New Brunswick's Legislature has seen a bevy of Question Periods dedicated to breaches of privacy law in recent years. As Bart Simpson once said, I can't help but feel partly responsible.
As Opposition House Leader some years ago, I was the lead interrogator when Minister Brenda Fowlie resigned over breaking privacy laws. Just so everyone remembers what was at stake in that case, I'm going to recap the facts here.
Liberal MLA Stuart Jamieson asked legitimate questions about a company getting permits despite not following local zoning laws, which Minister Fowlie oversaw as Local Government Minister. The next day, when he returned to the topic, she had a file in hand --Jamieson's own. She released private information on his own home zoning applications which she thought might embarrass Jamieson, both in the House and in interviews after with media.
The Fowlie case was one of the more serious breaches of privacy law. The Minister was personally responsible for the breach, the information released was not trivial, and the intention was deliberate and malicious. Nor was there any mitigation, as she denied the actions were wrong and only resigned after an inquiry found that she was wrong. that is why, carefully and soberly, we insisted she resign.
A few weeks later, Social Development Minister Tony Huntjens blurted out the name of a patient in care during an interview. His intentions were entirely pure, but he had personally made the mistake and the information was again not trivial. He never faced a Question Period. He resigned immediately and was rightly praised for his honour and accountability.
There are good reasons for privacy breaches to require resignations. Ministers have access to a lot of sensitive information, and any of us given that power need an ongoing reminder of how great the responsibility must be. However, if we start demanding resignations over trivial or accidental breaches, soon we risk having people tune out when really serious breaches occur.
Oppositions seeking Question Period fodder need to remember this. The Tories, once in opposition, seemed to want to avenge their wounds on the issue of privacy law. First, when a bureaucrat lost data files at the Department of Health, they spent three days of Legislative time demanding the resignation of Health Minister Mike Murphy. The demand didn't pass the smell test. Murphy had no personal connection to the breach. He never would have even known the data file's whereabouts or existence. By the time Donald Savoie called the Tory charges "silly", the matter was closed.
The concept of ministerial accountability is important. In a policy sense, ministers are the final voice for their departments and must bear the burdens of office when policies, procedures and regulations (or the lack thereof) go awry. On matters of execution, however, the principle has evolved. There was a time where every mistake was deemed to be a minister's mistake. In today's large bureaucracies, this hardly makes sense. It strikes the public as foolish to insist that a minister must be lost if, say, one employee of thousands makes a mistake. Unless the mistake flows from the act or omission of the minister, it is now sufficient that take responsibility for addressing the matter and minimizing the chance of a second mistake.
Which brings us to Education Minister Jody Carr. Carr faces Liberal demands for his resignation because a member of his staff disclosed the test mark of a student. With all due respect to my former colleagues, to demand Carr's resignation over this cheapens the principle of privacy law and detracts from the ability of future legislators to punish truly serious and malicious breaches.
Jody Carr never had control of the information, had no means by which he could have known of or prevented the breach, and certainly has no malicious or political goal in the release. After a brief stumble, he has acted appropriately in turning the matter over to an independent Commissioner so that the facts and his response can be scrutinized.
The Education Minister is no doubt paying the price for his own active role in prosecuting Bernard Leblanc, who resigned as Justice Minister when his own email account was used by a staffer to send communications that contained personal information about a third party.
Even in that case, Leblanc's decision to allow the staffer access to his account did create a vital link to the minister that doesn't exist in Carr's case. That said, Leblanc's voluntary resignation may not have been strictly necessary had he dug in. That he chose to accept a brief time out from cabinet speaks to the honour and dignity with which he served.
It is perhaps understandable that Liberals want Carr to answer for (in their eyes) overreaching sanctimony in opposition. But that is still unwise, for they are now promoting a standard of ministerial resignations that they surely should not apply if in government. Even if they think Carr did overreached in Opposition, the perils of repeating the error should be clear to them.
Besides that, a huge reason for the loss of public trust in politicians is that MLAs get carried away in opposition and make demands of others they don't live up to in government. There are many legitimate issues in the Education portfolio that with a little work, Liberal MLAs could marshall to keep the Minister hopping. One of those ways should not be demanding a resignation over this matter, as it cheapens the important vigilance of privacy law for the sake of a cheap headline.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM CHECK -Leadership Bounces
As both federal opposition parties head toward convention weekends, pundits are rightly discussing the significant bounce that Justin Trudeau's looming victory has given the Liberal Party of Canada. By any measure, his impact has been impressive. The Liberals, previously in third place and surrounded by carrion eaters in the eyes of some observers, have rebounded to take the lead in most credible surveys.
This blog post will be a bit different than many of the ones on this site. Exercising some measure of discipline, I will offer no comments on whether Trudeau's support is a good or bad thing. Instead, I am going to indulge my inner academic geek and try to offer a statistical look at the durability of leadership bounces. I've always been taken by Paul Wells' advice on assessing conventional wisdom -- that when everyone in Ottawa knows something it is usually wrong. Something I'm going to start doing in this space is taking some of these easily-accepted truisms and seeing if they hold up under the numbers. I don't fancy myself a Nate Silver, of course, but just as I can enjoy playing basketball and not be Kevin Garnett, this may prove fun for my fellow geeks.
What I've done is take a look at the polling bounce for leaders chosen after Pierre Trudeau beat Joe Clark in 1980. Happily, Environics has a polling archive housed at Queen's University that allowed me to take the polls immediately preceding and following a new leader's convention win.
Here, in descending order, are the new leader bounces:
John Turner, Liberal (1984) +7.7%
Stéphane Dion, Liberal (2006) +6.7%
Michael Ignatieff, Liberal (2008*) +6.4%
Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance (2000) +4.7%
Paul Martin, Liberal (2003) +2.8%
Audrey McLaughlin, NDP (1989) +2.4%
Kim Campbell, Progressive Conservative (1993) +2.1%
Brian Mulroney, Progressive Conservative (1983) +2.1%
Alexa McDonough, NDP (1995) 0%
Stephen Harper, Conservative (2004) -0.4%
Jack Layton, NDP (2003) -1.0%
Peter McKay, Progressive Conservative (2003) -1.9%
Jean Chrétien, Liberal (1990) -1.9%
First, a few notes on the data. The bounces here likely seem small. Because Environics provided the best archive where I could actually compare the same polling firm and method, I've accepted some of their constraints. One of them is that these are numbers without the undecided and leaning factored in. The reason polls generally add up to 100% is because the top line numbers involve some polling science of reallocating those who don't answer. Environics numbers in this archive are their raw percentages of who actually gave a party preference, so the numbers are smaller. These bounces likely got reported as larger ones on the top lines.
As well, using a consistent "closest to the date" rule may understate some of the bounces. If I used a less controlled method of searching for the largest reported polling bounce, both Campbell and Martin would do better, as would Day to some degree. Both Campbell and Martin had some polls show a Trudeauesque bounce of 15 points or more. As well, because they were both inevitable and ubiquitous front runners for a while, their bounce built even bigger over a few polls. However, this would be a less consistent comparison, and moving those two leaders up wouldn't change what you likely saw as most notable about these numbers. But if you want to anecdotally recall Campbell and Martin as even more successful than this, go ahead.
Finally, a couple of technical points. I had a choice for Ignatieff, whether to use the date Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc withdrew and he became interim leader, or the date where a convention ratified this choice. I chose the former, since that was when he moved into the Opposition Leader's chair and was publicly seen as starting his leadership. Also, I could not fix a date for Jean Charest's more organic ascension to head of the shell-shocked, two-person PC rump (he likely was seen as leader by the public the next day), and thus excluded him.
