admin – Page 92 – David Akin’s On The Hill

Gay-bashing and free speech

Earlier this week, I think I was just about alone among any journalists who cared to opine on the subject in suggesting that the Supreme Court of Canada ought to uphold a hate speech conviction against gay-basher Bill Whatcott and that in doing so, the Supreme Court was not making any new law but simply upholding the status quo we have had since the same court ruled in Taylor 21 years ago. (See “Rights tribunal gets it right“)

Whether it was my colleague (and long-time free speech crusader) Ezra Levant to Globe columnist Margaret Wente to the Ottawa Citizen's editorial board — most journalists who opined on this subject suggested Whatcott ought to be able to spew his venom because if he can't, none of us will have free speech rights. They spent a lot of time arguing about the 'principle” that free speech was sacred, inviolable, etc. etc.

But, as the follow letter writer to the Ottawa Citizen notes, perhaps there should have been a greater emphasis on using all of that free speech to more forcefully denounce Whatcott's hate speech and explain to readers how and why it's hateful:

Re: We have a right to free speech, Oct. 12.

The Citizen editorial defending the primacy of free speech ends with the assertion that exposing homophobic comments to the light of facts and sense will cause them to “wither.”

As a gay man who has, along with the rest of my community, had to endure 40 years of such comments I can assure you that they have not “withered” at all, but, like noxious weeds, seem to continue to thrive on the light of publicity given them in the media. I believe firmly that free speech should trump almost any effort, including hate speech laws, to suppress it.

But perhaps if journalists in all media were as passionate in condemning homophobic comments as they are in defending free speech, and, after all this time, gave little or no attention to them, they might, indeed, finally disappear.

Mike Hutton, Ottawa

The NFL runs right — to Republicans

Fun project from OpenSecrets.org: The group looked at political donations made in the U.S. by the owners and players of NFL teams. The lion's share of donations were made by owners even though the average salary for NFL players is $1.9 million US.

In any event, two-thirds of all donations made by NFL owners and players went to Republicans.

Notable players: sidelined Colts quarterback Peyton Manning gave to Republicans; Brett Favre and Julius Peppers gave to Democrats.

But while the NFL, by and large, runs right, if you will, there were some teams/owners which gave more than 70 per cent of any donations to Democrats. And if anyone wanted to do away with AFC vs NFC and replace those conference with two new ones called GOP and DEMS, I'd be picking the teams in the DEMS conference to win more than their share of few Super Bowls.

Here's the DEMS conference:

“the teams that favored Democrats most with their political donations included the Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, New England Patriots and New Orleans Saints, all of which donated at least 70 percent of their political contributions to Democrats.”

And the GOP conference:

“..the teams that favored Republicans most with their campaign cash included the Houston Texans, Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Carolina Panthers, Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions, New York Jets, San Diego Chargers and the Baltimore Ravens, all of which donated at least 70 percent of their contributions to the GOP.”

Reg Alcock: 1948-2011

From the Office of Liberal Leader Bob Rae on the passing of Reg Alcock:

I was shocked and deeply saddened to learn this morning of the sudden passing of Reg Alcock.

Reg was a distinguished politician and public servant. He began his political career in the Manitoba legislature and later moved to federal politics, serving the people of Winnipeg South for more than a decade. He served as a cabinet minister in the Martin government and took his experience and dedication to the University of Manitoba when his career in politics came to an end. He also served as a member of the Harvard Policy Group.

Reg's booming voice, extraordinary energy and great enthusiasm for everything he did was his great hallmark. He befriended and mentored me in the ways of public policy and I shall miss his irrepressibly candid advice.

Reg’s passing is a loss to all of us. Manitoba and Canada have lost a man who was dedicated to the public good.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary Caucus, I wish to express our deepest condolences to Reg’s family and many friends.

