Richard Gwyn's "Why electoral reform won't work" argues the benefits of the proportional representation proposed for Ontario are minor at best (and countered by the fact that 30% of the legislators will be appointed not elected). What we really need, he says, is political reform: a way to get MPs to participate in politics instead of simply doing what their leaders direct.
This he says is cultural. We have the same mechanics as Britain, he says, but British MPs are much more vigorous in expressing and voting their opinions.
He's wrong about the mechanics. In Canada, leaders are selected by extra-parliamentary forums (leadership races). In other parliamentary systems, they are hired (and fired) by the caucus. It is precisely the accountability of leaders to caucuses that gives MPs real authority -- except in Canada (and recently in the British Labor Party -- hence Tony Blair's embarrassing 'when will I leave?' contortions).
It's the mechanics, Richard.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Expo 67 at The Beaver
My feature article on Expo '67 -- forty years ago this year -- is in the issue of The Beaver just reaching subscribers. May be on the Beaver website too, but not there today. (Later: now it is!)
And in my column for the same issue, José Igartua on "English Canada's Quiet Revolution."
Two reasons why you should be subscribing! But if you don't, look on the newsstands.
And in my column for the same issue, José Igartua on "English Canada's Quiet Revolution."
Two reasons why you should be subscribing! But if you don't, look on the newsstands.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Owning History
The family of Jimmy Gardiner, still seeking to have the TV drama 'Prairie Giant" condemned or changed to their satisfaction, has challenged the Canadian Historical Association (meeting shortly in Saskatoon) to demonstrate its "ownership" of Canadian history by supporting action by parliament.
Imagine if Canadian history belonged to the CHA. What pope would we go to plead for a nihil obstat?
Fortunately, there is no property right in history. Consensus is better than diktat, but discussion is better than consensus.
Imagine if Canadian history belonged to the CHA. What pope would we go to plead for a nihil obstat?
Fortunately, there is no property right in history. Consensus is better than diktat, but discussion is better than consensus.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
American Heritage dies.
This can't be good. The American history magazine American Heritage has suspended publication. New York Times has a story.
It sometimes had a wave-the-flag Republican Americanism that grated on a reader across the border, but I admired (envied) how they covered history. I always thought, look at the resources an American history mag can deploy! Turns out they've been losing money forever.
Lively website, www.americanheritage.com, will continue for the time being.
It sometimes had a wave-the-flag Republican Americanism that grated on a reader across the border, but I admired (envied) how they covered history. I always thought, look at the resources an American history mag can deploy! Turns out they've been losing money forever.
Lively website, www.americanheritage.com, will continue for the time being.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Elect the lieutenant governor?
Here's a thought. Quebec's lieutenant-governor has retired, and La Presse columnist Michel-C Auger proposes the Assemblée Nationale should elect a successor (or organize some other form of election for the post) and ask the prime minister to appoint whomever wins. As he says, should we have PR and endless minority coalitions, the choosing-a-premier function of lieutenant governors will grow in importance, and their legitimacy will become crucial.
Course you never see any of the PR gurus thinking through issues like these.
Course you never see any of the PR gurus thinking through issues like these.
CHA on census scandal
The Canadian Historical Association, meeting in Saskatoon at the end of May as part of the tribal gathering of the learned societies (though they don't call themselves that any more), is holding a session on how to fight Statistics Canada's disgraceful plan to render the 2006 census useless to future Canadians. Good on them. Details of the CHA meetings at their website.
Jackman $ for Humanities
Hal Jackman, the very tall philanthropist, has just committed $30 mil to the U of Toronto for a Humanities Centre.
I'm all for the humanities, but I wonder what a value-for-money audit would show here. News story suggests much of the money goes to refurbish an old office building to provide more profs' offices.
U of T's billion-dollar fund-raising campaign has been so successful they had to keep raising the targets. But when you give a fortune to a university, do you get new contributions to (in this case) the humanities? Or do you just sustain a big complacent institutional bureaucracy?
Oh, the humanities!
I'm all for the humanities, but I wonder what a value-for-money audit would show here. News story suggests much of the money goes to refurbish an old office building to provide more profs' offices.
