Tag Archives: news

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 House That Pierre Built

Posted on by
Reply

There is a faint creak coming from the blue house on Parliament Hill these days. Nothing as dramatic as a collapse. It is more like the weary sigh of old beams shifting under new weather. The Conservative caucus, still licking its wounds from a disappointing election, has begun to sound like that: restless, adjusting, unsure whether to stay or start packing boxes.

This week’s events made the sound louder. On Monday, Chris d’Entremont, MP for Nova Scotia’s Acadie–Annapolis, announced he was leaving the Conservatives to sit with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals. By Friday, Matt Jeneroux of Edmonton Riverbend revealed he would resign his seat in the spring. Two moves in five days would be noteworthy in any week. Coming before a leadership review, they ring like the snap of dry timber.

The facts are plain. D’Entremont said he could work more effectively for his region within government than in opposition. Jeneroux cited family and personal reasons, but the timing spoke volumes. Both men belong to the moderate, results-first wing of the party, the same wing that has looked increasingly uncomfortable under Pierre Poilievre’s sharply populist and combative leadership.

Poilievre remains a gifted communicator and fundraiser. A party is not built on charisma alone. The post-election landscape has left his caucus divided between those who want to double down on grievance politics and those who long for the days when Conservatives prided themselves on competence and calm. The upcoming January 2026 leadership review will force everyone to pick a side. Until then, MPs are doing the math on loyalty, re-election odds, and what they can still stomach.

There is arithmetic of another kind. Each defection moves the Liberals closer to a working majority and signals to uneasy Conservatives that crossing the floor might not mean political exile. It might mean relevance. Carney has left the door visibly ajar.

Beyond the chamber, Canadians watching from their kitchen tables may not feel much sympathy for inside-Ottawa melodrama, but they understand this much. When politicians start talking about family reasons, something larger is usually stirring in the walls.

So yes, the house still stands. But its timbers are talking. More MPs will listen to those creaks in the night and wonder whether to stay in a room where the wallpaper no longer feels like their colour.

Three possible tunes

If the past week is the prelude, the coming months could bring one of three tunes. The first is modest renovation. Poilievre steadies his leadership, wins the review, and a few more moderates quietly retire. The second is a managed reshuffle, with new leadership emerging after further defections. The third, less likely but not impossible, is a structural split. Red Tories in one wing, populists in another.

For now, the tea is still warm, the windows hold against the wind, and the Prime Minister has his recruitment list open. The rest of us can only keep an ear to the rafters and note how often the floorboards sigh.

Background and watchlist

The table below presents the verifiable facts we have, short background on each item, and why these MPs or groups are worth watching right now.

MP or GroupProvince or RidingStatus or FactsWhy to WatchSource Highlights
Chris d’EntremontNova Scotia · Acadie–AnnapolisCrossed the floor to the Liberals on November 4 2025First visible defection and the catalytic event. Cited alignment with government priorities.AP News November 4 2025 · Politico Canada November 4 2025
Matt JenerouxAlberta · Edmonton RiverbendAnnounced resignation effective spring 2026Timing fuels speculation of wider caucus unrest and coincides with a looming leadership review.Global News November 5 2025
Michael ChongOntario · Wellington–Halton HillsSenior moderate MP currently in caucusLong record of institutional moderation. Profile suggests potential isolation under combative leadership.Parliament of Canada profile · Hill Times analysis November 2025
Scott AitchisonOntario · Parry Sound–MuskokaFormer leadership candidate in 2022Advocates collegial tone and pragmatic policy. Leadership tone mismatch makes him a watchlist name.Leadership race records · CBC archives
Michelle Rempel GarnerAlberta · Calgary regionProminent independent Conservative voicePublicly critical on tone and culture issues. Could opt for retirement, re-alignment, or become a focal point for dissent.Policy Magazine profiles · Angus Reid commentary
Atlantic moderate MPsNova Scotia New Brunswick NewfoundlandGroup with regional pragmatic recordsRegionally pragmatic centrists who may feel alienated by Ottawa populism. The first defection came from this region.AP News November 2025 · Hill Times November 2025
Urban and suburban Ontario MPsGreater Toronto area and surrounding suburbsVarious MPs in ridings with narrow marginsIf local voters reject leader tone, re-election prospects dim and MPs may pre-emptively retire or seek other paths.Angus Reid Institute polling October 2025
Cross party pragmatistsVariousBackbenchers with a history of cross-party workThose who prefer cooperation to confrontation may choose to step away rather than remain in an increasingly combative caucus.Policy Magazine October 2025 · parliamentary reporting
Andrew Scheer and institutional figuresNationalSenior caucus roles and institutional influenceMore likely to organize a leadership challenge or delegate push than to cross the floor themselves.Hill Times November 2025 inside reporting

