Drawing the Lines of Power: Why the United States Needs an Independent Redistricting Commission

Posted on November 10, 2025 by Chris McBean

Every ten years, Americans count themselves, and then politicians carve the nation into pieces. In theory, these lines are the skeleton of democracy, each district meant to represent a roughly equal share of the people’s voice. In practice, however, the scalpel is often in partisan hands, and the result looks less like democracy and more like a game of political cartography gone rogue.

A System That Rewards Its Own Abuse
The U.S. Constitution leaves redistricting to the states, with Congress retaining the right to regulate the process. Yet for more than two centuries, Congress has chosen not to exercise that right in any meaningful way. The result is a patchwork of state systems, most of them controlled by whichever political party happens to dominate the local legislature.

Both parties have used this power when it suits them, but in the modern era, sophisticated mapping software and microtargeted data have turned gerrymandering into a science. Districts now snake through neighborhoods like drunken serpents, connecting voters who share little except their predicted loyalty. In some states, the shape of the line, not the will of the people, determines who governs.

When the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) declared that partisan gerrymandering was a “political question” beyond its reach, it effectively shut the courthouse doors to citizens seeking fair maps. The message was clear: if Americans want integrity in their elections, they must legislate it themselves.

What an Independent Commission Could Offer
Other democracies long ago recognized that fairness cannot coexist with self-interest. Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia entrust their electoral maps to independent, arms-length commissions. These agencies are staffed by nonpartisan experts; demographers, judges, geographers who follow clear criteria: compactness, respect for communities of interest, equal population, and transparency. Public hearings and judicial oversight ensure that citizens, not party operatives, shape their representation.

The results speak for themselves. Voter confidence in the fairness of elections in these countries consistently exceeds 80 percent, while American confidence has hovered around 50 percent in recent years. In Canada, where each province’s independent boundary commission reviews the map after every census, electoral boundaries are rarely the subject of scandal or court challenge. People may disagree on policy, but they do not argue about the legitimacy of their ridings.

The Case for a Federal Solution
The United States could adopt such a system tomorrow. The Elections Clause grants Congress the authority to “make or alter” state regulations governing federal elections. A single piece of federal legislation could establish an Independent Federal Redistricting Commission – a transparent body tasked with drawing all congressional districts using uniform national standards.

Such a commission would:
• End partisan manipulation by removing politicians from the mapping process.
• Increase public trust by making all deliberations open and evidence-based.
• Strengthen democracy by ensuring that voters choose their representatives, not the other way around.
• Stabilize governance by reducing the incentives for extreme partisanship, which flourish in safely gerrymandered districts.

Imagine a Congress in which every member must appeal to a truly representative cross-section of their district; urban and rural, conservative and progressive, wealthy and working-class. The tone of national politics would shift overnight. Legislators would need to persuade rather than posture. Compromise, that most endangered of political virtues, might even make a comeback.

What Stands in the Way
The only obstacle is political will. The party that benefits from the map has no incentive to surrender control of the pen. Both have been guilty at various times, though the imbalance today tilts heavily toward Republican-controlled legislatures that have perfected the art of map manipulation. The proposed For the People Act and Freedom to Vote Act, which would have mandated independent commissions for all congressional districts were blocked in the Senate, not because they were unconstitutional, but because they were inconvenient.

This is the real scandal: that a fix so obvious and achievable is continually thwarted by those who fear fair competition. Gerrymandering is not a feature of democracy; it is a form of quiet electoral theft.

The Moral Argument
Democracy, if it means anything, means that each citizen’s voice carries the same weight. When politicians choose their voters, that principle collapses. Independent redistricting is not a partisan reform; it is a moral one. It says that legitimacy must flow upward from the people, not downward from the powerful.

Americans deserve to know that their ballot is worth as much as their neighbor’s. Until they demand that Congress create an independent, arms-length agency to draw the lines of power, those lines will continue to be written in the ink of self-interest.

The map of a democracy should be drawn by its people’s conscience, not by its politicians’ convenience.

Sources:
• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4
• Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015)
• Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)
• Elections Canada, “Independent Boundaries Commissions and Electoral Fairness” (2023)
• Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Elections and Government” (2023)

The Grades Don’t Lie: How Social Media Time Erodes Classroom Results

Posted on November 9, 2025 by Chris McBean

We finally have the kind of hard, population-level evidence that makes talking about social media and school performance less about anecdotes and more about policy. For years the debate lived in headlines, parental horror stories and small, mixed academic papers. Now, large cohort studies, systematic reviews and international surveys point to the same basic pattern: more time on social media and off-task phone use is associated with lower standardized test scores and classroom performance, the effect grows with exposure, and in many datasets girls appear to show stronger negative associations than boys. Those are blunt findings, but blunt facts can still be useful when shaping policy.

What does the evidence actually say? A recent prospective cohort study that linked children’s screen-time data to provincial standardized test scores found measurable, dose-dependent associations: children who spent more daily time on digital media, including social platforms, tended to score lower on later standardized assessments. The study controlled for a range of background factors, which strengthens the association and makes it plausible that screen exposure is playing a role in educational outcomes. That dose-response pattern, the more exposure, the larger the test-score deficit, is exactly the sort of signal epidemiologists look for when weighing causality.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses add weight to the single-study findings. A 2025 systematic review of social-media addiction and academic outcomes pooled global studies and concluded that problematic or excessive social-media use is consistently linked with poorer academic performance. The mechanisms are sensible and familiar: displacement of homework and reading time, impaired sleep and concentration, and increased multitasking during classwork that reduces learning efficiency. Taken together with cohort data, the reviews make a strong case that social media exposure is an educational risk factor worth addressing.

One of the most important and worrying nuances is sex differences. Multiple recent analyses report that the negative relationship between social-media use and academic achievement tends to be stronger for girls than boys. Some researchers hypothesise why: girls on average report heavier engagement in image- and comparison-based social activities, higher exposure to social-evaluative threat and cyberbullying, and greater sleep disruption linked to late-night social use. Those psychosocial pathways map onto declines in concentration, motivation and ultimately grades. The pattern is not universal, and some studies still show mixed gender effects, but the preponderance of evidence points to meaningful gendered harms that regulators and schools should not ignore.