Rep by region: The standings now (Ontario's the big loser right now)

Though the Conservative platform talks about restoring the fundamental principle of representation by population in the seat distribution in the House of Commons, it's likely to be more about rep-by-province. Here's the scorecard after May 2 on relative distribution of rep by region. You will note that Ontario is most under-represented but Quebecers, looking at the data this way, might also be able to argue for another seat. Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, the North, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan are all just happy that there are no discussion to take seats away from anyone for those provinces are all relatively over-represented.

repbyregion

Rep by pop in House of Commons? It Ain't Never Gonna Be Fair

A “government source” tells The Globe's John Ibbitson that the promise made by the Conservatives in the last election campaign to give more seats in the House of Commons to some of the country's fastest growing areas in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta is in danger of being implemented in time for the 2015 election. The government would not provide any confirmation or denial of this. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, asked to comment in Peterborough, Ont. today, also wouldn't get into timing details but simply repeated his party's platform commitments.

Here's the platform promise:

FAIR REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Fathers of Confederation agreed that the allocation of seats in the House of Commons should reflect each province's share of the population. “Representation by population” has remained a fundamental principle of our democracy ever since.

To ensure this principle is maintained and to take into account population changes across the country, from time to time the formula for allocating seats has been updated. Updates to the formula have been designed to ensure fairness for both faster- and slower growing provinces.

Because of significant population changes since the last update, the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario are now significantly underrepresented.

We will reintroduce legislation to restore fair representation in the House of Commons.

At the same time, we will protect the seat count of slower-growing provinces. We will ensure that Quebec’s seat count will not drop below its current 75 seats, and that the population of Quebec remains proportionately represented.

The focus in this debate has been preserving Quebec's 'clout' in the House of Commons. If they stick at 75 seats while other provinces get more seats, their “clout” is reduced.

But even without Quebec in the mix, it's still not going be anywhere near the “fundamental principle” of “representation by population”.

Consider: The riding with the most electors of any right now is Oak Ridges-Markham, represented right now by Conservative Paul Calandra. He represents 153,972 electors. In the House of Commons, Calandra's vote counts the same as, say, Conservative MP (and Revenue Minister) Gail Shea. But Shea's riding of Egmont in Prince Edward Island has just 27,197 electors. In fact, in the entire province of Prince Edward Island there are fewer than 110,000 electors spread among four ridings. So, clearly, one elector in Egmont is worth a whole lot more than one elector in Oak Ridges-Markham.

Let's take this exercise a little further.

The total number of electors in the 10 biggest ridings in the country adds up to 1,177,289. So those 1.17 million Canadians are represented by 10 MPs.

Now let's look at the other end of scale, the ridings with the fewest electors. Those same 1.17 million votes are spread over 27 ridings. In other words, one group of about 1 million Canadians gets three times as many votes in the House of Commons as another group of 1 million Canadians.

Where are those 27 small ridings? Lo and behold: None of them are in Quebec. It's the four PEI ridings, the three in the north (Nunavut, Western Arctic and Yukon), and a bunch in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The Conservatives, like any government, can promise to tinker here and there with the numbers but there ain't any way we're ever going to see true representation by population in this country.

Of course, that's not an argument to reject the current attempts to rebalance the House of Commons but it might help contextualize the debate to note that the rep-by-pop argument is just not about Quebec vs Rest of Canada.

And now, of course, you'd probably like to see the list of the 10 biggest and 27 smallest. Here is the 10 biggest:

10Big

And here's the the 27 least-populous ridings in the country. Together, the number of electors in the following 27 roughly equals the 10 biggest.

Small20

Smaller20

No one's buying the world's cheapest car because … it's the world's cheapest car

Fact: Canada is alone among major industrialized powers without its own car. The U.S. has Ford, GM, and so on. Italy has Fiat. Japan has Honda and Toyota. Germany has Volkswagen. France has Citroen. Jaguar and Bentley (and plenty of others) first started in Britain. Korea has Hyundai. Even Russia has its Lada. But Canada? Nothing.