Speculation, modestly poured

If another resignation comes before Christmas, the pattern will be undeniable. The party’s centrist wing would be peeling away. A quiet exodus of three or four MPs could change committee balances and morale. Whether Poilievre can steady his caucus before the January review will decide if the blue house merely needs a new coat of paint or if the tenants start looking for a different address altogether.

Sources

  • AP News November 4 2025
  • Politico Canada November 4 2025
  • Global News November 5 2025
  • The Hill Times November 2025
  • Policy Magazine October 2025
  • Angus Reid Institute polling October 2025
  • Parliament of Canada public profiles and records

A Whisper of Momentum: Could the Democrats Be Tilting Toward a Kinder, More Grassroots Future?

Posted on by
Reply

Something is stirring within the Democratic Party of the United States. The off-year elections held this week were, in purely political terms, a resounding success. Democrats swept high-profile races in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York City, while quietly notching smaller but strategically vital wins in states like Georgia and California. These victories, taken together, have left political analysts wondering whether we are seeing the faint outlines of a new political momentum; one that could pull the party closer to its grassroots and, perhaps, toward a more caring, socially grounded, even socialist vision of governance.

In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger’s victory for governor was a study in moderate competence. Her campaign was pragmatic, rooted in local concerns: affordability, infrastructure, and the language of unity over ideology. In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill followed a similar script, emphasizing trust and stability in a time of global uncertainty. Both are centrists, comfortable in the tradition of cautious, business-friendly Democratic politics that has defined the party’s leadership for decades.

And yet, something more radical glimmered elsewhere. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, captured the mayoralty with a platform that read like a manifesto for a more humane urban future: a rent freeze, free public transit, and universal childcare. His campaign attracted young voters and those disillusioned by what they see as the corporate centrism of Washington. For many, his win was not just local — it was symbolic. It suggested that, beneath the polished pragmatism of the party establishment, there lies a restless hunger for deeper change.

Down-ballot, too, the signs were intriguing. In Georgia, Democrats flipped Public Service Commission seats on the strength of voter frustration over energy prices, a victory built less on ideology than empathy for working-class struggles. In California, the passage of Proposition 50, which allows the legislature to draw congressional districts, handed Democrats a structural advantage that could support longer-term policy experimentation. Across the map, voters seemed to respond to messages centered on care: the cost of living, health, childcare, and the simple question of who the system serves.

These results invite a larger question: Are we witnessing the start of a shift toward a more caring, grassroots Democratic Party; one that takes social justice and collective wellbeing as its compass?

The case for optimism rests on several pillars. Mamdani’s win gives the left a tangible foothold in executive leadership, something not seen since the days of Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaigns. The new generation of Democratic voters is younger, more diverse, and more skeptical of market orthodoxy than at any point in recent memory. The cost-of-living crisis has blurred the old ideological lines, making redistributive and solidarity-based policies newly attractive to the middle class. And in the wake of Trump’s re-election, the moral and cultural energy of resistance has turned inward, focusing less on opposition and more on what a humane Democratic vision might actually look like.

Yet optimism must coexist with realism. The party’s leadership remains firmly in centrist hands. The Democratic National Committee, congressional leadership, and major donor networks are aligned with a strategy of cautious coalition-building and market-compatible reform. They have reason to be pleased: the moderate playbook, they can argue, just won two governorships. Leaders like Spanberger and Sherrill embody the view that Democrats must win from the middle to govern at all. Their victories, like Joe Biden’s before them, reinforce the institutional belief that centrism is safety.