So, what do we notice here?
Obviously, the most striking thing is that the size of the convention bump provides us with a list where the most successful leaders seem clustered at the bottom, and some of the great cautionary tales of politics seem to be at the top. Chrétien, Mulroney and Harper are the only guys who have kept winning, and Layton had a historic breakthrough. Even McDonough saw a modest improvement in NDP fortunes, and we never got to evaluate McKay. The guys at the top imploded.
I recall that at the New Brunswick Liberal convention one disappointed onlooker, given the consolation that people wanted a new, untainted face, replied "yes, because heaven knows the Liberal Party has never done well with an older, experienced guy who was in the cabinet of an unpopular government". And, indeed, Jean Chrétien was all those things and paid for it in his post-convention bounce. Yet his admonition to the "Nervous Nellies" in the party fretting about the lack of instant gratification paid off quite nicely with three straight majorities. It does seem clear that the standing of a leader right after the convention is a poor predictor of electoral success.
I would caution against the logical trap of trying to explain that certain bounces can, in hindsight, be "explained". Yes, Dion had a charming underdog win driving him. Yes, Chrétien had the Meech Lake debate raging when he won and took a beating for his past. Yes, Harper suffered from the post-convention loss of more progressive Stronach supporters. And yes, Martin took the sponsorship fallout right in the proverbial shorts. But this exactly the point -- the standing both at the convention and on Election Day are influenced by events and how the candidate handled them. The cold numbers simply tell us how the early predictive verdict panned out.
What you choose to make of this is an open debate. There are two plausible explanations that I can suggest, and I cannot prove or disprove either by the numbers.
The first suggestion is that electoral bounces are simply unrelated to eventual success. In this explanation, the real predictors of electoral success are more fundamental predictors -- a party's brand popularity, organization, fundraising and policy clarity/appeal all matter. An appealing face probably does help, but if they don't have the fundamentals then they are eventually gong to be weighed down. This explanation would ask you to accept that the larger bumps for unsuccessful leaders are simply because their party's weak fundamentals gave them more room to improve (Campbell and Turner followed very unpopular incumbents, Day took over a new party, etc).
The second plausible explanation would be the more intriguing one. If convention bounces are actually a negative predictor of electoral success, it would suggest that party electors make choices on the wrong factors. In this scenario, you would believe that the things that make leadership candidates appealing in the short-term are actually the wrong criteria.
Advocates of this conclusion might cite that the factors that produce leadership enthusiasm often involve voters and skills that are least helpful to winning elections. The qualities a leader needs to create a bounce must be ones that cause at least a short-term change in how the party is seen. By definition, this will favour "new" faces who will be least associated with the party brand, have the fewest unpopular decisions on their record, and are thus the most "different". This may mean that skills the Chretiens and Harpers and Layton's acquired along with the baggage of unpopular decisions and election losses go unnoticed because they are not different enough to quickly create a change in voters' views of the party. Yet these very skills -- a grasp of policy, an intuitive sense of how to avoid trouble, a knowledge of the election terrain -- serve them well in the long run.
It may also be that polling booms exist because new faces move the most volatile voters. When Colin Powell was flirting with a 1996 presidential run and had a 70% approval rating, one Clinton strategist remarked "I can take him down 20 points in one day. Ask him whether he's pro-choice or pro-life". The point is well-taken. It may be that new faces hold their appeal because they are least like a politician, and this appeal to swing voters moves party elites to chase this appeal. Yet once elected, a new "not-a-politician" will immediately begin doing things that look, well, like a politician. The Harpers and Chretiens may not attract these more volatile voters immediately, but the support they have is more durable because it has been tested by actual decisions and past mistakes. And the swing voters will simply choose the guy who campaigns best when it counts. In this telling, parties were lucky that a cabinet minister in a rejected government, a failed Toronto mayoral candidate, and an uncharismatic former MP had the organization to win as unlovable favourites, because otherwise they may have made the mistake they made chasing fool's gold in more open races.
Now, lest I be accused here of some wish fulfillment, let me make something clear. The numbers don't lie, but they also don't predict with absolute certainty. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't. Teams down three-games-to-zip in the playoffs don't win, unless you're the 2004 Red Sox. Insurgent presidential candidates don't beat establishment favourites, unless you're 2008 Barack Obama. And just because exciting new faces haven't proven to be as solid a bet as veterans grizzled by controversy and defeat doesn't mean they'll never win. It may be that someone out there combines the sizzle of Stock Day with the substance needed to win. And as anyone who ever watched my wife win the weekly football pool by choosing uniform colours knows (yep, she did), sometimes bad bets pay off.
In fact, if I'd had polling data from 1968, I'd have found a leader who had style and who turned out to make a pretty big impact on the country. A fellow called Trudeau. I could compare his readiness to the new guy's, but I'd break my promise at the top of the post to avoid opinion.
Lets just say that maybe, this time, everyone knows something. They just don't know it for the reasons they think they know it.
This blog post will be a bit different than many of the ones on this site. Exercising some measure of discipline, I will offer no comments on whether Trudeau's support is a good or bad thing. Instead, I am going to indulge my inner academic geek and try to offer a statistical look at the durability of leadership bounces. I've always been taken by Paul Wells' advice on assessing conventional wisdom -- that when everyone in Ottawa knows something it is usually wrong. Something I'm going to start doing in this space is taking some of these easily-accepted truisms and seeing if they hold up under the numbers. I don't fancy myself a Nate Silver, of course, but just as I can enjoy playing basketball and not be Kevin Garnett, this may prove fun for my fellow geeks.
What I've done is take a look at the polling bounce for leaders chosen after Pierre Trudeau beat Joe Clark in 1980. Happily, Environics has a polling archive housed at Queen's University that allowed me to take the polls immediately preceding and following a new leader's convention win.
Here, in descending order, are the new leader bounces:
John Turner, Liberal (1984) +7.7%
Stéphane Dion, Liberal (2006) +6.7%
Michael Ignatieff, Liberal (2008*) +6.4%
Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance (2000) +4.7%
Paul Martin, Liberal (2003) +2.8%
Audrey McLaughlin, NDP (1989) +2.4%
Kim Campbell, Progressive Conservative (1993) +2.1%
Brian Mulroney, Progressive Conservative (1983) +2.1%
Alexa McDonough, NDP (1995) 0%
Stephen Harper, Conservative (2004) -0.4%
Jack Layton, NDP (2003) -1.0%
Peter McKay, Progressive Conservative (2003) -1.9%
Jean Chrétien, Liberal (1990) -1.9%
First, a few notes on the data. The bounces here likely seem small. Because Environics provided the best archive where I could actually compare the same polling firm and method, I've accepted some of their constraints. One of them is that these are numbers without the undecided and leaning factored in. The reason polls generally add up to 100% is because the top line numbers involve some polling science of reallocating those who don't answer. Environics numbers in this archive are their raw percentages of who actually gave a party preference, so the numbers are smaller. These bounces likely got reported as larger ones on the top lines.
As well, using a consistent "closest to the date" rule may understate some of the bounces. If I used a less controlled method of searching for the largest reported polling bounce, both Campbell and Martin would do better, as would Day to some degree. Both Campbell and Martin had some polls show a Trudeauesque bounce of 15 points or more. As well, because they were both inevitable and ubiquitous front runners for a while, their bounce built even bigger over a few polls. However, this would be a less consistent comparison, and moving those two leaders up wouldn't change what you likely saw as most notable about these numbers. But if you want to anecdotally recall Campbell and Martin as even more successful than this, go ahead.