Back in 2008-09, when the Harper government was debating if it should use billions of Canadian tax dollars to prop up the Canadian divisions of the foreign-owned car companies GM and Chrysler, there was — too briefly, if you ask me — a flurry of nationalist murmurings that the Canadian government should do no such thing but instead, use those billions to develop Canada's first car. The Beaver? the Paddle? The Canoe? Oh, the branding possibilities!

But nothing ever came of that chatter. The government did what everyone expected and gave billions went to GM and Chrysler (and taxpayers made a tidy little sum on the deal). And though Canada still builds lots of Toyotas and Fords and KIAs, we still don't have our own car.

The yearning to have Canada create its own car, though, was more than just nationalism, there were some reasonable arguments about the research and manufacturing spinoffs that would accrue to Canada if we had our own car.

And so it was (and is) with India where, in 2009, leading industrialist Tata Group announced that Tata Motors would build and sell the Nano, the world's cheapest car. This would sweep through India (environmentalists were worried about millions of new car drivers putting greenhouse gases into our already overburdened atmosphere) and the rest of the developing world. India could boast of its own car, bringing new wealth and expertise to that country and, in the process, creating a car for the masses in the developing world.

But, as the American Enterprise Institute's Sadanand Dhume told me today, so far, it's not exactly working out for Tata's Nano — mostly because status-conscious Indians don't want to be driving what everyone knows is “the world's cheapest car.”

And here's the link to Dhume's excellent piece in Foreign Policy about Tata's Nano

Liberals to protect CBC! Cuz they did such a good job last time they were in government!

The Liberal Party of Canada is urging Canadians to sign a petition that will tell Stephen Harper to lay off the CBC's budget; that “the Conservatives are using the CBC as a scapegoat for their budget deficits and are breaking their election promise to continue their funding.”

Fans/employees of the CBC may be excused for raising an eyebrow to see the Liberals criticizing any government eyeballing CBC budget cuts as part of a government-wide austerity plan for in 1996, as Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien and his finance minister Paul Martin were trying to dig Canada out from under its biggest debt load (measured relative to GDP), the Liberals imposed drastic cuts on the Crown corporation, chopping $414 million from a budget of what, at that time, was $1.4 billion a year. That's a haircut of close to 30 per cent.

The current Conservative government has asked all government departments, including the CBC, for a plan that would shave 5 per cent of funding and a plan that would cut 10 per cent. The CBC's federal subsidy for this current fiscal year is $1.07 billion. A 10 per cent haircut would amount to little over $100 million, a far cry from what the Liberals did the last time a government was trying to dig itself out of a defict hole.

And if you think the Conservatives are worse than the Libs because the Liberals have an “ideological” bias — ask CBC reporter Terry Milewski how enlightened the Chretien government was about his reporting on Sgt. Pepper at APEC.

Others say the Conservatives promised to maintain or increase CBC's funding during the May 2nd election. If you voted for the Tories based partly on that promise, presumably you hope they'll stick to that promise.

Here's the Liberal Red Book of 1993:

“Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation … illustrate the Tories failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial development … A Liberal government will be committed to stable multi-year financing for national cultural institutions such as .. the CBC.” (p. 88)

Then the Liberals went out and whacked 2,400 jobs at CBC and cut funding by over $400 million.

Here, incidentally, are four years of Liberal governments (Fiscal 1996 through fiscal 1999) that came after the big whack of cuts, an example, presumably of a Liberal government “protecting” the CBC's funding (this from the CBC's own annual report in 1999):

CBC9699

I'm still trying to obtain an apples-to-apples series that would show how much the CBC received from taxpayers for the years 1993 through to now. But, based on CBC's own annual reports and the Main Estimates published by Treasury Board, here's what I've got so far:

In Fiscal 1996 (a reminder that a fiscal year is denominated by the year in which the financial reporting ends. So, as the Government of Canada's financial year ends on March 31, FY 96 refers to the the last nine months of 1995 and the first three months of 1996), Parliament apportioned $1.07 billion to the CBC. That was drastically slashed in FY 97 and FY 98, stayed at that low mark in FY 99 of abotu $760 million and then began a tentative creep up again. By the time the Liberals, then led by Paul Martin, left office in the last fiscal for which they are responsible for (FY 06), the CBC's subsidy totalled just over $1 billion.