This is the core tension now facing the party: the grassroots energy that fuels local and progressive campaigns versus the corporate and donor-driven pragmatism that defines national leadership. For the socialist or justice-oriented wing to shape the future, it must turn local victories into durable infrastructure; unions, candidates, policy think tanks, and media networks that can sustain the pressure upward. Without that, the leadership will absorb the energy, rebrand it in softer language, and continue to steer the ship gently leftward without truly changing its course.

The most likely scenarios unfold along three lines. In the first, progressive candidates keep winning, their policies prove popular, and the national platform slowly adapts; integrating labour rights, universal childcare, and socialised public services into the mainstream Democratic identity. In the second, the leadership co-opts the rhetoric of care without altering the underlying economic model, producing a modestly kinder capitalism that soothes but does not transform. And in the third, the leadership doubles down on centrism, citing electability, and the left’s momentum fractures into isolated city-level experiments.

At this moment, it is too early to tell which path will prevail. The evidence of change is real, but fragile. Mamdani’s New York, after all, stands beside Spanberger’s Virginia; two visions of the Democratic Party separated by temperament, class, and strategy. The question is not whether the party can win, but what it intends to do with its wins.

Still, for those who believe in a more compassionate politics, one that measures success not by GDP but by dignity, these elections whisper possibility. The caring impulse, long buried under poll-tested language, is stirring again. It will take courage, organisation, and persistence to turn that whisper into policy, but every movement begins this way: not with a roar, but with the quiet sound of voters choosing empathy over fear.

Sources:
Reuters, Democrats bask in electoral victories a year after Trump’s reelection(Nov 5 2025)
The Guardian, Democrats have racked up election wins across America – but they would do well not to misread the results (Nov 5 2025)
Politico, The last time Democrats won like this was right before the 2018 blue wave (Nov 5 2025)
AP News, Georgia PSC races highlight voter anger over energy costs (Nov 5 2025)
NBC Washington, Takeaways from Election Day 2025 (Nov 5 2025).

The Great Scramble: Social Media Giants Race to Comply with Australia’s Age Ban

Posted on by
Reply

Australia has just done something the rest of the internet can no longer ignore: it decided that, for the time being, social media access should be delayed for kids under 16. Call it bold, paternalistic, overdue or experimental. Whatever your adjective of choice, the point is this is a policy with teeth and consequences, and that matters. The law requires age-restricted platforms to take “reasonable steps” to stop under-16s having accounts, and it will begin to bite in December 2025. That deadline forces platforms to move from rhetoric to engineering, and that shift is telling.  

Why I think the policy is fundamentally a good idea goes beyond the moral headline. For a decade we have outsourced adolescent digital socialisation to ad-driven attention machines that were never designed with developing brains in mind. Time-delaying access gives families, schools and governments an opportunity to rebuild the scaffolding that surrounds childhood: literacy about persuasion, clearer boundaries around sleep and device use, and a chance for platforms to stop treating teens as simply monetisable micro-audiences. It is one thing to set community standards; it is another to redesign incentives so that product choices stop optimising for addictive engagement. Australia’s law tries the latter.  

Of course the tech giants are not happy, and they are not hiding it. Expect full legal teams, policy briefs and frantic engineering sprints. Public remarks from major firms and coverage in the press show them arguing the law is difficult to enforce, privacy-risky, and could push young people to darker, less regulated corners of the web. That pushback is predictable. For years platforms have profited from lax enforcement and opaque data practices. Now they must prove compliance under the glare of a regulator and the threat of hefty fines, reported to run into the tens of millions of Australian dollars for systemic failures. That mix of reputational, legal and commercial pressure makes scrambling inevitable.  