Finally, a couple of technical points. I had a choice for Ignatieff, whether to use the date Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc withdrew and he became interim leader, or the date where a convention ratified this choice. I chose the former, since that was when he moved into the Opposition Leader's chair and was publicly seen as starting his leadership. Also, I could not fix a date for Jean Charest's more organic ascension to head of the shell-shocked, two-person PC rump (he likely was seen as leader by the public the next day), and thus excluded him.
So, what do we notice here?
Obviously, the most striking thing is that the size of the convention bump provides us with a list where the most successful leaders seem clustered at the bottom, and some of the great cautionary tales of politics seem to be at the top. Chrétien, Mulroney and Harper are the only guys who have kept winning, and Layton had a historic breakthrough. Even McDonough saw a modest improvement in NDP fortunes, and we never got to evaluate McKay. The guys at the top imploded.
I recall that at the New Brunswick Liberal convention one disappointed onlooker, given the consolation that people wanted a new, untainted face, replied "yes, because heaven knows the Liberal Party has never done well with an older, experienced guy who was in the cabinet of an unpopular government". And, indeed, Jean Chrétien was all those things and paid for it in his post-convention bounce. Yet his admonition to the "Nervous Nellies" in the party fretting about the lack of instant gratification paid off quite nicely with three straight majorities. It does seem clear that the standing of a leader right after the convention is a poor predictor of electoral success.
I would caution against the logical trap of trying to explain that certain bounces can, in hindsight, be "explained". Yes, Dion had a charming underdog win driving him. Yes, Chrétien had the Meech Lake debate raging when he won and took a beating for his past. Yes, Harper suffered from the post-convention loss of more progressive Stronach supporters. And yes, Martin took the sponsorship fallout right in the proverbial shorts. But this exactly the point -- the standing both at the convention and on Election Day are influenced by events and how the candidate handled them. The cold numbers simply tell us how the early predictive verdict panned out.
What you choose to make of this is an open debate. There are two plausible explanations that I can suggest, and I cannot prove or disprove either by the numbers.
The first suggestion is that electoral bounces are simply unrelated to eventual success. In this explanation, the real predictors of electoral success are more fundamental predictors -- a party's brand popularity, organization, fundraising and policy clarity/appeal all matter. An appealing face probably does help, but if they don't have the fundamentals then they are eventually gong to be weighed down. This explanation would ask you to accept that the larger bumps for unsuccessful leaders are simply because their party's weak fundamentals gave them more room to improve (Campbell and Turner followed very unpopular incumbents, Day took over a new party, etc).
The second plausible explanation would be the more intriguing one. If convention bounces are actually a negative predictor of electoral success, it would suggest that party electors make choices on the wrong factors. In this scenario, you would believe that the things that make leadership candidates appealing in the short-term are actually the wrong criteria.
Advocates of this conclusion might cite that the factors that produce leadership enthusiasm often involve voters and skills that are least helpful to winning elections. The qualities a leader needs to create a bounce must be ones that cause at least a short-term change in how the party is seen. By definition, this will favour "new" faces who will be least associated with the party brand, have the fewest unpopular decisions on their record, and are thus the most "different". This may mean that skills the Chretiens and Harpers and Layton's acquired along with the baggage of unpopular decisions and election losses go unnoticed because they are not different enough to quickly create a change in voters' views of the party. Yet these very skills -- a grasp of policy, an intuitive sense of how to avoid trouble, a knowledge of the election terrain -- serve them well in the long run.
It may also be that polling booms exist because new faces move the most volatile voters. When Colin Powell was flirting with a 1996 presidential run and had a 70% approval rating, one Clinton strategist remarked "I can take him down 20 points in one day. Ask him whether he's pro-choice or pro-life". The point is well-taken. It may be that new faces hold their appeal because they are least like a politician, and this appeal to swing voters moves party elites to chase this appeal. Yet once elected, a new "not-a-politician" will immediately begin doing things that look, well, like a politician. The Harpers and Chretiens may not attract these more volatile voters immediately, but the support they have is more durable because it has been tested by actual decisions and past mistakes. And the swing voters will simply choose the guy who campaigns best when it counts. In this telling, parties were lucky that a cabinet minister in a rejected government, a failed Toronto mayoral candidate, and an uncharismatic former MP had the organization to win as unlovable favourites, because otherwise they may have made the mistake they made chasing fool's gold in more open races.
Now, lest I be accused here of some wish fulfillment, let me make something clear. The numbers don't lie, but they also don't predict with absolute certainty. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it won't. Teams down three-games-to-zip in the playoffs don't win, unless you're the 2004 Red Sox. Insurgent presidential candidates don't beat establishment favourites, unless you're 2008 Barack Obama. And just because exciting new faces haven't proven to be as solid a bet as veterans grizzled by controversy and defeat doesn't mean they'll never win. It may be that someone out there combines the sizzle of Stock Day with the substance needed to win. And as anyone who ever watched my wife win the weekly football pool by choosing uniform colours knows (yep, she did), sometimes bad bets pay off.
In fact, if I'd had polling data from 1968, I'd have found a leader who had style and who turned out to make a pretty big impact on the country. A fellow called Trudeau. I could compare his readiness to the new guy's, but I'd break my promise at the top of the post to avoid opinion.
Lets just say that maybe, this time, everyone knows something. They just don't know it for the reasons they think they know it.
Monday, March 25, 2013
EARLY INTERVENTION CUTS...SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP HERE.
The closure of 10 Early Intervention Centers in New Brunswick is one of those stories that suggests a huge risk to children, and a lack of interest from the media and opposition MLA's in performing some basic due diligence. If you believe, like many New Brunswickers, that there in urgency in helping children with special learning needs, then we owe it to these vulnerable kids to dig a little deeper than we have.
Here's the background, quickly. Early Intervention Centers provide home-based support to children and their parents to make sure that potential developmental needs are met. It is a cruel statistical fact that children with developmental challenges often (though by no means always) live in homes where parents may lack the background, financial resources, and work-free time needed to identify problems and act upon them.
The 17 Intervention Centers solve that problem. The now-closing Fredericton Center would be typical. It grew out of community support and government began funding its success. It has leaders and workers trained in spotting a range of problems, from Shaken Baby Syndrome, FAS, Kindergarten Readiness Skills and developmental delays. They are trained to provide parents with play-based activities to help.
The staff of these Centers have specialized training that is not easily replaced. They also have something else that is very valuable. They have built up a range of community networks and contacts which allow them to get families quickly and easily into the services their child needs. They work with daycares, health professionals, literacy agencies, NGOs, and they have directors and managers who have built these personal networks. This "community capital" is precious and cannot be easily replicated by an outside agency, at least not quickly.
Fredericton, in particular, has a history that can't be easily reproduced. It was the FIRST early intervention program in New Brunswick, dating back to 1978, and its management and board have leaders who were genuine trail blazers. Fully 75% of its clients are in the Fredericton urban area.
The idea that this Center, along with ten others, should be closed in favour of a centre an hour away in Woodstock, is a decision that should be carefully questioned. When you add in three facts --that the decision benefits the Premier's riding, that the winning Center is the one best known to Minister Carr's chief advisor on these issues, and that the whole transition is happening in five (!) weeks-- the decision should set off a few alarm bells.
