward trend.
Second, the reader also pointed out that this "downward trend" may not be entirely accurate as it dilutes fluctuations. The line, he argues, is more "spikey" than straight downward.
Third, he wondered if anyone knew if there were data on sitting dates pre-dating 1968, which is when the House of Commons website starts tracking. I don't know of any in one place, but there are
summaries of Canada's various Parliaments. A very quick eyeballing (i.e., not exact!) of the figures suggests "spikey" is the norm: in
1869 Canada's first Parliament sat for about 9 weeks, or 45 days; in
1909 it sat for about 17 weeks (or 85 days); during much of the Second World War, it
sat pretty much constantly; in
1956 it sat nearly 200 days.
Any aspiring number crunchers out there who want to do the more precise math?
I suppose underneath these questions are others ones, including does it matter? Do MPs have to sit in Parliament to get work done? Do the numbers of sitting days equate to a quality of outcome?
As you ponder that, give this
article, by CBC's
Neil Morrison, a read. In it, he points out that Australia's house sits for about 70 days a year and New Zealand's sat 93 days last year (although the UK's sits about 150 days).
Even in our own backyard our federal Parliament keeps pretty busy. The provincial legislatures of Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia range from 60 to 80 days per year. Over the past decade, Newfoundland averages 42 days. And voters didn't seem to mind. In 2007, it sat only 37 days, and the voters gave Premier Danny Williams the largest percentage of the popular vote since the province joined Confederation.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, Australia, CBC, Danny Williams, featured, Neil Morrison, New Zealand, Parliament, political leadership, UK
Law: apparently not the only path to politics (at least in Canada)
This post is for all those aspiring politicos out there: law school is not your only option!
A common belief is that most politicians were lawyers before getting elected, an understandable assumption since so many former Canadian PMs (starting with John A. Macdonald, Wilfred Laurier to the more recent slate of Diefenbaker, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin) were all lawyers. So one can be forgiven for thinking that law school is step one on the path to political power. Not true - well, at least in Canada. In our pool of 139 MPs from the 38th and 39th Parliament, only 12% were lawyers. The others came from a variety of backgrounds, including: 24% from business or finance, 19% from government or politics; 15% from education and 10% from other industries. What's especially interesting, is to see how Canadian politicians compare with their international counterparts. Last spring, the Economist had a look at the professional backgrounds of international politicians and had some interesting observations on the cultural meaning of these preferences. For instance, in China, engineers dominate the political class. President Hu is a hydraulic engineer, his predecessor Jiang Zemin was an electrical engineer and the current Prime Minister is a geological engineer. The influence of engineers in politics is partly the result of both Chinese ideology and history. Specifically, under Maoism, engineering was considered a safe field of study. In countries where power has been seized via military coups, the political class is comprised of generals. Egypt has a preference for politicians who were academics, South Korea for civil servants and Brazil for doctors. In the US, lawyers are prevalent. Case in point, the Obama administration. President Obama, his Secretary of State, his Attorney-General, his Director of the CIA and his Vice President are all lawyers. Similarly, over half of America's senators practised law. The article also points to the increasing trend towards professional politicians, particularly in more mature democracies such as Britain and the US. Whereas traditionally, politics was something that was done after a "real" career, that is shifting. For example, David Cameron, the UK Tory leader, went from university into the party's research department, pausing for a brief career in PR. However, he has essentially, in one form or another been in politics his entire adult life.
Similarly Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Britain's current and former prime ministers, became members of Parliament at 32 and 30, making their past careers (journalist and barrister) short interludes. Will or is Canada currently seeing the rise of the professional politician? More on this to come...Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Friday, January 15, 2010
A much-diminished Parliament? (II)
Not only is our Parliament sitting less, but it’s passing fewer bills too.
According to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, a smaller and smaller percentage of bills receive royal assent (Parliamentary lingo for becoming law). Sixty years ago, more than 96% of legislation received royal assent. During the last Parliament, it was just over 53%. While it hasn't been a consistent downward climb, it has trended in that direction:
- During the King-St. Laurent governments (1945-57), 94.6% of bills received royal assent
- Diefenbaker (1957-1963), 89.7%
- Pearson (1963-1968), 86%
- Trudeau (1968-1979), 68.2%
- Trudeau (1980-1984), 77.6%
- Mulroney (1984-1993), 83.2%
- Chretien (1993-2004), 69.2%
- Martin (2004-2005), 58.8%
- Harper (2006-2008), 53.2%
Franks isn't sure we know why this is. Perhaps there was a stronger societal consensus in the post-war years than today, or a stronger sense of national vision. The shifting political focus to the provinces may also play a part. Maybe the legislation itself is poorly crafted and rightfully hasn't been passed. Perhaps the growth in omnibus bills are forced through quickly, while a number of small, more irrelevant pieces of legislation die on the vine.