U of T's billion-dollar fund-raising campaign has been so successful they had to keep raising the targets. But when you give a fortune to a university, do you get new contributions to (in this case) the humanities? Or do you just sustain a big complacent institutional bureaucracy?
Oh, the humanities!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Business Book Award: Thomas Homer-Dixon
Thomas Homer-Dixon received the National Business Book Award last night for The Upside of Down, his argument that things today are, well, complicated. Well deserved -- H-D writes vigorous prose on complicated matters. But this Business Book Award is one I don't understand. Some years their lists focus on narrow, technical works on macro-economic policy or management science; another year it's all history or pop sociology. Charlotte Gray's Alexander Graham Bell bio is a terrific book -- but a business book? Bill Davis seems to be on the jury every year, but the jury's sense of what constitutes a business book seems to jump all over.
Monday, May 14, 2007
What are you reading? Andre Pratte.
André Pratte is a political journalist in Québec and I'm finding his Aux Pays des Merveilles fresh and fascinating. (It's from VLB Editeur, 2006.) Pratte's French is a pleasure for this anglo to read; I wonder if it will be translated. Pratte voted Oui in both referendums (believed it would help renew federalism, he writes!), but this book is a very tough critique, asking why independence is necessary and what it would achieve, and totting up the damage loyalty to separatist ideologies does to one's perceptions of reality.
Québec independence remains a political force to be reckoned with, but has ceased to be intellectually compelling. That's my aphorism, not Pratte's, but he sure helps me sustain it. Like Pratte, I'm all for the flourishing of Québec's distinct society. Like the majority of Quebeckers, I don't see how separation is necessary or sufficient for that.
On a related subject, poor Gilles Duceppe's "now I run, now I don't" antics make me say again: parties should entrust leadership hirings and firings to the elected caucus. That's how it works in nearly every parliamentary democracy in the world. Canadians have this ignorant horror of the whole idea. We tell ourselves vast vote-buying competitions are "democratic." But where the caucus is accountable to the electorate and the leader is accountable to the caucus, you have not only efficiency but accountability. And none of these stupidities!
Québec independence remains a political force to be reckoned with, but has ceased to be intellectually compelling. That's my aphorism, not Pratte's, but he sure helps me sustain it. Like Pratte, I'm all for the flourishing of Québec's distinct society. Like the majority of Quebeckers, I don't see how separation is necessary or sufficient for that.
On a related subject, poor Gilles Duceppe's "now I run, now I don't" antics make me say again: parties should entrust leadership hirings and firings to the elected caucus. That's how it works in nearly every parliamentary democracy in the world. Canadians have this ignorant horror of the whole idea. We tell ourselves vast vote-buying competitions are "democratic." But where the caucus is accountable to the electorate and the leader is accountable to the caucus, you have not only efficiency but accountability. And none of these stupidities!
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Canadianizing the world's Parliaments
Will Tony Blair ever leave? And why is it entirely up to him? Aren't politicians supposed to be accountable? To decide the date, to decide the date for setting a date -- it's all Tony forever, and this guy Gordon Brown just gets to sit about looking silly and waiting.
See, it's the Canadianization of parliamentary practice. Remember how Margaret Thatcher went? One day the MPs said, Margaret, you won us our seats, but now you look like a loser and you might lose us our seats, so we've chosen this new guy, bye.
That was the fate of every British political leader, and indeed every parliamentary leader in every parliament in the world (except Canada's) until recently. Getting rid of a leader whose time has passed, and doing it without bullets -- that's a vital ability for any political process. Parliamentary governments have always done it brilliantly. The MPs are accountable to the people, the leader is accountable to the MPs, changes are made in the blink of an eye.
Tony Blair is the first British PM to have escaped this accountability. He wasn't put in as leader by the caucus of MPs, so even though his time is long past, they cannot remove him. He was the first Brit PM chosen by one of these damn buy-a-membership, buy-a-vote leadership convention. Which means he can stay pretty much forever, the convention not being recalled until he's willing. It's the creeping Canadianization of British leadership politics.