Parents and educators immediately began asking the right questions. It must be said that so far, the usual watchdogs have been pussycats. Newspapers moved it way down the coverage list. The Official Opposition said nothing. CBC Radio billed Minister Carr's appearance to answer questions as allowing him to "clear up parents' confusion" about the change. I heard the interview, and the parents are not confused-- the minister has not provided clarity.
Given that there are some very vulnerable families counting on us, and failure will cost us a lot of money and suffering in the future, we all have a duty as citizens to ask some tough questions. In fairness to my friends in the media, this is a specialized area requiring some background.
We haven't all had the chance to be minister of both education and social services, so I am offering some questions here that have not been asked of Minister Carr in most interviews, nor have I heard him say that he is asking his staff these questions. I hope this helps community and media leaders put the Department through proper due diligence on this file.
1. What exactly were the criteria used in evaluating which of the 17 Intervention Centers would live or die, and why was each factor chosen?
2. On which of these factors was the winning Center judged superior to the Centers you are killing off, and what measurable evidence backs this up? Have these results been made available to the Centers being closed?
3. Minister, you cited the $38Million in new early childhood money as evidence that these Centers would have "enhanced" services. Yet in the announcement, no new money for intervention services was included in this. (Look it up, there's $16.7M for new daycare spaces, $10.6M for staff wages and training, $3M for autism spectrum services, $4.4M in daycare subsidies to needy families, $3.5M for staff -of which $2.25M is to hire only 7 senior managers-, and a quarter million for an ad campaign to promote your changes.) Where is the money that matches your claim of enhanced services?
4. Given that you are spending $2.25M on adding 7 senior management positions at the district level, is this the most efficient use of funds for services? Since this is billed as new money, what happened to the 14 early childhood positions created at the district level in 2007?
5. You have said that the mandate of these intervention programs will now expand from birth to age 8 (up from age 5). Given that this is roughly a 60% increase in caseload, how will resources be added to ensure that this does not increase the per worker caseload and family wait time?
6. What was the size of the caseload in the now-closing urban Centers, and what will be the costs of staff travel for home-based care? (If the new placement model is mitigating that travel cost, by all means cite and explain that)
7. What was the promised decision date on the survival/termination of Centers, and what was the actual date the decision was communicated to the leadership of the Centers?
8. All families affected by the closure must sign a consent letter to transfer their child's file to the new agency. Will these letters all be signed by March 31st, and will families signing these letters have received clear information on how their child will receive services?
9. What transition planning has taken place in the communities whose Centers have been terminated? Will the new directors have met with each community partner of the closed Center by March 31 to develop protocols for co-operation?
10. As you will have effectively fired trained staff and dismissed experienced volunteers by March 31st, will exit interviews and employment offers have been completed by March 31 before this knowledge is lost to the system?
In one week ten Centers with their own history, successes, relationships and staff will have been closed, and we do not know on what basis. In one week hundreds of vulnerable children will lose their existing support network, and no one is asking what comes next. Knowing the inside of that department, and its current resources and workload, I do not believe it likely on the timeline announced that children will be well-served. I have been proven wrong before, but we need to give attention to these questions so that the politicians and administrators know that we, as a society, are watching when vulnerable children are affected. I encourage anyone who reads this to use whatever platform they have to ask these questions and others.
Here's the background, quickly. Early Intervention Centers provide home-based support to children and their parents to make sure that potential developmental needs are met. It is a cruel statistical fact that children with developmental challenges often (though by no means always) live in homes where parents may lack the background, financial resources, and work-free time needed to identify problems and act upon them.
The 17 Intervention Centers solve that problem. The now-closing Fredericton Center would be typical. It grew out of community support and government began funding its success. It has leaders and workers trained in spotting a range of problems, from Shaken Baby Syndrome, FAS, Kindergarten Readiness Skills and developmental delays. They are trained to provide parents with play-based activities to help.
The staff of these Centers have specialized training that is not easily replaced. They also have something else that is very valuable. They have built up a range of community networks and contacts which allow them to get families quickly and easily into the services their child needs. They work with daycares, health professionals, literacy agencies, NGOs, and they have directors and managers who have built these personal networks. This "community capital" is precious and cannot be easily replicated by an outside agency, at least not quickly.
Fredericton, in particular, has a history that can't be easily reproduced. It was the FIRST early intervention program in New Brunswick, dating back to 1978, and its management and board have leaders who were genuine trail blazers. Fully 75% of its clients are in the Fredericton urban area.
The idea that this Center, along with ten others, should be closed in favour of a centre an hour away in Woodstock, is a decision that should be carefully questioned. When you add in three facts --that the decision benefits the Premier's riding, that the winning Center is the one best known to Minister Carr's chief advisor on these issues, and that the whole transition is happening in five (!) weeks-- the decision should set off a few alarm bells.
Parents and educators immediately began asking the right questions. It must be said that so far, the usual watchdogs have been pussycats. Newspapers moved it way down the coverage list. The Official Opposition said nothing. CBC Radio billed Minister Carr's appearance to answer questions as allowing him to "clear up parents' confusion" about the change. I heard the interview, and the parents are not confused-- the minister has not provided clarity.
Given that there are some very vulnerable families counting on us, and failure will cost us a lot of money and suffering in the future, we all have a duty as citizens to ask some tough questions. In fairness to my friends in the media, this is a specialized area requiring some background.
We haven't all had the chance to be minister of both education and social services, so I am offering some questions here that have not been asked of Minister Carr in most interviews, nor have I heard him say that he is asking his staff these questions. I hope this helps community and media leaders put the Department through proper due diligence on this file.
1. What exactly were the criteria used in evaluating which of the 17 Intervention Centers would live or die, and why was each factor chosen?
2. On which of these factors was the winning Center judged superior to the Centers you are killing off, and what measurable evidence backs this up? Have these results been made available to the Centers being closed?
3. Minister, you cited the $38Million in new early childhood money as evidence that these Centers would have "enhanced" services. Yet in the announcement, no new money for intervention services was included in this. (Look it up, there's $16.7M for new daycare spaces, $10.6M for staff wages and training, $3M for autism spectrum services, $4.4M in daycare subsidies to needy families, $3.5M for staff -of which $2.25M is to hire only 7 senior managers-, and a quarter million for an ad campaign to promote your changes.) Where is the money that matches your claim of enhanced services?
4. Given that you are spending $2.25M on adding 7 senior management positions at the district level, is this the most efficient use of funds for services? Since this is billed as new money, what happened to the 14 early childhood positions created at the district level in 2007?
5. You have said that the mandate of these intervention programs will now expand from birth to age 8 (up from age 5). Given that this is roughly a 60% increase in caseload, how will resources be added to ensure that this does not increase the per worker caseload and family wait time?
6. What was the size of the caseload in the now-closing urban Centers, and what will be the costs of staff travel for home-based care? (If the new placement model is mitigating that travel cost, by all means cite and explain that)
7. What was the promised decision date on the survival/termination of Centers, and what was the actual date the decision was communicated to the leadership of the Centers?
8. All families affected by the closure must sign a consent letter to transfer their child's file to the new agency. Will these letters all be signed by March 31st, and will families signing these letters have received clear information on how their child will receive services?
9. What transition planning has taken place in the communities whose Centers have been terminated? Will the new directors have met with each community partner of the closed Center by March 31 to develop protocols for co-operation?
10. As you will have effectively fired trained staff and dismissed experienced volunteers by March 31st, will exit interviews and employment offers have been completed by March 31 before this knowledge is lost to the system?