We should, however, be precise about what the data do and do not prove. Most observational studies cannot establish definitive causation: kids who are struggling for other reasons may also turn to social media, and content matters—educational uses can help, while passive scrolling harms. Randomised controlled trials at scale are rare and ethically complex. Still, the consistency across different methodologies, the dose-response signals and plausible mediating mechanisms (sleep, displacement, attention fragmentation) do make a causal interpretation credible enough to act on. In public health terms, the evidence has passed the “good enough to justify precaution” threshold.

How should this evidence reshape policy? First, age limits and minimum-age enforcement, like Australia’s move to restrict under-16 access, are a sensible piece of a larger strategy. Restricting easy, early access reduces cumulative exposure during critical developmental years and buys time for children to build digital literacy. Second, school policies matter but are insufficient if they stop at the classroom door. The best interventions couple school rules with family guidance, sleep-friendly device practices and regulations that reduce product-level persuasive design aimed at minors. Third, we must pay attention to gender. Interventions should include supports that address comparison culture and online harassment, which disproportionately harm girls’ wellbeing and school engagement.

There will be pushback. Tech firms and some researchers rightly point to the mixed evidence on benefits, the potential for overreach, and the social costs of exclusion. But responsible policy doesn’t demand perfect proof before action. We now have robust, repeated findings that increased social-media exposure correlates with lower academic performance, shows a dose-response pattern, and often hits girls harder. That combination is a call to build rules, tools and educational systems that reduce harm while preserving the genuinely useful parts of digital life. In plain language: if we care about learning, we must treat social media as an educational determinant and act accordingly.

Sources:
• Li X et al., “Screen Time and Standardized Academic Achievement,” JAMA Network Open, 2025.
• Salari N et al., systematic review on social media addiction and academic performance, PMC/2025.
• OECD, “How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age?” 2025 report.
• Hales GE, “Rethinking screen time and academic achievement,” 2025 analysis (gender differences highlighted).
• University of Birmingham/Lancet regional reporting on phone bans and school outcomes, Feb 2025.

The Grammar of Entitlement

Posted on November 5, 2025 by Chris McBean

There is a kind of violence that rarely makes headlines. It doesn’t leave bruises or require an alibi, yet it shapes how millions of women move through the world. It lives in tone, expectation, and entitlement: the quiet insistence that a man’s desire constitutes a claim. This is the grammar of entitlement, and it underwrites much of what we call everyday life. When men are taught that kindness, attention, or money are currencies that purchase intimacy, the refusal of that transaction feels like theft. And from that imagined theft, violence grows, not only in action, but in attitude. It becomes the background noise of a culture that still believes women’s bodies are communal property, merely distributed through different forms of politeness.

Entitlement begins in subtle places. It begins in the stories boys are told about conquest, romance, and “getting the girl.” It begins in the way girls are socialized to soften their refusals, to keep themselves safe through diplomacy. This is not simply social conditioning; it is an architecture of expectation built into language itself. In most heterosexual narratives, the man’s desire drives the story. Her consent is not the point of origin but the obstacle, the dramatic tension to be overcome. Even the romantic comedy, that seemingly benign genre, is often structured around a man wearing down resistance until “no” becomes “yes.” The myth of persistence has always been the moral camouflage of entitlement.

When that persistence is frustrated, resentment follows. We are now witnessing an era where this resentment has become communal, a kind of organized grievance. It tells men that the modern world has conspired to deny them what they were promised: sex, affection, attention, reverence. The rhetoric of the “lonely man” often cloaks this in pathos, but loneliness itself is not the problem. It is the conviction that someone else must be blamed for it that turns grief into hostility. Within that hostility lies the logic of control: if women are free to choose, then men must find ways to reclaim authority over choice itself.

Violence begins there, long before it reaches the body. It begins in words, in the erosion of empathy, in the idea that intimacy is a right to be exercised rather than a gift to be offered. It manifests in the digital sphere where harassment, threats, and objectification form an ambient hum of hostility that too many women learn to normalize. The technology changes, but the dynamic is ancient: a man’s sense of rejection transforms into moral outrage, and his outrage becomes justification. This is why sexual violence cannot be separated from cultural entitlement; they are different verses of the same song.

We have grown used to defining violence by its visibility. We recognize bruises, but not the psychic contortions that come from being reduced to a function. When women describe the exhaustion of navigating entitlement: the emotional labour of softening refusals, the hypervigilance required to stay safe, they are often accused of exaggeration. Yet what they describe is the constant negotiation of ownership: whose comfort matters, whose boundaries are negotiable, whose will defines the encounter. Violence, in this sense, is not the breakdown of civility but its shadow. What civility hides so that power can feel like courtesy.

To name entitlement as violence is to understand that harm is cumulative. A woman who spends years accommodating the moods of men who believe they are owed her body or attention carries a kind of invisible scar tissue. It may never be recorded in police reports, but it shapes her choices, her confidence, her trust. The body remembers what the culture denies. Each unsolicited touch, each angry message, each demand for emotional compliance becomes another layer in a collective memory of threat.

And yet, we are told that men are the ones suffering. The so-called “male loneliness epidemic” has become a rallying cry; less for compassion than for backlash. The argument goes that women’s independence has left men adrift, unwanted, and angry, but this, too, is a distortion. Loneliness deserves empathy; entitlement does not. The problem is not that women refuse to date men, but that so many men interpret refusal as harm. To frame women’s autonomy as cruelty is to invert the moral order entirely, to make self-protection an act of aggression.

What we are witnessing is not a crisis of connection, but a crisis of entitlement. The more women assert boundaries, the more those boundaries are read as insults. The cultural reflex is to soothe male discomfort rather than question its legitimacy, yet a society that prioritizes men’s hurt feelings over women’s safety is not a society in decline, rather it is one in denial.