It has no redeeming features, except it has not yet crept all the way. When Tony B chooses to go, would-be successors will have to be nominated by 12.5% of the Labour caucus (44 sitting MPs). Could Stéphane Dion have managed that? After that, the choice will be 1/3 MPs, one third trade unions, one third party-membership-buyers. All done over six or seven weeks, and the winner to be largely free of accountability to anyone, à la Canadienne.
See, it's the Canadianization of parliamentary practice. Remember how Margaret Thatcher went? One day the MPs said, Margaret, you won us our seats, but now you look like a loser and you might lose us our seats, so we've chosen this new guy, bye.
That was the fate of every British political leader, and indeed every parliamentary leader in every parliament in the world (except Canada's) until recently. Getting rid of a leader whose time has passed, and doing it without bullets -- that's a vital ability for any political process. Parliamentary governments have always done it brilliantly. The MPs are accountable to the people, the leader is accountable to the MPs, changes are made in the blink of an eye.
Tony Blair is the first British PM to have escaped this accountability. He wasn't put in as leader by the caucus of MPs, so even though his time is long past, they cannot remove him. He was the first Brit PM chosen by one of these damn buy-a-membership, buy-a-vote leadership convention. Which means he can stay pretty much forever, the convention not being recalled until he's willing. It's the creeping Canadianization of British leadership politics.
It has no redeeming features, except it has not yet crept all the way. When Tony B chooses to go, would-be successors will have to be nominated by 12.5% of the Labour caucus (44 sitting MPs). Could Stéphane Dion have managed that? After that, the choice will be 1/3 MPs, one third trade unions, one third party-membership-buyers. All done over six or seven weeks, and the winner to be largely free of accountability to anyone, à la Canadienne.
New York and history
Quick trip to New York City last weekend distracted my blogging. Great city -- but not so much of relevance to the themes of this weblog. Except it was good to find museums that can provide well written, literate, useful texts and captions. The Met's captions were consistently good.
MoMA, meanwhile, vindicates another great museological tradition. No text at all. Just the paintings, sculptures and installations. Details of artist, title, date, and provenance on a small label off to one side. It works.
The vastly praised new MoMA building is mostly a modest and understated building aiming to fit its site and provide the maximum amount of natural light for the art. What a great space it is for displaying art! That crystal excresence rising on the side of the ROM in Toronto ain't likely to provide spaces like these.
Okay, one world-historical observation on NYC, not intended to disparage this magnificent city, a great place to visit. Still: How strongly one feels oneself at the heart of empire when in Manhattan. Everywhere, one senses, yes, these are the privileges of rule, these are the bounty of empire. Never quite felt that so strongly anywhere else.
MoMA, meanwhile, vindicates another great museological tradition. No text at all. Just the paintings, sculptures and installations. Details of artist, title, date, and provenance on a small label off to one side. It works.
The vastly praised new MoMA building is mostly a modest and understated building aiming to fit its site and provide the maximum amount of natural light for the art. What a great space it is for displaying art! That crystal excresence rising on the side of the ROM in Toronto ain't likely to provide spaces like these.
Okay, one world-historical observation on NYC, not intended to disparage this magnificent city, a great place to visit. Still: How strongly one feels oneself at the heart of empire when in Manhattan. Everywhere, one senses, yes, these are the privileges of rule, these are the bounty of empire. Never quite felt that so strongly anywhere else.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Canadian Historical Review
I've subscribed to this for I don't know how long. Seemed like a professional duty. It's the flagship journal of academic scholarship in Canadian history, one ought to keep up, there might be something of interest or value.
Y'know, there isn't. There just is not. Is this the deadest, dullest, scholarly journal in existence, or just on the short list? Surely it does not have to be this way.
Y'know, there isn't. There just is not. Is this the deadest, dullest, scholarly journal in existence, or just on the short list? Surely it does not have to be this way.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Who loves ya, 1867?
These guys.
Update, May 16, 2007: These guys too. Listing six top reads on Canadian history, they have two volumes of the "People's History" companion book and The Book of Letters, plus three books I had a hand in, The Illustrated History of Canada, The Historical Atlas of Canada, and 1867. I'm claiming a record.