In one week ten Centers with their own history, successes, relationships and staff will have been closed, and we do not know on what basis. In one week hundreds of vulnerable children will lose their existing support network, and no one is asking what comes next. Knowing the inside of that department, and its current resources and workload, I do not believe it likely on the timeline announced that children will be well-served. I have been proven wrong before, but we need to give attention to these questions so that the politicians and administrators know that we, as a society, are watching when vulnerable children are affected. I encourage anyone who reads this to use whatever platform they have to ask these questions and others.
Friday, March 1, 2013
A CHANGE WILL DO YOU GOOD
"Dude, what the hell?"
Actually, a lot of folks have been very supportive and hopeful about my decision to join the NDP. But now that the swirl of interviews is over, I wanted to explain my decision in something longer than a tweet or sound bite. Basically, it's all about ideas. I know it isn't the safe choice, or the politically easy one. But for me, it is the right one.
So, by now you likely know that I've accepted an offer to work with Dominic Cardy and the NDP on an exciting new policy initiative. It's called "Our Province NB", and this will be a substantive approach to developing a platform with citizens from a variety of backgrounds. We seek out ideas from committed, thoughtful New Brunswickers on a variety of important questions. These challenge papers will come from thoughtful people regardless of their partisan background. Once on line, anyone who registers for the process -- whether they join the party or not --can comment, propose changes, and post their own response papers. The party's leadership must directly engage people in discussions. Later, votes on certain policy choices will happen in the open with full transparency, making sure the leader must account for his choices in light of a very open debate and decision-making process.
The initial topics are ones that are urgent, and that the two traditional parties seem to want to ignore. They include finding solutions to some challenges that must be answered in the next few years, such as:
How do we attract new creative economy jobs,people and investment in the sectors that are growing without putting public funds at risk?
How do we make sure that all our citizens can participate in the economy, tackling stubborn problems like poverty and illiteracy within the budget constraints we have?
How do we deal with an aging population, where senior care will require significant new spending, without shortchanging the programmes that keep younger families here and support their opportunities?
How do we make sure that our education system prepares people for the new economy while promoting 21st century skills such as problem solving, creative thinking, collaboration and global awareness?
How do we reform our government and its institutions to restore faith in our democracy, and faith in New Brunswick as a fair and clean place to do business?
The process won't shy away from proposing ideas, or in welcoming constructive debate. It recognizes that the next election will require clear plans and bold ideas from those who seek to lead, and that discussions should happen now so that voters can make an informed choice.
Lately, watching the Legislature has reminded me of that old joke about the two hunters who surprise a bear. When one starts to run, his friend warns him that he can't outrun a bear -- to which the runner replies that he doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun the other guy.
If we don't attract new industry, reach citizens falling out of the economy, improve our schools and reform our democracy, New Brunswick will struggle to keep up. Lately, the two traditional parties have spent a lot of time slamming each other but little time spelling out real clear policy choices. It seems like they just want to outrun the other guy so they can win power, instead of describe what they would do about the bears that threaten our economy and our future. I want to be a part of a party that earns trust through ideas, not by just shutting up and hoping the other guy blows himself up.
I was impressed by the fact that Dominic Cardy wanted people who haven't always been his supporters to get involved and debate ideas with him. A leader who welcomes critics is a leader who won't be co-opted by a few close backroom advisors if he becomes Premier, and Dominic fits that description.
Now, many of you know that I've had a ten year affiliation with the Liberal Party. And, while my choice is more about feeling positive about this new process, I do owe you an explanation about why I couldn't find that same optimism about the place where I was.
There are lots of good people in the Liberal Party. I've long outgrown the knee jerk partisanship that suggests that one party has all the good ideas, or that any party is going to be right all the time. That kind of debate bores me, frankly, and it isn't helpful.
I have struggled since the last half of the previous government's mandate to feel comfortable where I was. I took my mandate seriously and worked within the government to advance the ideas I felt good about, like education reform, early childhood education and poverty reduction. I respected my cabinet oath to work from within, and through our party's renewal process I tried to be clear about the things that should change -- such as making real democratic reforms, rolling back costly tax cuts that didn't work, and depoliticizing economic development. I even backed a leadership candidate willing to support those ideas and add some good ones such as an environmental bill of rights. Some will say I should have given it more time, others will try to use the time I spent trying to make it work to question my sincerity now. There's no perfect time to declare an amicable split, but I do believe the Liberal Party has chosen what it wants to be and made it clear that it does not share the ideas I promoted. I should note that parties have every right to do that, as citizens have every right to decide if they fit with a party.
The Liberal Party has chosen a different route, one that entrenches the things that I thought needed to change. The new leader has made it clear that Liberals will defend the past tax cuts and continue to tell people that the deficit can be tamed by cutting alone. He has made it clear that he does not believe in structural changes to reduce the power of the leader and his advisors, but will keep the same model we had in the last government, where as long as the leader endures public meetings, he may make all the decisions. The Liberal Party will not be quick to support limits on patronage appointments or politicized economic development. Mr. Gallant says he opposes patronage, but he has managed to oppose every actual rule against it, preferring to get elected by saying "trust me to make better backroom choices". And the Liberal Leader stands by his stated opposition to things I believe in, like more financial support for making college affordable and an earned income tax credit to help the working poor. He mocks these as "making more promises", but for some of us, having things we want to accomplish is what makes politics more meaningful than a season of American Idol.
The fact that federally, the front runner for the Liberal leadership has also ran opposing the release of detailed policy options, while Tom Mulcair has sparked real debate on diversifying our economy and reforming our democracy is not lost on me. The Liberal Party is about to elect leaders at both levels who mock the very idea of proposing clear ideas, instead urging people to give them a blank cheque on policy because they are new and exciting people. If we were casting a Disney Channel pilot, I would agree. Because we are governing a country,I cannot. It is clear that we have suffered from Mr. Alward being elected without having to think clearly about what he believed in and what he wanted to do. The solution is not to elect another unprepared leader in anger, but to insist that the next election be fought on substance and ideas.
However, I remain hopeful that this can happen. I worked with Dominic Cardy on the anti-patronage bills and watched as the government yielded to good, solid ideas. I am excited by the fact that here is a party open to ideas and debate from those who don't support it blindly, instead of regarding criticism with suspicion. And I still believe there is room for people who want to enter public life for what they can do there, not what they will be there.
I am less concerned all the time with who gets elected, and more concerned with the urgency of good ideas. I hope that others will join a discussion that puts ideas above party, policy above ambition, and our future above all else. No party has all the answers, but at this critical moment, the leaders in public life best ready to offer an alternative to failed conservative policy and a government prepared to lead are Dominic Cardy and Tom Mulcair.
Actually, a lot of folks have been very supportive and hopeful about my decision to join the NDP. But now that the swirl of interviews is over, I wanted to explain my decision in something longer than a tweet or sound bite. Basically, it's all about ideas. I know it isn't the safe choice, or the politically easy one. But for me, it is the right one.
So, by now you likely know that I've accepted an offer to work with Dominic Cardy and the NDP on an exciting new policy initiative. It's called "Our Province NB", and this will be a substantive approach to developing a platform with citizens from a variety of backgrounds. We seek out ideas from committed, thoughtful New Brunswickers on a variety of important questions. These challenge papers will come from thoughtful people regardless of their partisan background. Once on line, anyone who registers for the process -- whether they join the party or not --can comment, propose changes, and post their own response papers. The party's leadership must directly engage people in discussions. Later, votes on certain policy choices will happen in the open with full transparency, making sure the leader must account for his choices in light of a very open debate and decision-making process.