If there is hope, it lies in unlearning this grammar. In rewriting the story so that desire is not a claim, but a conversation. In teaching boys that intimacy cannot be earned through performance or purchase, only invited through respect. In teaching girls that their boundaries are not provocations, but personal truths. This is the slow, quiet revolution that changes the world not by policy alone, but by perception: the recognition that violence often begins in the stories we tell about what is owed.

The antidote to entitlement is not shame, but empathy. Real empathy, the kind that accepts another’s autonomy as equal to one’s own. To desire without entitlement is to love without domination. It is to see the other as subject, not supply. Until we learn that difference, every act of so-called romance will carry within it the ghost of coercion. Every story that begins with “he wanted” will risk ending with “she feared.”

To unlearn that pattern is the work of generations, but it begins with a simple act of linguistic courage: to name entitlement for what it is, quiet, persistent form of violence.

References:
1. Abbey, A., Jacques-Tapia, A., Wegner, R., Woerner, J., Pegram, S., Pierce, J. (2004). “Risk Factors for Sexual Aggression in Young Men.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence. – The article notes that among perpetrators salient cues include “a sense of entitlement” to sexual access and anger.
2. Jewkes, R., Flood, M., Lang, J. (2015). “New learnings on drivers of men’s physical and/or sexual violence against women.” Global Health Action. – This paper connects patriarchal privilege, gender hierarchy, and entitlement to men’s violence against women.
3. Safer (Australia). “What do we mean by male entitlement and male privilege?” – A practical resource that outlines how male entitlement operates in relationships: e.g., entitlement to sex, entitlement to compliance, entitlement to emotional accommodation.
4. Kelly, I. & Staunton, C. (2021). “Rape Myth Acceptance, Gender Inequality and Male Sexual Entitlement: A Commentary on the Implications for Victims of Sexual Violence in Irish Society.” International Journal of Nursing & Health Care Research. – This article explicitly links ideologies of male sexual entitlement with sexual violence and victim-blaming.
5. Equimundo / Making the Connections. “Harmful Masculine Norms and Non-Partner Sexual Violence.” – Provides global evidence that attitudes of male privilege and entitlement are consistently associated with rape perpetration.
6. Santana, M. C., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., La Marche, A., Silverman, J. G. (2008). “Masculine Gender Roles Associated with Increased Sexual Risk and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration among Young Adult Men.” Culture, Health & Sexuality. – Links traditional masculine ideologies (including control and entitlement) with sexual violence/partner violence.
7. World Health Organization / United Nations documentation (summarised in various reviews) linking gender inequality, harmful norms, and violence against women: For instance – “The Association Between Gender Inequality and Sexual Violence in U.S. States.” BMC Public Health. – Demonstrates how structural gender inequality correlates with sexual violence prevalence.

Tewin and the Shape of Ottawa’s Future

Posted on November 3, 2025 by Chris McBean

At the moment, I don’t feel I know enough about this developing issue to take a position, so I plan on monitoring the situation and perhaps look at the bigger picture.

Four years ago, Ottawa city council voted to expand the urban boundary into lands southeast of the city to create a massive new suburban community called Tewin. The project, a partnership between the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) and Taggart Group, envisions housing for up to 45,000 people on 445 hectares of land. This expansion was one of the most controversial planning decisions of the last decade, both for its symbolic weight and its long-term implications. Today, councillor Theresa Kavanagh has re-opened the debate, proposing that Tewin be stripped from Ottawa’s Official Plan. Her efforts highlight the difficult choices cities face between growth, climate goals, and Indigenous reconciliation.

The Promise of Tewin
Supporters of Tewin present it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. For the Algonquins of Ontario, the project represents an unprecedented role in shaping Ottawa’s future. After centuries of dispossession, Tewin offers not only revenue streams and jobs but also visibility in the city’s urban fabric. This symbolic dimension, land not merely ceded or lost, but built upon in partnership, is difficult to dismiss.

Developers and some councillors also argue that Ottawa must accommodate population growth. With Canada’s immigration targets rising, pressure on housing supply is intense. Tewin promises tens of thousands of new homes, potentially designed with modern sustainability standards. Proponents emphasize that large master-planned communities can integrate parks, schools, and infrastructure in ways that piecemeal infill cannot. In this vision, Tewin is not sprawl, but a carefully designed city-within-a-city.

The Cost of Sprawl
Yet the critiques are no less powerful. City staff initially ranked the Tewin lands poorly during their 2020 evaluations, citing soil unsuitability, distance from infrastructure, and limited transit access. Servicing the site: extending water, sewers, and roads will cost nearly $600 million, much of it beyond the city’s 2046 planning horizon. These are funds that could otherwise reinforce existing communities, transit networks, and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Urban sprawl carries environmental and social costs. Tewin sits far from rail lines and job centres, ensuring that most residents will be dependent on cars. This contradicts Ottawa’s stated climate action commitments, which emphasize compact growth and reduced vehicle emissions. Critics also note that adding a massive suburb undermines efforts to intensify existing neighbourhoods, where transit and services are already in place.

Indigenous Voices, Indigenous Divisions
The Indigenous dimension of Tewin complicates the debate. On the one hand, the Algonquins of Ontario have secured a rare position as development partners, advancing reconciliation through economic participation. On the other hand, not all Algonquin communities recognize AOO’s legitimacy, and some argue that consultation has been narrow and exclusionary. The project thus embodies both progress and tension in the city’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. To reject Tewin outright risks appearing to dismiss Indigenous economic aspirations; to proceed with it risks deepening divisions and ignoring long-standing calls for more inclusive engagement.

A City at the Crossroads
Councillor Kavanagh’s push to remove Tewin from the Official Plan is more than a single motion. It reopens a philosophical question: what kind of city does Ottawa wish to become? If it seeks to embody climate leadership, resilient infrastructure, and walkable communities, Tewin appears to be a step backward. If it seeks to honour Indigenous partnership and ensure abundant housing supply, the project has undeniable appeal.