Nor is it entirely clear if this is a bad thing. There are good reasons, particularly for minority Parliaments, to reject proposals they don't see fit. The challenge for all governments, Franks notes, is to "persuade Canadians that the legislation it proposes is good for them and the country. Parliament, and voters as well, have had their doubts on this score in recent years."
So maybe it comes down to that vision thing.
P.S. Thanks to Maclean's reporter Aaron Wherry for helping inspire this blog's title.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
A much-diminished Parliament?
MPs are spending a lot less time in Parliament, and according to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, this is a fact that long pre-dated the latest prorogue.
Franks has spent over 40 years researching Parliament, and at a recent conference in honour of political scientist Peter Aucoin he had occasion to reflect on his observations on the institution in a paper called “The Functioning of the Present-Day Canadian House of Commons.”
Overall, Frank’s view is that a series of changes in recent years have left us with a much-diminished Parliament, particularly compared to 40 years ago.
One indicator of this is the reduction in the average days per calendar year that the House of Commons sits. Over the past 30 years Parliament’s sitting days have gone down 36%. Here are Franks' numbers:
*From 1969-1973, Parliament sat an average of 163 days/year
*1974-1978, 156 days/year
*1980-1983, 139 days/year
*1984-1988, 163 days/year
*1989-1993, 115 days/year
*1994-1998, 124 days/year
*1999-2003, 115 days/year
From 2004-2008, the numbers was 105 days/year. Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry estimates we're on track for 114 days this year.
Although elections definitely influence this (the House sits, on average, for seven fewer weeks when there's an election), if prorogation becomes an annual event, numbers could drop even more.
Like everything in politics, life is always more complicated than it seems. While we like to think MPs are lounging on a beach somewhere, the truth is that they have at least two jobs: the one in the House of Commons and the one in their ridings. If the trends Franks highlights continue, however, they suggest the House of Commons part will continue to be an increasingly smaller part of their job.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
Monday, January 11, 2010
Political memory lane, vol. 3: The 39th Parliament
Last week we told you about the 38th Parliament, and this week are a few highlights from the 39th, which followed the January 2006 election and sat from April 2006 to September 2008. This was Stephen Harper's first minority government.
It doesn’t seem that long ago does it? But you may be surprised by what you’ve forgotten... The novel A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseni dominated the fiction bester-seller list; The Secret by Rhonda Byrne was becoming a global phenomenon and the 2007 Academy Award for best movie went to No Country for Old Men.
Meanwhile, in Canadian politics:
- Accountability (still): The fall-out from the Quebec-Federal Sponsorship Scandal continued and in February 2006 The Gomery Commission Report is released and it recommends a number of reforms to the civil service and its relationship with government;
- Democratic Reform: Bill C-16 passes on May 3, 2007. The impact? It brings into law fixed election dates which means that the Prime Minister is no longer able to call a snap election in a majority government situation. Going forward, regular elections will be scheduled unless a non-confidence motion is passed against a minority government;
- The Environment: In October 2006 and despite the provisions of the ratified Kyoto Accord, the Clean Air Act fails to pass, and
- Defence: The motion to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by two years (until 2011) was also successful
Next week, more on the backgrounds of our Members of Parliament.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Thursday, January 7, 2010
MPs in the UK today
The reputation of MPs took a real beating in the UK last year due to some, shall we say,
mishandling of expenses. Already, 120 MPs (of 646) have announced their intention to step down. The UK election, required this year, hasn't yet been called but is widely expected to produce a change in government.
At this rate, the UK may be in a situation very similar to that in Canada after our
1993 election, when half of Canadians switched their votes. As a result, two-third of the MPs were rookies, sitting in Parliament for the first time.
Courtesy of
this British commentator, I found
this podcast that explores life for MPs, post-politics. It also discusses the flurry of reform proposals designed, in light of the corrosive impact of the expenses scandal, to rebuild the public's perception of MPs.