The initial topics are ones that are urgent, and that the two traditional parties seem to want to ignore. They include finding solutions to some challenges that must be answered in the next few years, such as:
How do we attract new creative economy jobs,people and investment in the sectors that are growing without putting public funds at risk?
How do we make sure that all our citizens can participate in the economy, tackling stubborn problems like poverty and illiteracy within the budget constraints we have?
How do we deal with an aging population, where senior care will require significant new spending, without shortchanging the programmes that keep younger families here and support their opportunities?
How do we make sure that our education system prepares people for the new economy while promoting 21st century skills such as problem solving, creative thinking, collaboration and global awareness?
How do we reform our government and its institutions to restore faith in our democracy, and faith in New Brunswick as a fair and clean place to do business?
The process won't shy away from proposing ideas, or in welcoming constructive debate. It recognizes that the next election will require clear plans and bold ideas from those who seek to lead, and that discussions should happen now so that voters can make an informed choice.
Lately, watching the Legislature has reminded me of that old joke about the two hunters who surprise a bear. When one starts to run, his friend warns him that he can't outrun a bear -- to which the runner replies that he doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun the other guy.
If we don't attract new industry, reach citizens falling out of the economy, improve our schools and reform our democracy, New Brunswick will struggle to keep up. Lately, the two traditional parties have spent a lot of time slamming each other but little time spelling out real clear policy choices. It seems like they just want to outrun the other guy so they can win power, instead of describe what they would do about the bears that threaten our economy and our future. I want to be a part of a party that earns trust through ideas, not by just shutting up and hoping the other guy blows himself up.
I was impressed by the fact that Dominic Cardy wanted people who haven't always been his supporters to get involved and debate ideas with him. A leader who welcomes critics is a leader who won't be co-opted by a few close backroom advisors if he becomes Premier, and Dominic fits that description.
Now, many of you know that I've had a ten year affiliation with the Liberal Party. And, while my choice is more about feeling positive about this new process, I do owe you an explanation about why I couldn't find that same optimism about the place where I was.
There are lots of good people in the Liberal Party. I've long outgrown the knee jerk partisanship that suggests that one party has all the good ideas, or that any party is going to be right all the time. That kind of debate bores me, frankly, and it isn't helpful.
I have struggled since the last half of the previous government's mandate to feel comfortable where I was. I took my mandate seriously and worked within the government to advance the ideas I felt good about, like education reform, early childhood education and poverty reduction. I respected my cabinet oath to work from within, and through our party's renewal process I tried to be clear about the things that should change -- such as making real democratic reforms, rolling back costly tax cuts that didn't work, and depoliticizing economic development. I even backed a leadership candidate willing to support those ideas and add some good ones such as an environmental bill of rights. Some will say I should have given it more time, others will try to use the time I spent trying to make it work to question my sincerity now. There's no perfect time to declare an amicable split, but I do believe the Liberal Party has chosen what it wants to be and made it clear that it does not share the ideas I promoted. I should note that parties have every right to do that, as citizens have every right to decide if they fit with a party.
The Liberal Party has chosen a different route, one that entrenches the things that I thought needed to change. The new leader has made it clear that Liberals will defend the past tax cuts and continue to tell people that the deficit can be tamed by cutting alone. He has made it clear that he does not believe in structural changes to reduce the power of the leader and his advisors, but will keep the same model we had in the last government, where as long as the leader endures public meetings, he may make all the decisions. The Liberal Party will not be quick to support limits on patronage appointments or politicized economic development. Mr. Gallant says he opposes patronage, but he has managed to oppose every actual rule against it, preferring to get elected by saying "trust me to make better backroom choices". And the Liberal Leader stands by his stated opposition to things I believe in, like more financial support for making college affordable and an earned income tax credit to help the working poor. He mocks these as "making more promises", but for some of us, having things we want to accomplish is what makes politics more meaningful than a season of American Idol.
The fact that federally, the front runner for the Liberal leadership has also ran opposing the release of detailed policy options, while Tom Mulcair has sparked real debate on diversifying our economy and reforming our democracy is not lost on me. The Liberal Party is about to elect leaders at both levels who mock the very idea of proposing clear ideas, instead urging people to give them a blank cheque on policy because they are new and exciting people. If we were casting a Disney Channel pilot, I would agree. Because we are governing a country,I cannot. It is clear that we have suffered from Mr. Alward being elected without having to think clearly about what he believed in and what he wanted to do. The solution is not to elect another unprepared leader in anger, but to insist that the next election be fought on substance and ideas.
However, I remain hopeful that this can happen. I worked with Dominic Cardy on the anti-patronage bills and watched as the government yielded to good, solid ideas. I am excited by the fact that here is a party open to ideas and debate from those who don't support it blindly, instead of regarding criticism with suspicion. And I still believe there is room for people who want to enter public life for what they can do there, not what they will be there.
I am less concerned all the time with who gets elected, and more concerned with the urgency of good ideas. I hope that others will join a discussion that puts ideas above party, policy above ambition, and our future above all else. No party has all the answers, but at this critical moment, the leaders in public life best ready to offer an alternative to failed conservative policy and a government prepared to lead are Dominic Cardy and Tom Mulcair.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
HANG ON, NOW...ANOTHER TAKE ON MULCAIR'S ANTI-BLOC BILL
The separatist Bloc Québécois is gasping for air, rendered irrelevant by the decision of Quebeckers in the 2011 election to stop abstaining and choose among the parties dedicated to actually governing Canada. As history will record, in 2011 that choice was the New Democratic Party.
Now the Bloc's tiny Parliamentary rump is trying to resuscitate old fights to remain relevant, and has decided to find one area where they are unique among the four parties in Quebec -- the repeal of the Clarity Act. This is not an academic question -- the Bloc remains second in most polls in Quebec, and if they can gain other 6 or 7 points in the polls, they will likely again have the most MPs in Quebec.
The Clarity Act, a gift of Stephane Dion, has the admirable goal of reminding Quebeckers of what the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling -- that Canada gets a say in any terms of secession, and that the mandate to separate must be clear in both the question asked and the voters' reply. Neither the ruling or the Act say precisely what those must be, but there is general direction that the clearer the question, the lower the number needed. A vague question and a slim majority won't be good enough, in part because one cannot say for sure that the majority would have held once be terms were negotiated.
Since the Bloc wants to force other parties to vote on a full repeal of the Act and show that only the Bloc has that position, NDP MP Craig Scott has offered a bill with a clear challenge to the Bloc -- a simple majority will carry a referendum, IF you agree that the question will be "Should Quebec separate from Canada?"
Now comes the debate. Liberal Leader-to-be Justin Trudeau says that the 50%+1 threshold is unacceptably low. Speaking as someone who likes the Clarity Act a lot, I'm wondering if, in fact, Tom Mulcair has just shrewdly called the separatists' bluff.
Let's start with this -- Mulcair's provincial political career allows us to know exactly where he stands on these questions. He is a federalist, ran for the federalist party, campaigned against separation in referenda, and is appropriately loathed by separatists in Quebec. You won't find quotes from him wanting to build firewalls around his province, as Mr. Harper has, or stating that separatism could be an option if the wrong party governs, as Mr. Trudeau has. If you accept the federalism of Mssrs. Harper and Trudeau on balance (and you should), then Mr. Mulcair's greater constancy should also be granted.