Ultimately, Tewin forces Ottawa to confront a contradiction at the heart of Canadian urbanism. We are a country that has promised climate action, but remains tethered to car-dependent suburbs. We are a nation that aspires to reconciliation, but often struggles to reconcile competing Indigenous voices. To move forward, Ottawa must do more than weigh costs and benefits; it must articulate a vision of growth that is both just and sustainable.

In this sense, Tewin is not merely a development proposal. It is a mirror held up to the city itself, reflecting both its aspirations and its unfinished work.

Sources:
• CTV News Ottawa. “Tewin development project passes latest hurdle but some say it still doesn’t belong.” August 2024. Link
• Ontario Construction News. “Ottawa councillor sparks renewed debate over controversial Tewin development.” April 2025. Link
• CTV News Ottawa. “Councillor withdraws motion to remove 15,000-home development from Ottawa’s Official Plan until after byelection.” April 2025. Link
• Horizon Ottawa. “Stop the Tewin Development.” Accessed October 2025. Link

Results Over Bureaucracy: Transforming Federal Management and Workforce Planning

Posted on October 30, 2025 by Chris McBean

Canada’s federal government employs hundreds of thousands of people, yet far too often, success is measured by inputs rather than results. Hours worked, meetings attended, or forms completed dominate performance metrics, while citizens experience delays, inconsistent service, and bureaucratic frustration. Prime Minister Mark Carney has an opportunity to change this by embracing outcomes-based management and coupling it with a planned reduction of the federal workforce—a strategy that improves efficiency without undermining service delivery.

The case for outcomes-based management
Currently, federal management emphasizes process compliance over actual impact. Staff are assessed on whether they followed procedures, logged sufficient hours, or completed internal forms. While accountability is important, focusing on inputs rather than outputs fosters risk aversion, discourages initiative, and prioritizes process over public value.

Outcomes-based management flips this paradigm. Departments and employees are held accountable for tangible results: timeliness, accuracy, citizen satisfaction, and measurable program goals. Performance evaluation becomes tied to impact rather than paperwork. Managers are empowered to allocate resources strategically, encourage innovation, and remove obstacles that slow delivery. Employees gain clarity on expectations, flexibility in execution, and motivation to improve services.

This approach is widely recognized internationally as best practice in public administration. Governments that adopt outcomes-focused management report faster service delivery, higher citizen satisfaction, and better use of limited resources. It is a tool for effectiveness as much as efficiency.

Planned workforce reduction: 5% annually
Outcomes-based management alone does not shrink government, but it creates the environment to do so responsibly. With clearer accountability for results, the government can reduce headcount without impairing services. A planned 5% annual reduction over five years, achieved through retirements, attrition, and more selective hiring, offers a predictable, sustainable path to a smaller, more focused public service.

No mass layoffs are necessary. Instead, positions are left unfilled where feasible, and recruitment is limited to essential roles. Over five years, the workforce contracts by approximately 23%, freeing funds for high-priority programs while maintaining core services. At the end of the cycle, a full review assesses outcomes: delivery quality, service metrics, and costs. Adjustments can be made if reductions have inadvertently affected citizens’ experience.

Synergy with the other reforms
This plan works hand-in-hand with the other two reforms proposed: eliminating internal cost recovery and adopting a single pay scale with one bargaining agent. With fewer staff and a streamlined compensation system, management gains greater clarity and control. Removing internal billing and administrative overhead frees staff to focus on outcomes, while a unified pay scale ensures fair and consistent compensation as the workforce shrinks. Together, these reforms create a coherent, accountable, and modern public service.

Benefits for Canadians
Outcomes-based management and planned workforce reduction offer multiple benefits:
1. Efficiency gains: Staff focus on work that delivers measurable results rather than administrative juggling.
2. Cost savings: Attrition-based reductions lower salary and benefits expenditures without disruptive layoffs.
3. Transparency: Clear metrics demonstrate value to taxpayers, building public trust.
4. Resilience and innovation: Departments adapt faster, encouraging problem-solving and continuous improvement.

Political and administrative feasibility
Canada has successfully experimented with elements of outcomes-based management in programs such as the Treasury Board’s Results-Based Management Framework and departmental performance agreements. These initiatives demonstrate that the federal bureaucracy can shift focus from inputs to results if given clear mandates and strong leadership. Coupled with a predictable downsizing plan, the government can modernize staffing while maintaining accountability and service quality.

A smarter, results-driven public service
Prime Minister Carney has the opportunity to reshape Ottawa’s culture. Moving from input-focused bureaucracy to outcomes-based management, and pairing it with a responsible workforce reduction, creates a public service that delivers more for less. Citizens experience faster, more reliable services; employees understand expectations and have clarity in their roles; and the government maximizes value from every dollar spent.

Together with eliminating internal cost recovery and adopting a single pay scale, this reform completes a trio of policies that make the federal government smaller, smarter, and more accountable. Canadians deserve a public service focused not on paperwork, but on results that matter. This is the path to a modern, efficient, and effective Ottawa.

Lansdowne 2.0: The half-billion-dollar deal that asks Ottawa to trust again

Posted on October 27, 2025 by Chris McBean

There are moments in a city’s life when the decisions made at council chambers shape not just its skyline, but its soul. The redevelopment of Lansdowne Park has entered such a moment. The City calls it Lansdowne 2.0. Once again we are asked to believe that this time things will finally work out. I am respectfully saying: no thank you.

I support investing in our city’s infrastructure, in affordable housing, and in vibrant community spaces, but I am deeply opposed to the kind of public-private partnership (PPP) model that Ottawa keeps repeating – especially when the affordable housing promise is quietly reduced, when the public carries the risk, and the private partner walks away with much of the upside.

In the case of Lansdowne 2.0, the City and its private partner, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), propose to rebuild the north-side stands and arena, build new housing towers, bring retail/condo podiums, and “revitalize” the site. The projected cost is now $419 million, according to City documents. The City’s Auditor General warns the cost could be as much as $74-75 million more and that revenues may fall short by $10-30 million or more. That alone should give us pause, but the real problem goes beyond the balance sheet.