So despite: an apology in the 1997 Liberal Red Book for the CBC cuts and a promise to restore funding and several budgetary surpluses in the last years of the Liberal reign that allowed them to book as much as $3 billion in “contingency” money, the Liberals never made good on that 1997 promise to restore funding. And so, after 13 years of Liberal rule, the CBC had less money in absolute terms and a lot less if you pegged it to GDP or some other relative measure.

So how's the Conservative measure? Despite frequent sabre-rattling by Conservative MPs, the Conservatives have not taken the axe to CBC with the same gusto the Liberals did a decade earlier. CBC funding was trimmed by $32 million (3.2%) in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's first fiscal year (FY 07). But then — and there's where I want to double check that a comparison using Treasury Board Estimates against CBC Annual Reports yields accurate results — funding under the Tories jumped in FY 09 nearly 20 per cent to $1.19 billion. But in each fiscal year since then, there has been less and less for the CBC from the Conservatives. Cuts of 3.6% (FY10) , 4.5%(FY11), and, projected for this year, 1.52% will leave it in FY 12 (year end March 31 2012) with a subsidy of $1.07 billion — almost exactly where the CBC was in 1996!

Update: Freelance journalist Justin Ling points me to this: Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has crunched the numbers and adjusted them for inflation and published the following chart which, if you're a fan of CBC, would seem to indicate that it would be tough to trust Liberals or Conservatives to protect CBC funding …

FriendsCBC

Thomas Mulcair jumps into the NDP leadership race with 1/3 of his caucus behind him

There will be many who will wish to diminish the significance of this — not enough MPs from outside Quebec, etc. etc — but when you stand up with more than one-third of your 100+ Parlamentary caucus to run for your party's leadership, that's saying something. And that, folks, was Thomas Mulcair today.

Now, if you believed the whisper campaign that seemed to be afoot in Ottawa, Mulcair was loathed by his parliamentary colleagues. I wasn't prepared to believe this until I heard from at least few actual New Democrats. I have tried my darndest to eavesdrop on as many conversations as I could among NDP MPs and staffers in Ottawa, but so far, I cannot name a single loather. I can find many Conservatives, however, who tell me that they believe Mulcair would likely represent the biggest threat in four years to Prime Minister Harper.

Here is the list, incidentally, of the NDP MPs who have signed on to make Mulcair the first NDP prime minister:

Robert Aubin – Trois-Rivières
Tarik Brahmi – Saint-Jean
Sylvain Chicoine – Châteauguay-Saint-Constant
Anne-Marie Day – Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles
Matthew Dubé – Chambly-Borduas
Pierre-Luc Dusseault – Sherbrooke
Réjean Genest – Shefford
Sadia Groguhé – Saint-Lambert
Dan Harris – Scarborough-South-East
Sana Hassainia – Verchères-Les-Patriotes
Pierre Jacob – Brome-Missisiquoi
Matthew Kellway – Beaches-East York
François Lapointe – Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
Alexandrine Latendresse – Louis-Saint-Laurent
Hélène Leblanc – LaSalle-Emard
Wayne Marston – Hamilton-East-Stoney Creek
Marc-André Morin – Laurentides-Labelle
Marie-Claude Morin – Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot
Pierre Nantel – Longueuil-Pierre-Boucher
Jamie Nicholls – Vaudreuil-Soulanges
José Nunez-Mélo – Laval
Annick Papillon – Québec
Claude Patry – Jonquière-Alma
Manon Perreault – Montcalm
François Pilon – Laval-les-Îles
John Rafferty – Thunder Bay-Rainy River
Mathieu Ravignat – Pontiac
Jean Rousseau – Compton-Stanstead
Djaouida Sellah – Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert
Lise St-Denis – Saint-Maurice-Champlain
PhilipToone – Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
Jonathan Tremblay – Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord

Attention journos: Travers Foreign Corresponding Fellowship now accepting applications

Please pass this around, folks:

R. James Travers Foreign Corresponding Fellowship (deadline Nov. 15, 2011)

The R. James Travers Foreign Corresponding Fellowship was created by friends and colleagues of the late Jim Travers to honour his legacy of critical, conscientious engagement on global issues and Canadian foreign policy by funding a major international reporting project in any medium every year.