Let's also assume that a federalist wants the Bloc to lose, and wants to deny Premier Marois the chance to see the "winning conditions" she wants for a referendum. That means sidestepping provocations sometimes. The Bloc and PQ want to goad Canadians into divisive fights, and polarize their electorate. Federalists who win, from Mulcair to Charest to Chrétien, get good at avoiding bun fights.
This is important -- when Quebeckers are asked in polls a straight "Do you want to separate from Canada?" question, they never say yes. Often support is below 40% on ha question, as it is today. That's why both PQ referenda have asked weasel questions about supporting mandates along the terms of motions etc, etc -- separatists will never fight a referendum with the question Mulcair has proposed.
I dislike politicians who pander to Quebec nationalists. I voted for Stephane Dion in part because of his tough intellectual treatment of the PQ premier of the day. But in Mulcair's motion, I don't see capitulation. I see a tough bit of bluff-calling from a guy who beats the separatists a lot.
Mulcair knows this bill will never become law - it's a private member's bill stuck way down the order paper. But if he's ever Prime Minister, he has strong grounds to refuse to entertain separatist weasel questions later. He's offered them a clear question. And they won't take it. End of discussion.
If the separatists asked a straight question, and 56% of Quebeckers said "yes", it's not really clear that the nation would be governable without something significant happening next. All 3 leaders know that. For all the tough talk, Justin Trudeau isn't explaining how, exactly, he would wish result away. Nor should any leader address that hypothetical -- the separatists won't ask that question, and they won't win if they do. By focussing on that Achilles Heel of the Bloc's cause, the Mulcair approach might be the best way to make sure we are all spared the uncertainty of them even trying.
I should make a last point, just so no one thinks I've fallen off the turnip truck. Yes, of course Mulcair's bill has a political purpose -- to deny the Bloc the clear vote on the Clarity Act they want, The better to keep beating them. Trudeau also has a political purpose in critiquing Mulcair -- stuck in 3rd behind a more centrist NDP, he needs a wedge to win back progressive voters. After all, if this was really about federalism and defence of the flag, Mr. Trudeau would have also asked the Bloc why they won't accept a clear question, but he hasn't critiqued the Bloc, just the federalist NDP.
So, Mr. Mulcair has made a political manoeveur to keep beating the Bloc and the PQ. Mr. Trudeau has made a political manoeveur to beat the NDP. We'll have to decide which one of those causes is more worth a touch of shrewd politics.
Now the Bloc's tiny Parliamentary rump is trying to resuscitate old fights to remain relevant, and has decided to find one area where they are unique among the four parties in Quebec -- the repeal of the Clarity Act. This is not an academic question -- the Bloc remains second in most polls in Quebec, and if they can gain other 6 or 7 points in the polls, they will likely again have the most MPs in Quebec.
The Clarity Act, a gift of Stephane Dion, has the admirable goal of reminding Quebeckers of what the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling -- that Canada gets a say in any terms of secession, and that the mandate to separate must be clear in both the question asked and the voters' reply. Neither the ruling or the Act say precisely what those must be, but there is general direction that the clearer the question, the lower the number needed. A vague question and a slim majority won't be good enough, in part because one cannot say for sure that the majority would have held once be terms were negotiated.
Since the Bloc wants to force other parties to vote on a full repeal of the Act and show that only the Bloc has that position, NDP MP Craig Scott has offered a bill with a clear challenge to the Bloc -- a simple majority will carry a referendum, IF you agree that the question will be "Should Quebec separate from Canada?"
Now comes the debate. Liberal Leader-to-be Justin Trudeau says that the 50%+1 threshold is unacceptably low. Speaking as someone who likes the Clarity Act a lot, I'm wondering if, in fact, Tom Mulcair has just shrewdly called the separatists' bluff.
Let's start with this -- Mulcair's provincial political career allows us to know exactly where he stands on these questions. He is a federalist, ran for the federalist party, campaigned against separation in referenda, and is appropriately loathed by separatists in Quebec. You won't find quotes from him wanting to build firewalls around his province, as Mr. Harper has, or stating that separatism could be an option if the wrong party governs, as Mr. Trudeau has. If you accept the federalism of Mssrs. Harper and Trudeau on balance (and you should), then Mr. Mulcair's greater constancy should also be granted.
Let's also assume that a federalist wants the Bloc to lose, and wants to deny Premier Marois the chance to see the "winning conditions" she wants for a referendum. That means sidestepping provocations sometimes. The Bloc and PQ want to goad Canadians into divisive fights, and polarize their electorate. Federalists who win, from Mulcair to Charest to Chrétien, get good at avoiding bun fights.
This is important -- when Quebeckers are asked in polls a straight "Do you want to separate from Canada?" question, they never say yes. Often support is below 40% on ha question, as it is today. That's why both PQ referenda have asked weasel questions about supporting mandates along the terms of motions etc, etc -- separatists will never fight a referendum with the question Mulcair has proposed.
I dislike politicians who pander to Quebec nationalists. I voted for Stephane Dion in part because of his tough intellectual treatment of the PQ premier of the day. But in Mulcair's motion, I don't see capitulation. I see a tough bit of bluff-calling from a guy who beats the separatists a lot.
Mulcair knows this bill will never become law - it's a private member's bill stuck way down the order paper. But if he's ever Prime Minister, he has strong grounds to refuse to entertain separatist weasel questions later. He's offered them a clear question. And they won't take it. End of discussion.
If the separatists asked a straight question, and 56% of Quebeckers said "yes", it's not really clear that the nation would be governable without something significant happening next. All 3 leaders know that. For all the tough talk, Justin Trudeau isn't explaining how, exactly, he would wish result away. Nor should any leader address that hypothetical -- the separatists won't ask that question, and they won't win if they do. By focussing on that Achilles Heel of the Bloc's cause, the Mulcair approach might be the best way to make sure we are all spared the uncertainty of them even trying.
I should make a last point, just so no one thinks I've fallen off the turnip truck. Yes, of course Mulcair's bill has a political purpose -- to deny the Bloc the clear vote on the Clarity Act they want, The better to keep beating them. Trudeau also has a political purpose in critiquing Mulcair -- stuck in 3rd behind a more centrist NDP, he needs a wedge to win back progressive voters. After all, if this was really about federalism and defence of the flag, Mr. Trudeau would have also asked the Bloc why they won't accept a clear question, but he hasn't critiqued the Bloc, just the federalist NDP.
So, Mr. Mulcair has made a political manoeveur to keep beating the Bloc and the PQ. Mr. Trudeau has made a political manoeveur to beat the NDP. We'll have to decide which one of those causes is more worth a touch of shrewd politics.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Access to Education, A Debate Worth Having Part I
Why Free in 8 Works:
A few weeks ago, the two leading Liberal leadership candidates released their plans for
helping middle-class families afford post-secondary education. Both deal with
an issue that has been neglected by a Conservative government that didn't even
mention PSE in the budget, and that is to the credit of our party.
The two
plans reveal stark differences in how the candidates see the challenge, though.
And while some have bemoaned the fact that a serious debate has broken out, it
is exactly the sort of debate Liberals need to have. After all, once chosen, a
leader has vast power to determine party policy and dissuade public dissension.
Now is exactly the time to know what values and beliefs leaders will bring to
the job.