Update, May 16, 2007: These guys too. Listing six top reads on Canadian history, they have two volumes of the "People's History" companion book and The Book of Letters, plus three books I had a hand in, The Illustrated History of Canada, The Historical Atlas of Canada, and 1867. I'm claiming a record.
Leafs Win the Stanley Cup
Well, 40 years ago today they did. Not since, to the sniggering pleasure of much of the country. Forty years....
In '67 I was a dejected Montreal fan. Even after coming to TO as an adult, I've never much identified with the sad-sack home team.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if a team could still win the Cup in the first week of May -- and it was not some marketing-gimmick franchise in the sunbelt. I'd watch that!
In '67 I was a dejected Montreal fan. Even after coming to TO as an adult, I've never much identified with the sad-sack home team.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if a team could still win the Cup in the first week of May -- and it was not some marketing-gimmick franchise in the sunbelt. I'd watch that!
Bertha Wilson
Bertha Wilson, the former Supreme Court of Canada judge with the soft Scottish burr in her voice, died last weekend.
The first woman to sit on that court when appointed in 1982, she had a remarkable career. Never wore lawyer's robes from the day she was called to the bar in 1957 until the day she was appointed to the bench. Never really worked with clients either. She was a pure research lawyer. On her first day on the job at Osler Hoskin in Toronto, one of the seniors told her, "Write me a memo: 'What is a bond?'" And for the rest of her private practice career she pretty much did things like that.
She functioned as a research lawyer, mastering all the most subtle and technical matters of the law for the benefit of other Osler lawyers. Did it so well, in fact, that big law firms accepted the idea that having research lawyers was better than pretending every lawyer in the firm knew, or could learn, everything in the law. For someone like Wilson, who loved the pure study of the law, there could hardly have been a more congenial career.
Osler is a big corporate Bay Street firm. Almost all her practice was corporate law, in the interest of the biggest corporate clients. Only when she rose to the high court did she get to apply her mind to big questions of fairness, justice, rights and freedoms -- and suddenly to general surprise, she became one of the court's most radical judges.
Had she pined, at Oslers, over devoting all her skill and passion mostly to nothing more than maximizing the incomes of the country's largest corporations and wealthiest shareholders? Not at all, as far as one can tell. Fascinating how often lawyers who love the law simply revel in the pure pleasure of the study without much considering who they are serving.
Ellen Anderson wrote a good life of Bertha Wilson some years ago: Judging Bertha Wilson. Available through the Osgoode Society or your bookseller or library.
The first woman to sit on that court when appointed in 1982, she had a remarkable career. Never wore lawyer's robes from the day she was called to the bar in 1957 until the day she was appointed to the bench. Never really worked with clients either. She was a pure research lawyer. On her first day on the job at Osler Hoskin in Toronto, one of the seniors told her, "Write me a memo: 'What is a bond?'" And for the rest of her private practice career she pretty much did things like that.
She functioned as a research lawyer, mastering all the most subtle and technical matters of the law for the benefit of other Osler lawyers. Did it so well, in fact, that big law firms accepted the idea that having research lawyers was better than pretending every lawyer in the firm knew, or could learn, everything in the law. For someone like Wilson, who loved the pure study of the law, there could hardly have been a more congenial career.
Osler is a big corporate Bay Street firm. Almost all her practice was corporate law, in the interest of the biggest corporate clients. Only when she rose to the high court did she get to apply her mind to big questions of fairness, justice, rights and freedoms -- and suddenly to general surprise, she became one of the court's most radical judges.
Had she pined, at Oslers, over devoting all her skill and passion mostly to nothing more than maximizing the incomes of the country's largest corporations and wealthiest shareholders? Not at all, as far as one can tell. Fascinating how often lawyers who love the law simply revel in the pure pleasure of the study without much considering who they are serving.
Ellen Anderson wrote a good life of Bertha Wilson some years ago: Judging Bertha Wilson. Available through the Osgoode Society or your bookseller or library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)