The public-private problem
The idea of PPPs sounds appealing: share risk, leverage private capital, deliver publicly beneficial projects faster. But the repeated pattern in Ottawa is that the public land, public debt and public oversight become the junior partner in the deal. When good times happen, the private side takes the returns; when costs rise or revenues shrink, the City and the taxpayer carry the burden. We know this from Lansdowne 1.0 and from other large projects in the city. The question is not simply “Is this a partnership?” but “Who bears the downside when things go off plan?”

The Auditor General’s review of Lansdowne 2.0 flagged that the City is “responsible for the cost of construction…..and any cost overruns” even though much of the revenue upside depends on later ‘waterfall’ arrivals. If we’re asked to commit hundreds of millions now in the hope of returns later, we must demand transparency, risk caps, guaranteed affordable housing and binding public-benefit commitments. Anything less is not renewal, it’s risk-shifting.

Affordable housing is not optional
At a time when Ottawa faces an acute housing affordability crisis, we are told that “housing towers” are part of the funding model for Lansdowne. But the developer’s track-record of promising affordable units, and then claiming they can’t deliver is worn and familiar. In the updated Lansdowne plan the number of guaranteed affordable units was cut or deferred and shifted toward “air-rights” revenues and condo sales, effectively betting public good on speculative real estate. Affordable housing should not be a line-item to trim when the spreadsheets wobble. It is the social licence that allows private profit on public land. Approving a plan that pares back affordable units yet asks for public exposure is indefensible.

Traffic, transit and neighbourhood liveability
The Lansdowne site sits beside the Rideau Canal, the Glebe and the Bank Street corridor – one of the most traffic-choked corridors in the city. Yet the plan envisions adding 770 new residential units (down from an original 1,200) on top of retail podiums. Meanwhile, the city’s own “Bank Street Active Transportation and Transit Priority Feasibility Study” (June 2024) underlines that Bank Street is already at capacity for cars and buses, that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is insufficient and that any added vehicle traffic will further degrade mobility.

Without a clear strategy to manage car access, parking, transit loads, cycling/pedestrian safety and construction impacts, this redevelopment risks worsening gridlock and degrading the very neighbourhood livability the project claims to enhance.

Sports tenants and viability
One of the central rationales for Lansdowne 2.0 is that the existing arena and stands are aging and that new facilities will retain sports franchises and major events. Yet the plan, as approved, reduces capacity for hockey to 5,500 seats and concerts to around 6,500 – considerably smaller than many mid-sized arenas. Meanwhile, neighbouring downtown developments such as the proposed new arena for the Ottawa Senators raise questions: what is Lansdowne’s tenant strategy once the major franchise relocates? If the largest anchor tenant leaves, the revenue model collapses. The City is committing hundreds of millions without a transparent long-term sports strategy. Sports teams argue they cannot stay if capacity or amenities shrink. If they depart, the burden falls back on taxpayers.

Commercial podiums and vacant retail
The redevelopment includes a shift from 108,000 square feet of retail to 49,000 square feet; a cut because local business viability was weak in the first phase. Even today many of the commercial units around Lansdowne 1.0 remain vacant because rents are too high for independent businesses and the location’s infrastructure doesn’t support consistent foot traffic outside game days. The plan’s assumption that retail will compensate for public investment is shaky at best. Until we see real evidence of market demand and rental levels that support small business and serve neighbourhoods, not just downtown condo-dwellers, we are betting public money on commercial models that already failed once.

The opportunity cost
Let’s not forget what’s at stake. Nearly half a billion dollars in public exposure. Imagine what that money could do across the city: hundreds of affordable housing units in multiple wards, refurbished community centres, libraries, rinks, park renewal, neighbourhood transit links. Instead, we’re being asked to invest that money in one downtown site, tied to a private partner’s spreadsheet and future real-estate and event-market assumptions. This is a question of equity: do we serve one marquee site or many? Do we favour single big deals or dozens of small, proven community-led investments?

A better path forward
I believe in renewal. I believe Lansdowne and its broader site matter. But I cannot support the current model unless three things change:
1. Full transparency: release the full pro-forma, risk tables, debt-servicing schedules, and waterfall projections.
2. Binding affordable-housing guarantees: not aspirational “10 per cent of air-rights revenue,” but concrete units or legally-binding contributions to affordable-housing stock.
3. An urban-livability strategy: traffic and transit modelling for Bank Street and the Glebe; tenant guarantees for sports franchises; a retail strategy that supports small local business; and a cap on public exposure in cost overruns.

If a deal only works when the public is last in line for returns, when affordable housing is trimmed, when traffic worsens and local business fails, then we shouldn’t do it. That is not civic renewal. It is a subsidy for speculative dysfunction.

Public land, public money, public trust. If those three are not aligned, the right move is not to sign another 40-year partnership and hope for the best. It is to pause, open the books, redesign the deal and ensure the structure serves the city first, not the private partner. Ottawa can build better than this. It just needs to decide whose interests it wants to serve.

Sources:
• CityNews Ottawa: OSEG revamp cost jumps to $419 M.
• City of Ottawa / Engage Ottawa: Lansdowne 2.0 project/funding details.
• Auditor General of Ottawa: cost under-estimation, financial risk.
• Glebe Report: traffic/transportation study on Bank Street.

Food Security Requires a Canadian Grocery Fairness Act to Break the Supermarket Cartel

Posted on October 22, 2025 by Chris McBean

Food prices in Canada are now so high that a growing share of households are skipping meals or relying on food banks, yet the country’s dominant grocery chains continue to post record profits. It’s an economic contradiction that Canadians are no longer willing to ignore. After years of voluntary codes, polite meetings with industry leaders, and vague promises of self-regulation, the time has come for Parliament to act. Canada needs a Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act to restore competition, transparency, and trust in the food supply.