Free in 8: An idea for today's economy:
Mike Murphy has proposed a policy called "Free In Eight". It is a pretty straightforward plan,
combining the power of caps on debt loads with the strength of a repayment plan
tied to income. Murphy establishes a set limit on how much debt a graduate can
rack up ($24,000 for a 4 year degree), so that those with the greatest need
will get bursaries to keep their debt down. He proposes that government then
set an 8 year guarantee in place, establishing that a graduate will be free of
debt in no more than 8 years, paying 10% of their income at most for student
loans.
Murphy's
plan is certainly one that is generally favored by liberal politicians.
President Barack Obama is supporting such a model on the federal level in the U.S., citing the drag that the trillion dollars in
student debt has become on the U.S. economy. In Ontario, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty has made an
income sensitive repayment plan and limits on total debt and repayment time one
of his signature achievements. And in British Columbia, Liberal Premier Christy Clark
has also announced that government will be taking over interest and principalrepayments for students with high debts and low incomes.
"This is all great but Free in 8 Creates a disincentive to pay." Only it doesn't.
"This is all great but Free in 8 Creates a disincentive to pay." Only it doesn't.
@jackkeir1 Trying to figure out why anyone would pay their loans under the Lamrock/Murphy proposal? Wait 8 years and gov't does it? #nbpoliThese programs all have similar methods of targeting assistance to those families with high debt and low incomes. An applicant must apply for repayment help using their tax returns and government will make the minimum payment needed to keep the student on track to get out of debt by the end. One reason governments are increasingly adopting the plan is because it is quite immune from abuse -- it ties assistance to the filing of an income tax return, and even at a maximum level of subsidy (about $3,000 per year) there would be no incentive for a graduate to avoid career experience and advancement just to get the subsidy. (And, frankly, Liberals have never been a party to oppose good social programs out of the fear a small minority will abuse them. That's more of a Rob Ford and Mike Harris thing).
— Joel Reed (@JoelBReed) June 28, 2012
The
clever part of Murphy's proposal is that he also proposes to finally get tough
with lenders to reduce the ridiculous premium they add to interest rates for
student borrowers, which will greatly reduce government costs, and he has set
his repayment plan numbers at a place where an average graduate's salary will
require only a small but vital amount of help in the early years. Yet while ensuring
the debt limits are guaranteed for all graduates requires a relatively modest
amount of money (just under $3 million per year), he gets a lot of good out of
a smart investment.
If you're still not convinced, here's three more points:
If you're still not convinced, here's three more points:
1.
Murphy's Free In 8 plan
improves access.
2.
Murphy's Free In 8 plan
recognizes where the economy is going.
3. Murphy's Free In 8 plan grows New
Brunswick's economy.
Put simply, having middle class families spending
money in heir communities creates jobs. That's partly why Nobel-winning
economists like Stiglitz and Krugman see income inequality as an economy killer
-- if too much money is concentrated in the hands of those who can't possibly
spend it all, the economic cycle dries up. Having our new graduates delaying purchasing homes and
starting families so they can send most of their money to Toronto banks to be
invested in overseas hedge funds isn't creating jobs. Reducing debt for new families frees up their dollars at
exactly the income point where they are most likely to spend the savings with
New Brunswick businesses and jump start the economy that's stalled under
Alward.
So, I
like Murphy's plan because, like most liberal governments, I find it's an
affordable way to increase confidence of deserving students, stimulate our
economy and keep young families here.
This is why Free in 8 works. Come back Wednesday for the second installment of this three part essay: Defending Free in 8 from Friendly (Right Wing) Fire.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Statement on the Leadership Race
Earlier today, I announced that I will not be entering the race to lead the Liberal Party of New Brunswick.
I remain committed to raising the issues around jobs, equality of opportunity and social justice that my team believes are key to renewing our party and restoring hope for New Brunswick. It has been wonderful for everyone on the team to see the response to our ‘campaign of ideas’.
We came to the campaign determined to put ideas first, and to stay true to the principle that the identity of the next leader of our party wasn't as important as the urgent need to bring our party back to liberal values and its historic role as a voice for the underdog and an advocate for middle-class families.
Two things have contributed to my decision today.
First, having had a few weeks to campaign full out for the job, I am now convinced that my work and family commitments would make it very hard for me to put in the time needed for an all out, sustained campaign.
More importantly, the debates and events of the campaign have allowed me to feel confident that the ideas and values we’ve fought for have a home with one of the other campaigns.
Because of this, I am endorsing Mike Murphy for Leader of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick.
In the last weeks, it has become evident to me that Mike and I have been talking about similar issues – the need to bring our party back to liberal values, the importance of offering specific ideas and clear alternatives to the Alward government, and the imperative to have a party that is not run by backroom advisors. He has made it clear that he supports many of the ideas our campaign has raised regarding jobs, poverty and the economy.
Mike has shown that he can be a champion of liberal values and he is committed to a renewed Liberal Party that is open, inclusive and responsive to people. I know Mike well and I have worked well with him in the past on many social justice issues and legislation. Mike has the ability and the determination to not just to win the next election, but also to lead a government that offers a real difference from the rudderless Alward government.
Only Mike has run with a commitment to making his ideas and values clear, and this gives Liberals confidence that he, and not the backrooms, will lead and be accountable to citizens and party members. I respect all three of the leadership candidates, but on clear ideas and proven experience, there is a decisive difference, and that difference favors Mike Murphy.
I want to thank all those party members, new and old alike, who joined this campaign to promote the new ideas in which we believe. I urge all those who have answered the call for a more progressive Liberal Party to join me in supporting the candidate who has made a clear commitment to Liberal principles and specific liberal ideas and policies - Mike Murphy.
I remain committed to raising the issues around jobs, equality of opportunity and social justice that my team believes are key to renewing our party and restoring hope for New Brunswick. It has been wonderful for everyone on the team to see the response to our ‘campaign of ideas’.
We came to the campaign determined to put ideas first, and to stay true to the principle that the identity of the next leader of our party wasn't as important as the urgent need to bring our party back to liberal values and its historic role as a voice for the underdog and an advocate for middle-class families.
Two things have contributed to my decision today.
First, having had a few weeks to campaign full out for the job, I am now convinced that my work and family commitments would make it very hard for me to put in the time needed for an all out, sustained campaign.
More importantly, the debates and events of the campaign have allowed me to feel confident that the ideas and values we’ve fought for have a home with one of the other campaigns.
Because of this, I am endorsing Mike Murphy for Leader of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick.
In the last weeks, it has become evident to me that Mike and I have been talking about similar issues – the need to bring our party back to liberal values, the importance of offering specific ideas and clear alternatives to the Alward government, and the imperative to have a party that is not run by backroom advisors. He has made it clear that he supports many of the ideas our campaign has raised regarding jobs, poverty and the economy.
Mike has shown that he can be a champion of liberal values and he is committed to a renewed Liberal Party that is open, inclusive and responsive to people. I know Mike well and I have worked well with him in the past on many social justice issues and legislation. Mike has the ability and the determination to not just to win the next election, but also to lead a government that offers a real difference from the rudderless Alward government.
Only Mike has run with a commitment to making his ideas and values clear, and this gives Liberals confidence that he, and not the backrooms, will lead and be accountable to citizens and party members. I respect all three of the leadership candidates, but on clear ideas and proven experience, there is a decisive difference, and that difference favors Mike Murphy.
I want to thank all those party members, new and old alike, who joined this campaign to promote the new ideas in which we believe. I urge all those who have answered the call for a more progressive Liberal Party to join me in supporting the candidate who has made a clear commitment to Liberal principles and specific liberal ideas and policies - Mike Murphy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)