Travers worked as the Southam News correspondent in Africa and the Middle East during the 1980s, covering major stories from Apartheid in South Africa and the Ethiopian famine to the conflict in Lebanon and the Iran-Iraq war. Returning to Canada, he continued an influential career as General Manager of Southam News, Editor of the Ottawa Citizen, Executive Managing Editor of the Toronto Star, and finally as an award-winning national affairs columnist known for his compassion and playful wit.

At home and abroad, he had a sharp eye for world news and its domestic implications, and was concerned by the lack of in-depth international coverage in the Canadian media. The Fellowship aims to help fill this void and support those hoping to work in Travers’ tradition.

Applicants with imaginative, innovative perspectives on a wide range of global issues are encouraged to apply.

Terms

A $25,000 award for one year, administered by Carleton University. It is intended to cover the costs of travel, hired equipment and help (photographers, fixers, etc.), and time spent researching, reporting and producing a significant project. The award will not cover the purchase of equipment. Successful applicants are expected to focus exclusively on the fellowship during the period outlined in their proposals and to complete the project by the end of the calendar year in which its awarded.

Publication and / or broadcast of fellowship work will be accompanied by an appropriate credit citing financial support from the R. James Travers Foreign Corresponding Fellowship. While published work shall remain the property of the fellow, Carleton University reserves the right to use completed projects to promote the fellowship.
Fellows are also required, upon completion of their project, to submit reflections for use on the fellowship website.

Eligibility

The fellowship is open to Canadians and non-Canadians holding valid work permits who are working as freelance or full-time journalists in any medium. Students enrolled in graduate-level journalism or equivalent programs are also encouraged to apply.

Ethics

Applicants must agree to abide by the ethics guidelines of the Canadian Association of Journalists and the ethics policy of the Carleton School of Journalism and Communication http://www1.carleton.ca/journalism/ccms/wp-content/ccms-files/EthicsPolicy.pdf

How to Apply

Applicants should compile a package that includes:
· A 750-word story pitch demonstrating command of and insight into the proposed subject area, and touching upon its relevance to a Canadian audience and potential impact on public policy. Proposals dealing with a wide-range of global topics will be considered. Applicants should clearly indicate any current or potential institutional partners associated with the proposal. They should also indicate which medium(s) they intend to work within.
· A one page reporting plan outlining how the work will be researched, produced and published within the calendar year
· A letter from a credible media outlet expressing interest in publishing or broadcasting the finished project
· A detailed budget indicating how the award will be used
· Up to 5 clips or writing samples. Radio, television, and digital media applicants may submit clips in their respective medium
· Curriculum Vitae
· Letters of reference: Applicants are encouraged to include up to three professional letters of reference from a supervising editor familiar with their work. Students must also include a letter of reference from a faculty member speaking to their capacity and preparedness to successfully undertake the project
Please email your application to: traversfellowship@carleton.ca

Application Deadline

November 15, 2011

Selection

Fellows will be chosen by an award committee comprised of faculty members from the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication, the Travers family and a senior journalist. Committee members will give preference to:
· Applicants with an impressive record of achievement commensurate with the stage of their career, as demonstrated by published work of distinction or evidence of significant potential to excel
· Applicants demonstrating a capacity for insightful, independent analysis and creative storytelling
· Proposals that show a strong consideration for social, political or economic justice and that have potential to impact Canadian public policy
· Proposals that address topics relevant to a Canadian audience
· Proposals with a concrete strategy for dissemination and publication, including plans to engage audiences online prior to publication
The fellowship award will be announced by March 2012.