The data are damning. Between 2019 and 2024, grocery prices rose by more than 25 percent, outpacing both wages and overall inflation. Meanwhile, profit margins at the country’s three dominant players, Loblaw, Sobeys’ parent company Empire, and Metro, reached their highest levels in decades. These three corporations control nearly 60 percent of the national grocery market and, in some provinces, more than 75 percent. Despite the removal of gas taxes and a slowdown in supply chain costs, prices have not come down. The explanation is simple: the grocery sector operates as a de facto cartel.

Canadians have seen evidence of this before. In 2018, a major bread price-fixing scandal revealed collusion among suppliers and retailers that spanned more than a decade. The Competition Bureau’s investigation led to fines and admissions of wrongdoing, but no lasting structural change. The same corporate families and alliances continue to dominate shelf space, dictate supplier terms, and shape consumer prices. Voluntary codes have done little to curb their power. When a handful of companies can quietly move in lockstep on pricing, even without explicit collusion, the outcome is the same: higher costs for everyone else.

A Grocery Fairness Act would not be radical. It would simply align Canada with the kind of market safeguards that already exist in other developed economies. The United Kingdom established a Groceries Code Adjudicator in 2013 to oversee fair dealing between supermarkets and suppliers. The European Union enforces strict competition rules that prevent excessive market dominance and punish “tacit collusion.” Canada, by contrast, still relies on a Competition Act designed for a different era, one that assumes the threat to markets comes from explicit conspiracies rather than structural concentration.

The model law proposed by several economists and policy experts would impose a national market-share limit of 15 percent per grocery chain, and 25 percent in any province. Companies that exceed those thresholds would be required to divest stores or brands until the market is more balanced. It would also make the existing Grocery Code of Conduct legally binding rather than voluntary, ensuring that farmers and small suppliers are protected from arbitrary fees, delisting threats, and other coercive practices.

Most importantly, the law would require large grocers to publish detailed pricing and profit data by category, showing whether retail increases are justified by rising costs. If a chain’s margins expand while input costs stay flat, the public deserves to know. Transparency alone would discourage the kind of quiet, parallel pricing behaviour that has become the norm.

Critics will call this “interference in the market,” but the truth is that Canada no longer has a functioning grocery market in the classical sense. When three firms dominate distribution, logistics, and supply contracts, the market’s self-correcting mechanisms are broken. Economists call it “oligopolistic coordination”; ordinary Canadians call it being gouged at the checkout.

Breaking up concentration would also open the door to regional cooperatives, independent grocers, and Indigenous food enterprises that have been squeezed out of distribution networks. Local ownership builds resilience, especially in rural and northern communities where dependence on a single chain often leads to higher costs and poorer food access.

There is also a broader principle at stake: when corporations profit from a basic human necessity, government has a duty to ensure that profit is earned through efficiency, not exploitation. If the banking sector can be regulated for systemic risk and telecommunications companies for fair access, surely food, the most essential of goods, deserves the same scrutiny.

Canada’s political establishment has been slow to move. The federal government has encouraged the large chains to sign a voluntary code, but participation remains partial and unenforced. Provinces have little power to act independently. The result is a cycle of press releases, hearings, and photo opportunities, while the price of a loaf of bread continues to climb.

A Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act would mark a decisive shift. It would give the Competition Bureau real structural tools rather than case-by-case investigations. It would make transparency mandatory and collusion punishable by substantial fines or even criminal liability for executives. Most importantly, it would restore the principle that essential markets exist to serve citizens, not to enrich monopolies.

Canada prides itself on fairness. Yet fairness in the grocery aisle has become an illusion. If Parliament wants to restore public confidence and make life affordable again, it should begin not with subsidies or rebates, but with the courage to challenge the corporate concentration that underlies the problem. The country needs a real grocery market, competitive, transparent, and accountable. Anything less is a betrayal of every Canadian who still believes that food should be priced by cost, not by cartel.

Sources:
Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index data 2019–2024;
Competition Bureau of Canada, Bread Price-Fixing Investigation Report (2018);
Office for National Statistics (UK), Groceries Code Adjudicator Review 2023;
European Commission, Competition Regulation 1/2003.

One Scale, One Union: Simplifying Federal Compensation for a Modern Public Service

Posted on October 20, 2025 by Chris McBean

Canada’s federal workforce is a patchwork of pay scales, bargaining units, and special arrangements that often pay employees differently for similar work. This complexity creates inefficiency, confuses managers, and undermines transparency. For decades, the federal government has wrestled with these issues, attempting harmonization through studies and pilot projects, but meaningful reform has never been fully implemented.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has the opportunity to finally address this problem by creating a single pay scale for all new hires and promotions, with a central bargaining agent to represent them. Starting April 1, 2027, this reform would apply to every new employee and to anyone promoted after that date. Over time, as legacy employees retire, the workforce would converge under a single, transparent framework, vastly simplifying management and reducing administrative costs.

The current problem
Federal employees are currently represented by multiple unions, covered under different collective agreements, and paid according to a variety of classification systems. Two employees performing essentially the same job in different departments may have different pay scales, benefits, and promotion paths. This complexity creates friction: managers spend more time navigating pay rules than supervising staff, bargaining is prolonged and repetitive, and HR systems are costly to maintain.

Promotions often compound the problem. Without a unified framework, employees may move between roles under different rules or remain in outdated pay bands indefinitely. This creates inequities and prevents the workforce from operating as a coherent system.

A proven foundation exists
Importantly, Canada has not been starting from scratch. During the 1990s, the federal government explored harmonizing job classifications and pay structures under the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) project. The Treasury Board and Public Service Commission produced extensive documentation, job definitions, and classification guidelines. Additional studies, such as the PS2000 project, analyzed potential efficiencies and pathways for standardization. Much of this work remains relevant today.

By leveraging existing frameworks, the government can implement a single pay scale and central bargaining agent far more quickly than starting from scratch. The definitions, classification structures, and analyses already exist, they need modernization, updating for today’s workforce, and political will to implement.