There are two things at the heart of the proposals. The first is determining the appropriate powers for backbench MPs, a
debate we've had in Canada too. The second is the sorting out the right balance between the responsibility to make new laws and to scrutinize the making of laws. In a comment that I'd bet rings true to many here in Canada, one commentator asks, "Is the House of Commons a working institution or is it in the entertainment business? Far too many bills are not scrutinized at all, and the government tries to manipulate debate so controversial aspects are not discussed."
And how shall the departing MPs fare? "There's nothing deader than a dead MP," one said, whose Parliamentary pass was disabled the day after the election, before he'd even cleaned out his desk. You must "rebuild your entire life," said another - not an easy task when the economy is in the toilet. Feelings of disorientation and depression are not uncommon, and particularly when defeats are unexpected, can last for several years. We've heard bits of this in
our interviews too.
MPs aren't often high on the public's sympathy list, but parts of the podcast remind us that MPs aren't all that different from the rest of us who lose their jobs from time to time, except we don't lose them in public.
Labels: BBC, featured, Iain Dale, UK
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Life
It was a treat to listen to Steve Paikin's
interview with Frank McKenna and his multiple public lives. McKenna was the premier of New Brunswick and the ambassador to the United States and is now a vice-chair of the TD Bank, where, among other things, he gets to moderate panels like
this. Paikin, a great interviewer, is a certified political junkie and the author of
two great
books on the highs and lows of politics. Together, they make for a great conversation.
McKenna talks openly about many things, including his upbringing, his views on Catholicism, why Canada is "a really tough country" to govern, Canada's role in the world, how he feels about George Bush and Dick Cheney, the rebuilding of a political party and a policy platform and why Opposition is "horrible, [unsatisfying]... like a cousin's kiss!"
Any anglophone who's struggled to learn the language will appreciate his comments about French (fun fact: New Brunswick is the only bilingual province in Canada), and if you came of age during Canada's constitutional struggles you may appreciate his honest reflections on the
Meech Lake Accord, where he and his colleagues felt the weight of the country on their shoulders.
Paikin pushes him pretty hard on his intention to run again, but he said no as firmly as one could (although you sorta felt Paikin hoped for a different answer!). Watch/listen to it
here.
Labels: featured, Frank McKenna, New Brunswick, Steve Paikin, The Agenda
Monday, January 4, 2010
Political memory lane, volume two: the 38th Parliament
As we mentioned in earlier posts, most Mondays we'll try to share factoids on our MP Exit Interview project. Part of our background work involved putting the MP's service in context of the history of the time.
Today: a short overview of the 38th Parliament, which followed the June 2004 election and sat from October 2004 until November 2005.
Culturally, it was a time of icons. In 2004 Runaway a book of short stories by Alice Munro was awarded that year's Giller Prize and on CBC The Rick Mercer Report was launched.
In 2005, Madonna released her tenth studio album (Confessions on a Dance Floor) and Comedy Central launched The Colbert Report, starring long-time Daily Show correspondent Stephen Colbert. Here in Canada, Peter C. Newman published his controversial book, The Secret Mulroney Tapes: Unguarded Confessions of a Prime Minister.
In terms of parliamentary legislation and Canadian issues, some of the topics that we were thinking and talking about as a nation were:
- Accountability: Calls came for greater accountability in the wake of the 2004 sponsorship scandal, where questionable funds were distributed to Quebec Liberals from a fund created after the 1995 referendum;
- The Environment: From November 28 - December 9, 2005 Montreal hosted the UN's Climate Change Conference where representatives from 189 governments met for international climate change negotiations;
- Public Safety: In November 2005, The Canadian Border Services Agency was created to address border security; and
- Marriage: On July 20, 2005, The Civil Marriage Act received Royal Assent, legalizing same sex marriage throughout Canada.
In many respects, this look back kinda leaves one wondering how much has really changed!
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Year-end quizzes
News-hounds, how do you rank? The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson's Quiz 2009 is available (in two parts), and the NYT's Gail Collins' is here. They both tally your results, and the Globe is kind enough to compare your performance against all the others taking the quiz.
Similar to my performance against the year-end book lists, I resolve to improve in 2010.