What does “scrambling” look like in practice? First, you’ll see a sprint to age-assurance: signals and heuristics that estimate age from behaviour, optional verification flows, partnerships with third-party age verifiers, and experiments with cryptographic tokens that prove age without handing over personal data. Second, engineering teams will triage risk: focusing verification on accounts exhibiting suspicious patterns rather than mass purges, while legal and privacy teams try to calibrate what “reasonable steps” means in each jurisdiction. Third, expect public relations campaigns framing any friction as a threat to access, fairness or children’s privacy. It is theatre as much as engineering, but it’s still engineering, and that is where the real change happens.  

There are real hazards. Age assurance is technically imperfect, easy to game, and if implemented poorly, dangerous to privacy. That is why Australia’s privacy regulator has already set out guidance for age-assurance processes, insisting that any solution must comply with data-protection law and minimise collection of sensitive data. Regulators know the risk of pushing teens into VPNs, closed messaging apps or unmoderated corners. The policy therefore needs to be paired with outreach, education and investment in safer alternative spaces for young people to learn digital citizenship.  

If you think Australia is alone, think again. Brussels and member states have been quietly advancing parallel work on protecting minors online. The EU has published guidelines under the Digital Services Act for the protection of young users, is piloting age verification tools, and MEPs have recently backed proposals that would harmonise a digital minimum age across the bloc at around 16 for some services. In short, a regulatory chorus is forming: national experiments, EU standards and cross-border enforcement conversations are aligning. That matters because platform policies are global; once a firm engineers for one major market’s requirements, product changes often ripple worldwide.  

So should we applaud the Australian experiment? Yes, cautiously. It forces uncomfortable but necessary questions: who owns the attention economy, how do we protect children without isolating them, and how do we create technical systems that are privacy respectful? The platforms’ scramble is not simply performative obstruction. It is a market signal: companies are being forced to choose between profit-first products and building features that respect developmental needs and legal obligations. If those engineering choices stick, we will have nudged the architecture of social media in the right direction.

The next six to twelve months will be crucial. Watch the regulatory guidance that defines “reasonable steps,” the age-assurance pilots that survive privacy scrutiny, and the legal challenges that will test the scope of national rules on global platforms. For bloggers, parents and policymakers the task is the same: hold platforms accountable, insist on privacy-preserving verification, and ensure this policy is one part of a broader ecosystem that teaches young people how to use digital tools well, not simply keeps them out. The scramble is messy, but sometimes mess is the price of necessary reform.

Sources and recommended reads (pages I used while writing): 
• eSafety — Social media age restrictions hub and FAQs. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions.
• Reuters — Australia passes social media ban for children under 16. https://www.reuters.com/technology/australia-passes-social-media-ban-children-under-16-2024-11-28/.
• OAIC — Privacy guidance for Social Media Minimum Age. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/related-legislation/social-media-minimum-age.
• EU Digital Strategy / Commission guidance on protection of minors under the DSA. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-protection-minors.
• Reporting on EU age verification pilots and DSA enforcement. The Verge coverage of EU prototype age verification app. https://www.theverge.com/news/699151/eu-age-verification-app-dsa-enforcement.  

Tewin and the Shape of Ottawa’s Future

Posted on by
Reply

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

When Confederation Feels Like Confrontation: Ontario and Quebec’s Alberta Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

As I write in my Ottawa living room, and although my sympathies stretch eastward into Quebec and the Martimes, I am watching Alberta events on the evening news as if viewing a distant cousin gone rogue. From here, in Central Canada, we’ve built our identity on a tapestry of industrial dynamism, social progressiveness, and an uneasy, yet genuine, devotion to national unity. So when Alberta thunders about “owning” its oil sands, rails under federal pipeline delays, and threatens separatism with a bravado more suited to Texas than to the spirit of Confederation, it feels less like a debate among equals, and more like a family spat escalating into road rage.

The Great Divide
Central Canada’s frustration begins with a simple question: Why can’t Alberta appreciate that its prosperity rides on Canada’s backbone? We know well the clang of steel from Lake Ontario factories, the laboratories of McGill and U of T, the commuter trains of the GTA carrying workers into offices that fuel innovation, culture, and trade. We see our tax dollars flow westward into infrastructure grants and environmental clean‑ups, yet all we hear back is how Ottawa is strangling Alberta’s lifeblood. In boardrooms and bistros alike, we exchange incredulous glances. “Is that really how they see us?”