The proposal: one pay scale, one bargaining agent
The plan is straightforward. Starting April 1, 2027:
1. All new hires enter the federal public service under a single UCS-style pay scale, with clear levels tied to responsibility, experience, and job complexity.
2. Any promotions after this date automatically shift employees to the UCS-style scale and the central bargaining agent, ensuring convergence over time.
3. A single central bargaining agent represents all employees on the UVS scale, whether it is a restructured existing union or a newly created organization.

This approach eliminates the patchwork of bargaining units, reduces negotiation complexity, and ensures equitable pay and promotion practices. Employees understand where they fit in the system, managers can deploy staff more effectively, and the public service as a whole becomes easier to administer.

Benefits for government and taxpayers
A single pay scale reduces administrative overhead, simplifies HR planning, and facilitates mobility between departments. One bargaining agent prevents overlapping negotiations, saving months of time and tens of millions in potential costs. By tying promotions to the UCS system, inequities between legacy and new employees shrink naturally over time.

For taxpayers, the benefits are equally clear. Streamlined payroll systems, reduced HR costs, and more predictable budgeting allow funds to be redirected from administrative complexity into actual service delivery. Employees benefit from transparent, fair, and consistent compensation, while management gains clarity and flexibility.

Building a coherent, modern workforce
Canada’s federal public service is one of the largest in the developed world. To make it efficient, equitable, and responsive, it must operate on clear, uniform principles. A single pay scale and central bargaining agent, applied to new hires and promotions after April 1, 2027, provides exactly that.

This reform is achievable because the groundwork is already laid. The challenge is not designing the system, it is implementing it decisively. By building on past harmonization efforts and committing to a transparent framework, Carney can create a public service that is fairer for employees, easier for managers to oversee, and more accountable to Canadians.

Canada can no longer tolerate a federal workforce fragmented by pay scales, bargaining units, and inconsistent policies. One scale, one union, and a commitment to transparency is the path forward.

The Last Whales of Marineland: Law, Ethics, and the Only Path Forward

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Chris McBean

Marineland sits on the edge of Niagara Falls, a relic of a different era when families came to gape at orcas and belugas performing tricks. Today, the park is closed to the public, its lights dimmed, its tanks mostly empty. Yet the whales remain, silent witnesses to decades of human fascination and exploitation. Among them, the belugas are the last of a long line of captive cetaceans in Canada, and their plight is both a moral and legal reckoning.

For decades, Marineland claimed it brought education and awareness of marine life to Canadians and tourists alike. The reality, as revealed over the last ten years, is more troubling. Since 2019, more than a dozen beluga whales have died at the facility under circumstances that have raised concern among veterinarians, animal welfare groups, and the public. Many were young, far from what should have been a full lifespan, and the explanations provided, while sometimes citing medical causes, fail to address the broader pattern. Photographs and drone footage of barren tanks, water quality issues, and the whales’ unusual behaviors suggest chronic stress and confinement that no educational benefit can justify. The deaths, taken in context, reveal not isolated accidents but the systemic consequences of keeping large, intelligent marine mammals in tanks.

Canada responded to such practices in 2019 by passing the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act. The law bans the breeding, acquisition, import, and export of cetaceans for entertainment. Existing captive animals were “grandfathered” under certain conditions, but new acquisitions or transfers for display are prohibited. In short, sale or export of the remaining belugas from Marineland is illegal. When Marineland recently applied to send its whales to an aquarium in China, the federal government denied the request. The law is unambiguous: the only permissible outcome is relocation to a sanctuary, not further captivity for human amusement.

Legal clarity, however, does not erase the ethical responsibility. These belugas were born or captured for human entertainment. They did not choose this life, and society now bears responsibility for their welfare. Ethics demand that we consider not only physical health but also psychological well-being. Belugas are social, intelligent, and sentient. Repeated confinement, environmental monotony, and loss of companions cause suffering that is both preventable and morally unacceptable. Our laws protect them from further exploitation, but ethical obligation compels us to act now to repair the harm already done.

The only credible path forward lies in the Nova Scotia Whale Sanctuary, being developed by the Whale Sanctuary Project in Port Hilford. This facility is designed as a coastal enclosure, allowing belugas and orcas to live in natural water while receiving veterinary care and human supervision. The sanctuary is not fully operational yet, and relocating large marine mammals is a complex, expensive, and logistically challenging process. Still, this project represents the only legal, ethical, and practical solution for Marineland’s remaining whales. No other facility in Canada can legally or humanely accommodate them, and any alternative that returns them to captivity or commercial display is prohibited under law and would violate ethical principles.

The urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. Marineland is closed to the public and financially strained. Without immediate support, the welfare of these whales is at risk. Government funding and oversight are essential to ensure the whales remain healthy during the transition period. Independent veterinarians and cetacean welfare experts must assess each animal, monitor conditions, and guide care until sanctuary relocation is possible. These steps are not optional; they are necessary to prevent further suffering and to ensure that the legal and ethical framework guiding this process is actually implemented.

Longer-term, the whales’ relocation to Nova Scotia should be accompanied by permanent decommissioning of Marineland’s marine mammal facilities. This is not merely about ending an era; it is about acknowledging responsibility. Marineland profited for decades from holding these whales in suboptimal conditions. It should bear the costs of relocation, long-term care, and veterinary support. Society, in turn, must recognize that the attraction of seeing whales perform tricks is no longer a justification for their suffering.

For the public, the story of Marineland is instructive. It is a reminder that what we once accepted as entertainment can be morally indefensible in retrospect. The law now codifies that view, but ethics demand we go further. The whales’ continued captivity is a human failure, and the only way to right it is through care, sanctuary, and accountability. The Nova Scotia project is more than a refuge; it is a statement that humans are capable of taking responsibility for the consequences of their curiosity, their amusement, and their commerce.

In the end, the last whales of Marineland are a test of our society’s commitment to justice for nonhuman animals. There is no alternative that is lawful, humane, and morally defensible. Relocation to the sanctuary, guided by expert care and public accountability, is the only path that respects both the law and the ethical duty we owe to these sentient creatures. In that effort, we find not only a solution but a measure of ourselves: the ability to act responsibly for those who cannot choose their own fate. For the belugas, the sanctuary is not a luxury – it is justice.