Labels: featured, Gail Collins, Jeffrey Simpson
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
New appointments made to the Order of Canada
Amidst preparing for New Year's Eve and opining on the prorogation of Parliament and the composition of the Olympic men's hockey team, please don't miss
this announcement of 57 new appointments to the Order of Canada.
This honour, established in Canada's centennial year (1967), recognizes those with a "lifetime of outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation." Since its inception, over 5000 Canadians have been recognized with the Order.
The latest appointments include names you'll recognize (Mario Lemieux, Neil Young, Alexa McDonough) and many you won't. Scroll down
this page and you'll learn a bit about just a few of the many wonderful Canadians that make this country such a great place to live.
Happy new year!
Labels: featured, Order of Canada, public service
Monday, December 28, 2009
Nominate a young policy wonk, please
Every year Canada's public policy mukity-mucks get together in Toronto at the Public Policy Forum's (PPF's) annual awards dinner, which recognizes the contribution of a handful of people to Canada's public policy landscape.
A relatively recent addition to the evening is the award that recognizes an "emerging leader who personifies leadership and commitment in the area of public policy and civic discourse." With Andrew Medd, I was fortunate enough to receive this award several years ago. It's a tremendous honour and opportunity for a young person who cares about public policy (although they've upped the age limit to 35 this year, so "young" may not be the correct adjective anymore!).
If you know anyone who fits the bill, please consider nominating them. The application and nomination forms can be found toward the bottom of this page.
And if you are in Toronto in April, consider attending. I've been a few times, and have become a fan of the speeches, which are nearly always a wonderful combination of honest criticism and inspirational appeals for the future.
Last year I particularly enjoyed the opening remarks by Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall and the plea for better from veteran journalist Craig Oliver. It was also the first year speeches were recorded, and the links are here.
I'll be sure to post from my favourites this year as well.
Labels: Brad Wall, Craig Oliver, featured, Public Policy Forum
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wonk alert!
The Hill Times, inside Ottawa's weekly newspaper, has come out with its 13th Annual All Politics Poll. Dying to know who political insiders believe about the personalities and issues that shaped the past year? Well,
here you go.
Labels: featured, Hill Times, year-end lists
Monday, December 21, 2009
Political memory lane, volume one
When we started our MP Exit Interview project, among the decisions we had to make was which group of MPs we'd seek to interview first. Some suggested only interviewing those who retired (versus those who lost in an election, as they might have hard feelings). Others argued we should start with the oldest living MPs, or with women MPs or with those serving in cabinet.
In the end, we opted to start with those who recently left public life, regardless of how they left. After all, losing is often part of the experience too. The creation of new political parties as well as wider technological change have changed our politics and we figured these MPs would have the most relevant perspectives.
We decided to go back two parliaments, or about five years, meaning we'd be speaking to those who left public life during or after the 38th and 39th Parliaments.
For most people (including us before we started our MP exit interview project), the 38th and 39th Parliaments didn't mean anything really. Most of us outside Ottawa (and even inside Ottawa) can be excused for not thinking about time in this way.
Simply speaking, those were the last two completed Parliaments (we're currently in the 40th). They were both minorities too, meaning everyone we've spoken to has experience serving in that context.
The 38th Parliament followed the June 2004 election, and sat from October 2004 until November 2005. It was Paul Martin's Liberal minority government, with Stephen Harper (Conservatives), Jack Layton (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe (Bloc) in opposition.
The 39th Parliament came after the January 2006 election, and sat from April 2006 to September 2008. This was Stephen Harper's first Conservative minority. The Liberals had two leaders during this time (Bill Graham as interim, followed by Stéphane Dion). Layton and Duceppe remained at the helm of the NDP and the Bloc, respectively.
In the coming few Mondays, we'll take you on a little journey down political and policy memory lane with a look at the events that shaped these two parliaments and the MPs who served in them.
Labels: featured, minority government, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Pick of the lists, volume two
Thank you to those who provided feedback on yesterday's
post on some of the more interesting policy and ideas-oriented lists we've stumbled upon of late. I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling overwhelmed.
I'm also glad you're adding to that overwhelmed feeling by suggesting a few more lists. As promised, I'll share them here:
1. The Atlantic's most-read
stories of 2009. It didn't include one of my favourites, this
piece on why The Economist is thriving while other newsweeklies struggle, part of their annual
ideas issue.