More information

http://www1.carleton.ca/journalism/awards-and-scholarships/r-james-travers-foreign-corresponding-fellowship/

Abacus, Forum did best with Ontario election polls; Ipsos did poorest

Polling firms pay their bills by finding out what people think about things and then selling this information to corporate clients. But if you're a corporate client, how do you know which pollster produces more accurate results? Here's the problem: A toothpaste maker might want to find out if consumers prefer green or yellow packaging and might commission a poll or focus group to find that out. But, of course, there will never be a poll in which all toothpaste buyers participate. You can never for certain if, in fact, green was preferred to yellow. You have to trust the polling firm and its methodology.

But corporate clients looking for polling firms do have one yardstick they can use to measure a prospective firm's method and approach against a poll which includes the entire population that the poll measures. It's called an election. As David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data, the polling firm used by Sun News Network, notes: “It’s the one time we’re held to account for our numbers.”

Polling firms, throughout an election, poll a very small group of voters and then use those results to explain and possibly predict the behaviour of all voters.

During the just-concluded Ontario provincial election, polling methods briefly popped up on the radar because one polling firm, Ipsos Reid, called out other polling firms and journalists in Canada using remarkably strong language. Ipsos executives did not name names but said some of their competitors were “hucksters selling methodological snake oil.” This rather extraordinary letter warned journalists who used these polls that “we are distorting our democracy, confusing voters, and destroying what should be a source of truth in election campaigns – the unbiased, truly scientific public opinion poll.”

Obviously, for polling firms, arguments about who's right or wrong and why are important industry issues. But for the rest of us, we're probably most interested in the bottom line question: Whose poll was closest to the actual outcome? Which “unbiased, truly scientific public opinion poll” most closely matched the results? Well, unfortunately for Ipsos, it was not their poll. In fact, they had the largest variance from the actual results.

Notably, the polling firms that did best against the results used three very different methods. Abacus Data — which was one of the firms that appears to have prompted the outburst from Ipsos Reid — was nearly bang on its final poll and it uses online polling. Forum Research and Ekos were nearly spot-on and they use an automated interactive voice research (IVR) method. Nanos Research nailed Liberal support and was within the margin of error for support for the PCs and NDP using more traditional telephone polling.

Ipsos, too, uses telephone polling, but its last poll of the campaign had the biggest variance with the actual results. They found Liberals leading by 10 points over the Progressives Conservatives, 41 per cent to 31 per cent. By contrast Abacus was alone among the pollsters in calling a three point margin for the Liberals and that, sure enough, was the margin of victory when the votes were counted.

Eric Grenier, who is obsessed (in a good way!) with polling and politics through his excellent 308dotcom project assesses the performance of the pollsters in the election and writes that “ironically, in light of the controversy stirred up in the opening days of the campaign, the two most accurate polls came from the newest firms: Forum Research … and Abacus Data.“

Here's a review of how polling firms did compared to the results:

Polls2

Darrell Bricker, the CEO of Ipsos Reid, has this comment on this chart:

“While the conclusion one could reach from this chart is that certain polls performed better than others in predicting the election outcome, that would only be true if all the surveys were done the same way, on the same days, and had used identical samples. All of these surveys are unique and should only be assessed against their own assumptions, including the appropriate margin of error”.

And here's some other interesting day-after responses from other polling firms:

Abacus: On a roll: Two Election Calls in a Row
- “… Most public opinion researchers did well last night and that is good news for the industry as a whole …”
Angus Reid: Provincial Elections: What We Saw and How We Acted
- “…Our record has proven that online panels—when combined with proper sampling techniques, thorough discipline in questionnaire writing and development, and an openness to work until the final moments of a campaign—can be used to accurately predict the views of the Canadian electorate. In fact, no other company in the country comes close to matching our record of both participation and accuracy…”
Ekos: A Brief Post Mortem on Polling During the Ontario 2011 Election
- “…at EKOS are pleased that not only did we accurately project the popular vote, we believe we did a good job in charting the direction of the election. For instance, we were the first to call a Liberal victory in our September 27th release …”