Rethinking Public Safety: Core Changes Needed in Western Policing

Posted on October 13, 2025 by Chris McBean

Western policing institutions, from the United Kingdom to the United States, are facing mounting scrutiny for systemic failures that undermine public trust and fail to meet the safety needs of communities. Incidents of racial and gendered violence, misuse of force, and institutional culture problems reveal the limitations of the traditional model in which a single, uniformed police force handles the full spectrum of societal harms. This essay argues that public safety requires a reimagined, plural, and layered system. It presents six core principles for reform, grounded in evidence from pilot programs and case studies on both sides of the Atlantic, and discusses the implications for sustainable, accountable, and equitable policing.

Introduction
The model of policing inherited from 19th-century Western institutions, exemplified by Sir Robert Peel’s Metropolitan Police in London and early municipal police forces in the United States, was designed to maintain order and protect property. While law enforcement has evolved considerably, the persistence of systemic failures: including excessive use of force, discrimination, and insufficient accountability, reveals that the traditional, centralized policing model is increasingly misaligned with the safety needs of diverse urban and rural populations. Recent investigations, such as the BBC Panorama exposure of the Metropolitan Police and multiple high-profile police misconduct cases in the United States, underscore the urgency of systemic reform.

Reimagining public safety involves shifting from a monolithic force model to a plural, layered system in which enforcement is distinct from care, accountability is democratized, coercive intervention is minimized, social determinants are prioritized, non-police responders are professionalized, and transparent data guide decision-making.

Principle 1: Separate Enforcement from Care
Crisis responses for homelessness, mental health emergencies, substance use, and domestic conflict are often inappropriate for traditional police intervention. Uniformed officers, trained primarily for law enforcement rather than care, may escalate tensions, criminalize vulnerability, or fail to provide adequate support.

Alternative models, such as CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) in Eugene, Oregon, and similar community response teams in Toronto, Canada, deploy trained clinicians, social workers, and mediators to handle nonviolent crises. Evidence suggests these programs reduce unnecessary arrests, minimize injuries, and improve trust between communities and public safety agencies. In both UK and US contexts, embedding healthcare professionals alongside response teams reduces escalation and prevents downstream criminalization.

Principle 2: Localize and Democratize Accountability
Public trust is strengthened when local communities have oversight and voice in shaping public safety priorities. Establishing community boards with authority over local response teams, transparent complaint resolution processes, and independent civilian audits creates structural incentives for cultural change.

Both London’s Metropolitan Police governance reforms and civilian oversight structures in cities such as New York and Chicago highlight the importance of independent, empowered bodies capable of enforcing accountability. External oversight must have investigatory authority and sufficient resources to ensure timely and effective review of misconduct or systemic failures.

Principle 3: Reduce the Role of Armed, Coercive Interventions
The routine deployment of armed officers contributes to the normalization of coercion and increases the risk of harm, particularly for marginalized communities. In Western contexts, both the UK and US demonstrate the need to reserve armed intervention for narrowly defined, high-risk tasks.

For routine public safety, prioritizing de-escalation, nonviolent conflict resolution, and restorative justice practices promotes harm reduction and community reintegration. Programs such as restorative justice circles in US municipalities and diversionary policing initiatives in the UK demonstrate measurable reductions in recidivism and enhanced community cohesion.

Principle 4: Reinvest in Social Determinants of Safety
Long-term safety cannot be achieved solely through law enforcement. Investments in housing, mental health services, youth programs, education, and employment opportunities address root causes of harm and reduce the likelihood of criminalized behaviors.

Budget reallocations toward prevention and community infrastructure yield higher returns in public safety than expansion of enforcement. Examples include community-led housing initiatives in Scandinavian cities and youth engagement programs in US urban centers, which correlate with reduced crime rates and increased community resilience.

Principle 5: Professionalize Non-Police Crisis Responders
Alternative responders require clear professional frameworks to ensure effectiveness and sustainability. Developing recognized career paths, standardized training, legal authority, and integration with public safety systems is essential. Professionalization enables accountability, credibility, and continuity, ensuring that non-police interventions are treated as legitimate and reliable components of public safety.

Principle 6: Transparent Data and Outcomes
Transparency is foundational for accountability and evidence-based reform. Public dashboards reporting complaints, use of force, referral outcomes, and demographic impacts allow communities to scrutinize performance and guide policy decisions. Both UK and US jurisdictions increasingly deploy open data initiatives to monitor law enforcement and response teams, enhancing trust and supporting adaptive reforms.

Case Studies and Evidence

CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets), Eugene, Oregon: Mental health crises handled by clinicians rather than police resulted in fewer arrests and reduced hospitalizations.
London’s community policing pilots: Embedding officers with community liaison roles increased reporting of minor crimes and improved citizen satisfaction.
Toronto’s mobile crisis teams: Mental health and addiction response teams reduced unnecessary emergency department admissions and arrests.

Recent BBC Panorama revelations in London illustrate the stakes of failing to implement such principles: custody suites became environments of normalized bigotry and violence, reflecting an institutional mismatch between coercive tools and public needs. Similar patterns in US police departments, documented through DOJ investigations and local reporting, demonstrate that this is a transatlantic problem.

Western policing institutions are at a critical juncture. The evidence indicates that centralized, uniformed police forces, designed historically to maintain order and protect property, are insufficient to meet contemporary public safety needs. A plural, layered system guided by the six principles; separating enforcement from care, democratizing accountability, reducing coercive interventions, reinvesting in social determinants, professionalizing non-police responders, and ensuring transparency, offers a path toward equitable, effective, and sustainable public safety across Western societies.

Reforms must be systemic, not incremental, and must embrace experimentation and evaluation. The lessons from pilot programs and investigative revelations alike underscore a simple truth: public safety is not merely the absence of crime, it is the presence of care, trust, and community resilience.