P.S. Via the Walrus'
Jeremy Keehn's Twitter feed, there's also this
link to the most requested New Yorker articles of the decade.
Labels: Atlantic, featured, Time, year-end lists
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The pick of the lists
End-of-year lists are ubiquitous to the point of exhaustion at this time of year, but they are also a great way to get caught up on things you should probably know. A few have caught my eye these past days:
First, Foreign Policy's
list of the top 100 global thinkers is inspiring. U.S. Fed Reserve chair Ben Bernanke tops the pile for his work fighting global economic depression (a feat that also earned him Time magazine's
Person of the Year). Obama and Iranian superwoman Zahra Rahnavard round out the top three. Can-con includes Malcolm Gladwell (#19) and Michael Ignatieff (#64). One peruse and you'll feel either a bit smarter or totally incompetent.
Second, regular readers of this blog know we're always trying to
keep up with the latest news, commentary and books. The Globe and the New York Times released their
lists of notable books in plenty of time for holiday shopping (
my performance was left lacking). Barnes and Noble's best political and policy picks are
here. I like their list because it's short (only 4 books) and focused on those that mattered the most, even if they weren't written in 2009.
The Hill Times released
its 2009 list of Canadian policy and politics books, but their paywall means they'll remain a secret to non-subscribers. The list is too long to reproduce here, but the editor's top picks were: Jeff Rubin's Why Your World is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller; Gordon Laird's The Price of a Bargain; Brian Lee Crowley's Fearful Symmetry; Bob Plamondon's Blue Thunder on Conservatives from Macdonald to Harper, and the second volume of John's English's biography on Pierre Trudeau, Just Watch Me.
So count two for the environment, one for wider political thought and one each for the Libs and the CPC.
Did you have a favourite thinker or a favourite book this year?
Labels: featured, Foreign Policy Camp, Hill Times, year-end lists
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Samara's latest newsletter
Every handful of months we send a short newsletter to share updates on our work. You can find our latest newsletter
here, featuring a quick update on our MP Exit Interviews and our journalism seminar series, plus a few other tidbits. If you'd like to join the list, you can sign up from this page (look right!). As always, comments welcomed!
Labels: featured, newsletter
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Journalism from days gone past?
While navigating my rental car through the lower mainland of BC on my way to interview a retired MP, I caught this
terrific interview with veteran British journalist Sir Harold Evans, who was in Toronto promoting his
autobiography.
Sir Harold spent nearly 60 years in the news business, including 14 years as the editor of the Sunday Times in London. He pioneered the use of investigative teams, a model of journalism now used world-wide. His own work included pieces pressuring the British government to compensate victims of Thalidomide (there is a particularly touching moment in the interview on this point) and other investigations into government stories that would have otherwise not come to the public's attention.
Although I'll confess to feeling a wave of nostalgia for days that may be behind us, I did like this comment by Sir Harold,
made at a conference to journalists at the Guardian:
"I didn't want to write an extended obituary of journalism. One of the reasons I wrote this book... I wanted to do something which showed you what newspapers could do when the tried and had the will to do it."
Labels: featured, media and citizens, Sir Harold Evans, The Current
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Getting to know you...
Before Samara started our MP exit interviews, we spent a good chunk of the summer researching the backgrounds of the 139 former MPs that left public life during the 38th and 39th Parliaments.
The team read whatever it could on these folks, including CBC riding profiles, and biographical sketches from Library of Parliament, Wikipedia and, where available, from the MPs' own websites.Where possible, we also read supplementary articles on each of our MPs and the issues they were involved with.
So yes, by the time we started our interviews, we were prepared – and we had also learned a great deal of unexpected and surprising information about who these Canadian MPs are (as a group) and how they compared to the average Canadian.
For example, available information reveals that at least 76% of the former MPs in our group are married or in a common-law relationship, versus 59% of Canadian adults. A small and perhaps random tidbit, but one that takes on a great deal more significance as our interviews reveal how much personal and family factors influence one's experience in public life.
This background research will also allow us to organize our results in a way that allows us to compare across a wide number of factors, including the age at which they were elected, their profession before politics, their gender, their place of birth as well as their home riding and political party.
All of which to say, there will be many more stories like this. Most Mondays we'll post a factoid or two in the hopes it helps you learn just a bit more about political leadership in Canada.
Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, political leadership