In Ontario’s legislature or Quebec City’s cafés, the lament is the same. Alberta’s insistence on unfettered resource development, against carbon pricing, against pipeline regulations, against the minimal environmental guardrails that we accept as part of modern governance, strikes us as not only shortsighted, but tone‑deaf. After all, we’re the ones negotiating trade deals abroad, keeping Canada’s credit rating intact, and answering to the world for our climate commitments. When Alberta rips up its federal‑provincial agreements, and paints itself as a victim, it risks making the rest of us look like oppressors.

When Conservatives Moved the Needle
It wasn’t a personal chemistry with any one leader that mattered so much as policy alignment. Under Conservative governments, particularly during the years following 2006, Ottawa embraced free‑market principles that resonated deeply in Alberta: lower corporate taxes, streamlined approvals, and a lighter regulatory touch on energy projects. This wasn’t about nostalgia for a single prime minister, but about a political philosophy that saw energy as an engine of growth, not a problem to be managed.

From Alberta’s perspective, deregulated markets and balanced budgets felt like recognition of its core economic values. In Central Canada, we may have questioned some of those choices, but we accepted that a spectrum of economic approaches made Canada stronger. The result was a pragmatic détente: pipelines moved forward, investment flowed, and while we debated environmental trade‑offs, there was at least mutual respect for each region’s priorities.

When Regionalism Becomes Roadblock
Today, the rhetoric out west often sounds like, “Build the pipeline, or we’ll build our own exit ramp.” Yet Central Canada knows unequivocally that there is no exit ramp. Our factories, hospitals, and schools depend on the interprovincial movement of people, goods, and capital. The same pipelines Alberta demands are the conduits that keep our cars running, and our manufacturing humming. When Alberta complains that Ottawa’s carbon tax is an “Ottawa cash grab,” it ignores that those funds have helped pay for the recent transit expansions in Edmonton and Calgary, along with the wastewater infrastructure upgrades in Lethbridge.

Even more galling is the separatist thunder: poll after poll invites alarm with one in three Albertans saying they might consider leaving Canada under a Liberal government, feels like a hostage‑negotiation tactic, rather than a legitimate policy platform. Central Canada hears the echoes of Texas secession talk, fireworks and flags, bravado and bluster, but we see the policy vacuum behind the spectacle. We wonder: can they name a single agreement on the global stage that would willingly recognize a 4.4 million‑person “Republic of Alberta”? Or do they really believe they can simply flip a switch and declare independence?

Progressive Values Under Siege
For all our differences, Central Canada prides itself on progressive values: public healthcare that is universal, environmental targets that align with global science, and social policies that aim to reduce inequality. We do not see these as luxuries, but as imperatives for a 21st century nation. So when Alberta snarls at any shift toward renewable energy or regulatory tightening, we perceive a rejection, not only of policy, but of shared national values. It’s as if Alberta believes that “progressive” is a dirty word, an urban‑elitist dictate, rather than a democratic choice.

The result is a mutual distrust. We view Alberta as obstinate, and uncooperative; they view us as meddlesome and judgmental. And somewhere in the commotion, Canada the country begins to feel less like “one nation” and more like warring fiefdoms.

Pathways to Reconciliation
Even as Central Canadians exhale in frustration, we still cling to the idea that this can be repaired. We remember that the Constitution, our shared contract, grants Alberta ownership of its resources (Section 92A), but also vests Ottawa with authority over interprovincial trade, environmental standards, and national unity. Those overlapping jurisdictions are not battlegrounds to be won; they are negotiation tables to be inhabited with respect.

