A blog to give a voice to our concern about the continued erosion of our democratic processes not only within the House of Commons and within our electoral system but also throughout our society. Here you will find articles about the current problems within our parliamentary democracy, about actions both good and bad by our elected representatives, about possible solutions, opinions and debate about the state of democracy in Canada, and about our roles/responsibilities as democratic citizens. We invite your thoughtful and polite comments upon our posts and ask those who wish to post longer articles or share ideas on this subject to submit them for inclusion as a guest post.
Contact us at democracyunderfire@gmail.com

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Policticialy correct or a step backwards?

A group of activists called on the Ontario government to ban the practice of stationing uniformed police officers at high schools across the province after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) voted to permanently end the program...... TDSB staff released a report recommending the elimination of the program because it left some students feeling intimidated or uncomfortable.

So because a few students feel intimidated by police presence this outreach by the police is 'banned'!

The School Resource Officer program, which the TDSB suspended at the end of August, saw police officers deployed at 45 of its high schools in an effort to improve safety and perceptions of police. ........ the majority of those surveyed had a generally positive impression. However, it noted, about 10 per cent felt intimidated, uncomfortable or that they were being watched at school.

Whilst a majority of the students had a positive view of the program the 10 or 15% who did not (supported by a few vocal anti police acctivists) diminish the work done by these officers to improve the relationship between kids and police in these schools.

Rodney Diverlus, a member of Black Lives Matter, said there are better supports for students than having officers in schools.
We believe the removal of the program puts an emphasis on the Ministry of Education to actually give adequate funding to the TDSB and other boards to support in having child and youth workers, equity-based social workers, more guidance counsellors and more time for teachers and teaching staff,” Diverlus said. “A wide range of educators and community-based workers would better support students, student safety and student achievement.”

One cannot disagree that some schools need more resources to guide and support 'troubled' students however to remove the officers from these schools without a viable alternative in place is a step backwards. The idea that school boards already pressed for funds will provide such extra resources in the forseeable future is dreaming in tecniclouur

Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack, however, said the board’s decision did not come as a surprise, adding that he thinks it was politically motivated.
I think there is a lot of value in the program and now that value has been squandered or lost,” “here’s an opportunity to look at that 10 per cent and say, ‘Why do you have these perceptions?’” “For me, someone who has worked in community-based policing, this is the type of group where you want ... to understand what’s going on and you want to improve the relationship,” “For me, someone who has worked in community-based policing, this is the type of group where you want ... to understand what’s going on and you want to improve the relationship,” McCormack said.

Indeed this program appeared to have a positive impact with many kids and seemed to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the youth involved for the most part. Its a shame that a greater effort was not made to address the concerns of the vocal few that did not see it that way without the discontinuation of this attempt to improve the interaction between students and police.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Mixed Messages

Apparently some MPPs who regularly vote for or against long and complex pieces of legislation without fully studying it personally (they all blindly vote much of the time as told to by their leaders) need more time to study a simple bill to enable students whose future employment prospects may well depend upon getting back in the classroom.
Responding to those concerns, the Liberal government attempted to pass the back-to-work legislation on Thursday night using a provision that allows bills with the unanimous consent of all parties to be fast-tracked. The NDP, however, refused to consent to the bill, triggering a debate that will take place at Queen's Park today.“

That whilst questioning why it took so long for the government to take action whilst at the same time delaying the passing of the back to work legislation and vowing to vote against it irregardless even after having had “time to read it” (are they slow readers or what?) its not clear what they want.
Apparently the back-to-work legislation “begs the question of what has been happening for the last five weeks” but said that “her caucus will sit all weekend to ensure that “the government’s conservative-style, anti-worker legislation” isn’t put into place without a fight.”

There are indeed “serious questions” to ask about how the strike stretched on for as long as it did in the first place. As there are for many more strikes effecting public services, most labour strikes in the public sector seem to involve already well paid unionized workers wanting more, more, more, this does not seem to be the care here so the part time instructors may well have a point but holding students hostage is not the best way to resolve the situation.

The collective bargaining process is important. It is a principled process and we need to support it. But I believe that this went on too long and I believe there are some structural things we have to look at it so we are not ever confronted with such a long strike ever again,” Said Wynne, more like a confrontational process with little compromise on the table in most cases!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Internet Echo Chamber

The problem is the explosion of communication means: the internet, social media, 24 hours a day. They have opened access to information to more people than we can say, and that is a good thing. They have enriched and enlarged and broadened the discourse. Democracy and society have always gained from learned debate, whether it is political, or scientific. But we have to remain vigilant. We cannot let ourselves fall into complacency. We must be vocal, all the time, everywhere, every single one of us, so that we can deconstruct misinformation, and don’t end up in an echo chamber where we’re just listening to what we want to hear.
Governor General Julie Payette

Enough said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, November 5, 2017

No One Is Listening

Below a few extracts from the 128 page report by the measuring democracy people at Samara a non-partisan charitable champion of increased civic engagement.

