Pre-cabinet post: "On merit", Trudeau could appoint a very qualified 100% female cabinet

First post in a loooong time, but with much discussion about "merit" in regards to Trudeau's gender parity in cabinet commitment I decided to do digging to demonstrate that yes, on merit Trudeau could appoint a 100% female cabinet because of the depth of the Liberal caucus.

Here are some of the names that come up in articles for a Google search for "Trudeau cabinet", the province they represent, and a brief description of their bio:

Full link to image here, with news sources

A list of potential Ministry quality MPs including an RCAF officer, former cabinet ministers, provincial and municipal politicians, high-profile lawyers, businesswomen, doctors, academics, etc.

And this is just what the first couple pages of Google pops up - not including very qualified new Members like another RCAF and businesswoman Leona Alleslev, community activist Bardish Chagger, Oakville town councillor Pam Damoff, Health Service Officer Bernadette Jordan, experienced lawyers like Eva Nassif and many more.

Excited to see who makes up a new Trudeau cabinet tomorrow!

Photos from Mississauga-Lakeshore Day of Action

Haven't posted in a bit, but I certainly been busy with Liberal volunteerism!

I've been helping to run canvassing for the great Liberal candidate in my home riding of Mississauga-Lakeshore, Sven Spengemann. Here are a couple photos from today's Day of Action:

We've been going out pretty regularly, and hearing from lots of past Conservative voters in this swing seat that they want change.

Give Sven a Like on Facebook and a Follow on Twitter to a support a great candidate in a crucial seat.

Good article on "vetting" and opposition research - don't embarrass the team

Wanted to share this post by former Alberta NDP candidate Marc Power discussing the political vetting process for candidates. As someone who used to do exactly the kind of opposition research Mr. Power talks about in the post, I found it an interesting perspective.

Mr. Power also talks about how important the role of "the team" is in modern politics, and how one individual candidate who has a scandal emerge that could have otherwise been caught in background vetting can knock an entire election campaign off-track, most notably the case of Allan Hunsperger, the anti-gay "Lake of Fire" Wildrose candidate whose past homophobic remarks surfaced during the 2012 Alberta provincial election. The remarks were widely seen as a turning point in that campaign, allowing the Redford PC's to successfully paint Wildrose as being out of touch with modern Alberta.

Given that recent events have thrown the very future existence of the Wildrose Party into doubt, here is a great political what if - If Wildrose vetters had caught Hunsperger's comments and disallowed him as a candidate, would Wildrose have won that election? If instead of crossing the floor with most of her caucus, would Danielle Smith be Premier today?

Vetting matters folks.

#BellLetsTalk about mental health in politics

Connecting back to my last post, today is a big day for online, hashtag activism: #BellLetsTalk day. For every tweet tagged with the hashtag, Bell will donate 5 cents towards mental health services.

It's a good cause to raise awareness and start discussions towards mental health, but it is take a critical eye towards what is also a giant PR campaign for a huge teleco. I don't discourage people from tweeting with the hashtag, but I also encourage people to find and share some people with critical views on it, and make sure that we talk about mental health more than just one day a year.

That being said, I wanted to use the opportunity of today to discuss mental health in professional politics. Mental health issues are something that many people who work in politics experience, just like everyone does, but because of the nature of the work, people are particularly reluctant to speak out about it.

This needs to change. Politics and political staffing can be incredibly stressful and trying, as people work ridiculous hours to try and accomplish goals for a cause or a party they believe in - and a lot of the time, they aren't going to succeed thanks to the whims of the electorate. Everyone who has worked in politics has heard rumours and gossip about someone "taking personal time", "getting burnt out" or "is dealing with some stuff" or one of any other ways people avoid talking about a difficult subject. Those of us who are the activists, are the staffers, and are the politicians themselves have a responsibility to be more open and more supportive with each other and to help others who are facing the struggle with mental health issues.

Bob Rae deservedly won praise for talking about his experiences with mental health and we need to follow in his example. If you care about politics and you're reading this, I encourage you to both examine yourself and see if you need some self-care, and to be more caring about the mental health of your co-workers or fellow volunteers. This is something that should cut across party lines, and lead to a better environment for politics in Canada.

Many Canadians aren't voting, particularly young Canadians. Why? Because politics moves slowly.

This article on the ongoing decline in Canadian voter participation, particularly by youth in the Globe today by Michael Adams, President of the Environics Institute for Survey Research and  Maryantonett Flumian, President of the Institute on Governance  has been shared by more than a few people I know on Facebook, so I thought I would share my thought on the subject and some of the ideas the article raises.

"One reason for declining turnout is a deep shift in social values away from deference to institutional authority. It used to be that if society’s leaders told us to do something, we did as we were told. Now people are more likely to make personal calculations about whether voting is worth the effort. Canadians are also less driven by a sense of duty than they once were. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians over 60 say voting is a duty; 48 per cent of those 18 to 39 agree."

The decline in voter turnout over the past several decades is an inarguable fact, in large part driven by the continuing low turnout of Canadians under the age of 40. An interesting idea, however, is that while Canadians have turned away from voting as duty that must be done in service, Canadians do seem to still be engaged in voluntary civic activity that could be described as informal activism, compared to the "hard" activism of casting a ballot:

"Indeed, recent research conducted by the Environics Institute as part of the biennial Americas Barometer survey, supported by the Ottawa-headquartered Institute on Governance, found Canadians expressing civic engagement in a number of ways besides voting. These included signing petitions, sharing political information online, and participating in demonstrations and protests."

A couple of thoughts: One, I think the relationship between these two sets of data (declining voter turnout but a continuing level of engagement in politics and public affairs being expressed through other, more informal activity) is a point against mandatory voting, a potential idea the authors float in the piece. Introducing mandatory voting would be a way to bootstrap voter turn out for sure, but given that Canadians are turning away from voluntary voting when cast as a duty, I have serious doubts it would improve the actual character of Canadian politics. (I'm also going to take this opportunity to shameless promote improving civic education, an issue I have heavily advocated for and engaged with as readers of this space would know).

The other thought that I have related to casual vs formal political engagement, particularly as it relates to youth. When you sign a petition, go to a rally, share something on Facebook, re-tweet something, or yes, write a blog, you get an immediate result, some emotional fulfillment that you have done something. People might like the post, re-tweet it to others, post a photo of going to a rally, etc. It gives you an immediate return on the emotional investment you put into it. It feels good to do these things, and they are relatively simple and time effective ways to help promote a cause you feel inclined towards.

If you are effective enough, or the enough people are a part of the same cause, you can even get some pretty tangible results from casual activism, particularly since online activism happens in real time and can snowball pretty quickly. We've seen this happen enough times that I don't have to link a particular example even; a person, brand, company etc sends out an insensitive tweet, says something discriminatory, etc. It gets publicized, hundreds of thousands of people tweet, Facebook, blog or something else the dismay and condemnation towards this, and the offending party issues an apologize, removes a social media manager, or announces a change in policy. I'm honestly not demeaning those who engage in a lot of political activity and activism online, since it can in fact have a pretty quick result. You see something you don't like, you share a message publicizing the offending content or spreading a message, which lets you feel like even as an individual you are part of a greater cause, and not infrequently, you actually get a tangible reaction.

Compare that to the relatively more glacial pace of "hard" activism in politics and government. Bills go through multiple readings, go to committee, and can take years to be fully implemented, and that's just on the government side. Within political parties, ideas can take years to gain popular support and become politically acceptable enough to become official party policy.

Right now, I have plenty of things that I'm annoyed at about the Harper government. Using the traditional tools of formal political engagement, what are my options. Well, I'm helping out my local Liberal candidate, encouraging people to read up on him, and consider voting for him...in an election that is scheduled to happen 8 months from now. And even if I do manage to change to minds of a lot of people at the doors, we have a majority government federally right now, so if the Conservatives just want to try and ride out the storm and push whatever issue and policy forward, they're fully capable and entitled to under out parliamentary system. 

Sure, occasionally we've seen public opposition ferment to the degree that the Conservatives have had to back track or change course on a handful of initiatives such as the Fair Elections Act and potentially Veterans Affairs, but by and large in a majority government, the ruling party can do whatever they please as long as they keep at least a certain segment of the electorate onside, regardless of how loud those who are in opposition howl, or tweet, or blog, protest or petition. (I'm using the Conservatives as a punching bag, but I'm take my partisan hat off as the core concept remains the same regardless of which party holds power.)

So with that in mind, what can political parties and "traditional" political activists like myself do?

I think blending the ideas of formal and informal activism, through use of national days of action to train volunteers outside of an election period, but also things like internal petitions and social media teams are important. These are both ideas that have been developed in large part from the Obama campaign and brought north. While constant emails from parties can get annoying sometimes, you wouldn't get them so constantly if they weren't effective at engaging you in between elections.

I also think this should be a lesson to parties and activists to push to make sure they are responsive and relevant to the issues that people care about, as opposed to scandal mongering whatever happens to be the issue of the day. This is something that, to be frank, in the run up to the last federal election I think the opposition did too much, and it allowed Harper is position himself as "the only leader focused on jobs and the economy", with a similar scenario I think playing out in Ontario with Hudak's relentless focus on smearing the government when people had in large part moved on and wanted to hear what parties said on other issues. 

Ensuring parties themselves are open is also important to make sure people's itch of engagement is scratched. The introduction of the supporter category during the federal Liberal leadership was a good first step, but personally I wouldn't be opposed to going a step further and letting supporters vote in nomination meetings.

If we are, as Susan Delacourt suggests in Shopping for Votes, that Canadians are taking a more consumer based approach to politics, Canadian political parties can't afford to overlook the importance of instant gratification in appealing to both the population as a whole and potential volunteers and activists. 

Mississauga Ward 4 by-election had been called for April 27th! Check out Joe Horneck's campaign website and support a strong voice for transit!TodayT

Last month, I wrote about how I thought Joe Horneck would be a strong addition to Mississauga city council with an upcoming by-election for Ward 4 in downtown Mississauga.

With Mississauga Council calling the by-election today for April 27th, I encourage you to check out Joe's website and get involved with his campaign if you're in the Mississauga area. Mississauga needs a strong voice for transit and city-building now more than ever.

Joe Horneck would be strong addition to Mississauga City Council

It was a great personal experience to serve as Alvin Tedjo's campaign manager in Mississauga Ward 2 this fall, one that really made me think about the future of my hometown as it builds an independent identity for itself.

With that in mind, some interesting things have happened since the municipal election. Long-time City Councillor Frank Dale was elected as Peel Regional Chair, and as such, a by-election is happening in his former Ward 4.

While a number of candidates have put their name forward, I believe Joe Horneck is by far the best candidate for the future of Mississauga.

Joe has a strong, progressive and urban vision for Mississauga:

As co-chair of the western summit’s report, Unlocking Our Gridlock Together, A Citizens' Report on Transit, Horneck has been an effective advocate for action on an issue that needs all the action it can get. He’s quite comfortable being dubbed “the transit candidate.”...

He’s an unabashed supporter of the Hurontario LRT and says an integrated hub at the Cooksville GO Station could be a catalyst that’s required for the economic stimulation of that corner of the ward.

“If we can get a mix of private and public sector investments coming together around the transit hubs, it spills into the neighbourhoods around it,” he says.

I encourage you to follow Joe on Twitter and get involved in his campaign.