Here’s what we in the centre would propose:
1. Joint Stewardship Councils
Permanent federal‑provincial bodies—one on energy and one on climate—co‑chaired by ministers from Ottawa and Edmonton, with rotating seats for other provinces. Their mandate: to align pipelines, carbon policy, and regional development in a single coherent plan.
2. Mutual Accountability Reporting
Instead of one‑way complaints, require quarterly reports on how federal actions affect provincial economies and vice versa, published publicly so Albertans and Ontarians alike can see the trade‑offs.
3. Shared Diversification Funds
A federally matched investment fund for Alberta to channel resource revenues into hydrogen, critical minerals, and technology hubs—mirroring grants Ontario and Quebec receive for their own diversification.
4. Cultural Exchange Programs
Scholarships and internships pairing Alberta students with agencies in Ottawa, and Central Canadians with energy‑sector positions in Calgary and Fort McMurray, because trust grows when people move across the lines, not when walls go up.

Towards a True Confederation
As I look east from Ontario or west from Quebec, I still see Alberta as part of Canada’s grand promise, a province of immense resources, entrepreneurial spirit, and resilient people. But a promise requires reciprocity. If Alberta wants the benefits of the Canadian federation, it must share responsibility for national projects, ideals, and compromises. And if Central Canada wants Alberta to feel at home in Confederation, we must speak not with condescension, but with open hands and honest trade‑offs.

In the end, Texas doesn’t have to be our model, and neither does Paris or Beijing. We can be distinctly Canadian: united not in uniformity, but in a federalism that accepts our regional flavors and binds them together in mutual respect. Only then will Alberta’s roar feel like a proud Canadian voice, rather than an echo of someone shouting from outside our walls.

Results Over Bureaucracy: Transforming Federal Management and Workforce Planning

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Good Cop, Bad Cop, and the Ghost of Ronald Reagan

Posted on by
Reply

The latest Canada-U.S. flare-up could almost be mistaken for political theatre. On one side of the stage, Ontario Premier Doug Ford channels a hard-nosed populist energy that plays perfectly to American conservative media. On the other, Prime Minister Mark Carney performs the part of the calm, worldly statesman who reassures allies that Canada still wants dialogue. Together they have turned a difficult trade moment with Donald Trump into something that looks suspiciously like a good-cop, bad-cop routine.

The flashpoint came when Ford’s government released an advertisement in mid-October quoting Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address on free trade. Using Reagan’s own words, “Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries.” The ad struck a nerve south of the border. Ford’s communications team framed the clip as a warning to Trump not to reignite trade wars that would hurt both economies. The Reagan Foundation objected, calling it a misrepresentation and claiming no permission had been granted to edit the footage, but the real explosion came from Trump himself.

Within hours, Trump denounced the video as “fake,” accused Canada of using “fraudulent propaganda,” and declared that “all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated.” The social-media fireworks were vintage Trump – equal parts bluster and strategy. Yet the Canadian side, particularly Carney, appeared unruffled. His office reiterated that Canada remained open to dialogue and emphasized the importance of “mutual respect.” It was classic de-escalation language, signalling steadiness in the face of chaos.

Ford, meanwhile, looked quite comfortable being the villain of the week in Washington. His supporters at home applauded the move as patriotic spine, and conservative talk shows in the U.S. replayed the Reagan clip endlessly. For Ford, this was not just about Ottawa’s trade posture, it was also domestic optics. Standing up to Trump sells well in parts of Ontario, but so does invoking Reagan, a hero to many small-c conservatives. The ad’s provocation was almost certainly deliberate.

Carney’s response complemented Ford’s aggression in a way that looked suspiciously coordinated. While Ford’s office blasted American protectionism, Carney quietly engaged in back-channel diplomacy. Reports from Washington described him as “measured but firm,” assuring Trump that Canada sought cooperation but could not accept one-sided terms. The effect was to let Ford raise the temperature so Carney could later cool it down, extracting concessions or at least opening a channel for reason.

For all its drama, the episode underscored a larger point about Canadian strategy. With Trump back in the White House and America’s politics as volatile as ever, Canada seems to be experimenting with pressure and persuasion in tandem. Ford’s bluster makes Carney’s calm look even more statesmanlike, while Carney’s civility makes Ford’s fury appear authentic rather than reckless. It is a risky dance, but one that may keep Trump guessing and Canada’s interests protected.

Whether the Reagan ad was a blunder or a calculated feint, it has achieved something no memo ever could: it reminded Washington that Canada can still play hardball, and that even ghosts from the Gipper’s era can be drafted into the game.

Finally, as a side note, perhaps Ford is double dipping a little bit, by using the Bad Cop routine to catalyze a run at the federal Conservative leadership. 

Sources:
Business Insider,
Politico,
AP News,
The Independent,
Reuters.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.

The UN’s Veto Trap: How Superpowers Sabotage Their Own Scapegoat 

Posted on by
Reply

The United Nations is often portrayed as the cornerstone of international diplomacy, a forum where nations come together to resolve disputes, prevent wars, and promote human rights. Yet, in practice, the UN is frequently cast as a convenient scapegoat by the very superpowers that designed it. Its structure, particularly the veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France, has become a structural bottleneck, ensuring that decisive action is only possible when the interests of these nations align. Until the veto is removed, the UN will remain hamstrung, caught between high expectations and systemic limitations.

The veto was introduced in 1945 as a compromise to secure the participation of the world’s most powerful states. Without it, the founding members feared that superpowers might bypass or abandon the organization altogether. In theory, the veto was a stabilizing mechanism. In practice, it has become a tool for inaction. Consider Syria: during the ongoing civil war, Russia has repeatedly vetoed resolutions condemning the Assad regime and calling for intervention, while China has often supported Russia’s position. As a result, the Security Council has been paralyzed even in the face of clear evidence of atrocities, leaving millions of civilians exposed to violence. Western leaders then criticize the UN for inaction, conveniently ignoring the very vetoes that prevented it from acting.

Other historical examples reinforce this pattern. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the Security Council was slow to act, partly due to reluctance from major powers to commit troops or risk entanglement. The UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) was critically under-resourced, and resolutions to expand its mandate were delayed or watered down. Later, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Security Council acted decisively, but only because the superpowers’ interests aligned in opposing Saddam Hussein. This selective engagement demonstrates that the UN’s effectiveness is contingent less on law or morality than on the geopolitical priorities of the P5.

Even more recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 exposed the limitations of the UN system. Russia’s veto prevented any meaningful Security Council action, forcing Western nations to rely on unilateral sanctions, NATO coordination, and General Assembly resolutions that carry moral but not binding authority. Russia, in turn, dismissed UN criticism as biased or irrelevant, highlighting the paradox: the UN is invoked when it serves the interests of a superpower, and criticized when it does not. Similarly, the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows how the U.S. veto has blocked resolutions condemning settlements or military actions, creating a perception that international law is applied selectively.

These examples illustrate a persistent problem: the UN is used by superpowers as both a tool and a scapegoat. It legitimizes actions when convenient, shields states from criticism, and is blamed for failures beyond its control. The veto allows a single nation to prevent collective action, regardless of the humanitarian or legal merits of a situation. Meanwhile, smaller nations, despite representing the vast majority of UN members, have little real influence. The General Assembly can issue resolutions expressing global consensus, but these are largely symbolic without enforcement mechanisms.

The solution is straightforward: no country should have veto power. The veto institutionalizes inequality and ensures that the UN cannot fulfill its mandate impartially. Proposals have been made to reform the Security Council, including requiring multiple vetoes to block a resolution or eliminating the veto for crimes against humanity, genocide, or aggression. Yet these reforms have stalled because the P5 have no incentive to relinquish privilege. True UN reform requires equalizing the decision-making process, where all nations have a voice and no single state can unilaterally obstruct action. Only then could the UN function as a legitimate arbiter of international law and human rights.

Until veto power is removed, the UN will continue to struggle. It will remain a forum where crises are debated but seldom resolved, where resolutions are celebrated symbolically but ignored in practice, and where superpowers externalize responsibility, casting the organization as weak or ineffectual while maintaining control behind the scenes. The world deserves a UN capable of enforcing its own principles, rather than one whose moral authority is hostage to the interests of a handful of powerful nations. Removing the veto is not just an administrative reform, it is a moral imperative, a prerequisite for a truly effective international system.