In spring 2017, Samara Canada surveyed Members of the 42nd Parliament to explore the state of heckling and decorum from the perspective of those in the House. The survey reveals that incivility remains a problem. It also suggests that MPs have mixed feelings about heckling. They don’t like the state of debate in Parliament, but they don't want to get rid of heckling entirely either. This is still the case even though they know citizens don't like it.

This report presents the results of a survey of sitting MPs on incivility and particularly the practice of heckling. Firstly, it looks at what’s changed and what remains the same with respect to heckling in the current Parliament. Secondly, it examines three main types of heckling and three main reasons why MPs persist in heckling, despite increased pressure not to. Finally, it makes recommendations about how Parliament can nudge its Members toward the kind of culture change that Canadians want to see—to elevate the debate and foster an environment of dignity and respect............

The parties themselves have also taken action to reduce heckling, with leaders publicly promising more civil debate. However, while this survey found an almost even split between respondents who had been formally advised by their parties on how to deal with heckling (49%) and those who had not (51%), there was a marked partisan difference here: 81% of Liberals, 50% of New Democrats and 22% of Conservatives report being advised by their parties about heckling.

When surveyed, most MPs admitted they do not like heckling, but most MPs heckle. This is the paradox explored in Samara’s previous report “Cheering or Jeering?,” and it holds true here. A little over half of respondents agreed that heckling is “a problem.” Only 16% of respondents said they see heckling as beneficial to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, about two thirds of MPs (65%) admit to having heckled at some point.............
There is a second category of heckling that is more personal. A full 80% of MPs heard Members heckled for their delivery in the House “You’d think it was Grade Five. I don’t think Grade Fives would do that today. But it’s very juvenile behaviour. It’s obnoxious behaviour to be yelling at somebody because they have paused for a second, or misspoken a word, whatever.”

Most commonly, MPs heard colleagues heckled for their idea, comment or question (94%). Most heard MPs heckled for their political party (74%), their ideology (61%) or ethics (58%)............
While a majority of MPs regard heckling in the 42nd Parliament as a problem, they actually express rather nuanced and mixed feelings toward the practice generally. Only 38% would see it abolished outright—although here rookies and veterans part ways once again. Fully half of rookies favour abolishing, versus only 19% of veterans.

A fourth theme illuminated in an open-ended question among heckling’s defenders was that they were merely preserving an important tradition of Westminster parliaments–Parliaments that spring from the British parliamentary tradition, as ours does. One MP waxed poetic: “Keep it clean and respectful … but let it roll on as a magnificent continuation of our Canadian political history and parliamentary tradition.” Another conceded that heckling was unpopular, but suggested that this was because the public did not fully grasp the history and function: “The public likely doesn’t understand that heckling is a long-standing tradition in parliaments across the world.” “The House is not a church or school. Some outbursts are reflective of genuine outrage.” “Until accountability and truthfulness are restored, I don’t think it will stop.”

One MP put a fine point on it: “There are not examples of a Westminster-style parliament where heckling does not occur. If you can’t handle it, you should be looking for another line of work.” While heckling does have a long history in Canada, there is also a long-standing tradition of not heckling in many national legislatures, including the US Congress and most continental European parliaments. There is also no shortage of Westminster parliaments that are similarly respectful—from New Zealand to the Caribbean, regional parliaments in the UK to territorial legislatures in the Canadian North

One of the suggested solutions
MPs, particularly on the backbenches, lack meaningful opportunities to make themselves heard in Parliament. Truly fixing heckling means thinking about procedural fixes to foster a better debate generally. It also means finding new ways to empower backbench MPs.
Currently, questions and answers are limited to 35-seconds during Question Period. MPs must resort to sound bites as a result. If MPs had the time to make their case, or to pin down a perceived falsehood from another Member (for example), then that rationale for heckling disappears.

In total, 84 MPs responded to the survey. At the time of the survey, 338 MPs were sitting in the House.

I do not follow question period or any of the other daily broadcasts on CPAC just the few brief clips of some MPs behavior shown on the evening newscast is enough to turn my stomach, whilst much of the behavior during QP is more for the camera than to actually promote serious discussion of the issues the ability of those who do have the stomach for it to see (actually more hear the background heckling) the proceedings is important. If Canada is not to descend into the same sort of parliamentary dysfunction shown by a number of legislatures in Europe then our MPs must show more respect for each others point of view AND for those who view the proceedings!
Recently a vocal critic of heckling in the House of Commons, (Green Partys Elizabeth) May said there is still too much reading of notes and "bad high school drama" during question period and debates. She credits the Liberals for trying to improve the tone, but said the behaviour of the other opposition parties remains "appalling."

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers