Monday, December 31, 2007
Happy New Year!
I would just like to wish the entire world a happy new year! This greeting encompasses my political opponents. Happy new year to everyone including my political opponents. All the best to everyone in 2008!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Larry O'Brien and Jim Jones
Recently, Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien was charged by the OPP with attempted bribery. O’Brien allegedly attempted to bribe a rival candidate to drop out of the mayoral race in exchange for certain items – one of which was allegedly an appointment to the National Parole Board of Canada, to be done by the Conservative government. This allegation got federal Environment Minister John Baird caught up in the controversy. Several Liberals called for Baird’s resignation in Question Period before the holidays. However, the OPP has said they no longer have any investigative interest in Baird. Baird has also always been clear that no such appointment was ever discussed with anyone. I am a Liberal, but I am willing to give Baird the benefit of the doubt. Because O’Brien is innocent until proven guilty, I feel he may stay on as mayor as long as he is not found guilty. If found guilty, he may feel compelled to resign. In such a case he may be required to resign depending on the severity of his sentence. If O’Brien resigns in 2008, there is still time for a by-election for the Ottawa mayoralty. If there is a by-election, I would want the runner-up from the 2006 race, Alex Munter, to run. I’d expect him to be the frontrunner in such a race unless one of the city councilors was to run. If councilors were to run in a by-election, it would give them a unique opportunity to run for mayor without putting their council seats on the line. In a regular election, councilors cannot run simultaneously for council and mayor. But at the same time councilors are not required to resign their existing council positions to run for mayor. In a mayoral by-election, councilors could retain their seats while running and only have to give up their council seats if elected mayor.
Mentioning this topic compels me to mention a slightly similar situation that has occurred in my home town of Markham, Ontario. Markham Regional Councilor Jim Jones pled guilty to assault on November 22 for an assault that occurred in February of this year. Mr. Jones grabbed a maid at a hotel in Niagara-on-the-Lake where he was staying for a Town Council retreat. Jones was lying on his bed. Jones said “Kiss me” to the maid and grabbed her without permission. The maid left the room shocked and called police. The police came and charged Jones with sexual assault. The charge was later downgraded to regular assault which Jones pled guilty to. Jones states that what he did was a major error in judgment. Jones was given a year’s worth of probation and several hours of community service as a sentence. Markham Town Council in response to Jones’ conviction requested Jones’ resignation as a councilor. Jones refused to resign. Town Council did however accept Jones’ resignation as Markham Deputy Mayor. The Town also stripped Jones of all committee chairmanships. The Town asked the Regional Council to take similar disciplinary action. Indications are that some councilors are now going to feel uncomfortable working with Jones in light of his conviction. Markham now has no Deputy Mayor but Regional Councilor Jack Heath stands to become Deputy Mayor because he received the second most number of votes in the 2006 Regional Council election. Since Jones was innocent until proven guilty, the Town did not request his resignation until after he was convicted. I believe that was the proper way to go about it. In this day and age, unwanted kissing and grabbing are serious matters. Jones should consider what is best and resign if he feels that his continued presence on council will make things too awkward.
I feel that Jones conviction has essentially ended Jones political career. In the 2010 election, I do not think Jones could get the most number of votes for Regional Council let alone the fourth most number of votes for the 4 spot election. But our political system allows Jones to continue in office until December 2010. He can then choose to not run for re-election if he wants to avoid a likely defeat. Whether he runs again or not, he will be eligible for a severance package in either defeat or retirement.
In conclusion, I hold out hope that Alex Munter or someone progressive like him can become the next Mayor of Ottawa.
Mentioning this topic compels me to mention a slightly similar situation that has occurred in my home town of Markham, Ontario. Markham Regional Councilor Jim Jones pled guilty to assault on November 22 for an assault that occurred in February of this year. Mr. Jones grabbed a maid at a hotel in Niagara-on-the-Lake where he was staying for a Town Council retreat. Jones was lying on his bed. Jones said “Kiss me” to the maid and grabbed her without permission. The maid left the room shocked and called police. The police came and charged Jones with sexual assault. The charge was later downgraded to regular assault which Jones pled guilty to. Jones states that what he did was a major error in judgment. Jones was given a year’s worth of probation and several hours of community service as a sentence. Markham Town Council in response to Jones’ conviction requested Jones’ resignation as a councilor. Jones refused to resign. Town Council did however accept Jones’ resignation as Markham Deputy Mayor. The Town also stripped Jones of all committee chairmanships. The Town asked the Regional Council to take similar disciplinary action. Indications are that some councilors are now going to feel uncomfortable working with Jones in light of his conviction. Markham now has no Deputy Mayor but Regional Councilor Jack Heath stands to become Deputy Mayor because he received the second most number of votes in the 2006 Regional Council election. Since Jones was innocent until proven guilty, the Town did not request his resignation until after he was convicted. I believe that was the proper way to go about it. In this day and age, unwanted kissing and grabbing are serious matters. Jones should consider what is best and resign if he feels that his continued presence on council will make things too awkward.
I feel that Jones conviction has essentially ended Jones political career. In the 2010 election, I do not think Jones could get the most number of votes for Regional Council let alone the fourth most number of votes for the 4 spot election. But our political system allows Jones to continue in office until December 2010. He can then choose to not run for re-election if he wants to avoid a likely defeat. Whether he runs again or not, he will be eligible for a severance package in either defeat or retirement.
In conclusion, I hold out hope that Alex Munter or someone progressive like him can become the next Mayor of Ottawa.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Westmount—Ville-Marie and other ridings
My previous post discusses Westmount—Ville-Marie. The latest rumor is that a municipal councilor will run for the NDP in Westmount—Ville-Marie. I think municipal councilors may have a greater success rate in Quebec than in Ontario when it comes to seeking higher office. Recent examples of Ontario municipal politicians seeking higher office have had mixed results. At most, municipal councilors in Ontario only have about a 50/50 chance of succeeding at winning higher office. For example, the very popular David Shiner went down to a decisive defeat in Willowdale in the recent provincial election. However, Liberal Joe Dickson, who was an Ajax councilor, won a decisive victory in Ajax—Pickering. There was the occasional Green candidate who was a municipal councilor and they all went down to defeat. A Cornwall councilor, Tory Chris Savard, went down to a 10-point defeat in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was by far the strongest Tory riding federally to go Liberal provincially in the 2007 provincial election. I always thought this riding would go Liberal in the provincial election, but the strong Tory federal results made Milton Chan at electionprediction.com think otherwise and thus Chan predicted a Tory win in the riding. I was glad when the Liberals won Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. It keeps Cornwall’s Liberal streak going provincially. Cornwall has been represented by a Liberal provincially continuously since 1987. Prior to that, the riding of Cornwall was represented by the Tories for two years. Prior to that Cornwall was actually represented by the NDP. I wonder whether Mike Harris’ decision to abolish all provincial ridings and adopt the federal boundaries was a move designed to benefit the Tories. One thing it did was remove some political clout from the City of Toronto. Under the 130 seat distribution, the Metro Toronto (as it was called at the time) had 23% of the province’s seats. Under the 103 seat distribution, the former Metro Toronto had 21% of the province’s seats. I think this served the Harris anti-Toronto agenda quite nicely. Because of the switch to federal boundaries, Cornwall is no longer sure to be represented by a Liberal provincially. The reason for this is that rural areas now covered in the amalgamated riding are strongly Tory. This however, has yet to deny Cornwall Liberal representation in any of the 3 elections in which federal boundaries have been used. But Cornwall almost lost Liberal representation in 1999 when the Liberals won the riding by only 600 votes. That particular election was an example of strategic voting that worked. The NDP vote was very low in this riding that election. It was so low that it was one of the rare occasions when 46% of the vote was not enough to win. Instead, the Liberals beat the Tories 47.99% to 46.47%. This 46.47% was higher than the province-wide Tory average and yet the Tories still lost. The strategic voting in this riding did not prevent a Tory majority government but it was enough to keep Cornwall red.
Speaking of electoral districts, Tory MPP Norm Sterling is very strongly against the arrangement whereby 10 Northern Ontario electoral districts keep the 1996 federal boundaries, Parry Sound—Muskoka becomes a hybrid of both 1996 and 2004 federal boundaries, and the rest of the province adopts the 2004 federal boundaries. Sterling says that this gives Northern Ontario too much voting clout. What Sterling does not acknowledge is that under his government, Ontario moved to a 103 electoral district system where Northern Ontario’s per-riding population was back than quite a bit less than the per-riding population of Southern Ontario. To the best of my knowledge Sterling did not object to that arrangement then. Even in the days of having 130 MPPs, many Northern Ontario ridings were significantly smaller in population than those elsewhere in the province. All the McGuinty government did was prevent an electoral district from being eliminated in Northern Ontario which would have created crises for numerous incumbents. McGuinty instead said that we can afford to give Northern Ontario a bit more clout at the provincial level than at the federal level because Northern Ontario is important and disadvantaged and has too often been neglected in the past. I think of keeping the extra seat as a compensation for these disadvantages that Northern Ontario has faced.
Adopting the Northern Ontario federal boundaries would have been disastrous for incumbents. Who knows who would have won the Nippising—Timiskaming riding. That is anyone’s guess. Nickel Belt would likely have had an NDP win, possibly larger, possibly narrower. Sault Ste. Marie would have been a Liberal win. Sudbury would have been a Liberal win. Algoma-Manitoulin—Kapaskuing is anyone’s guess. It may well have gone NDP under the federal boundaries. Tamiskaming—Cochrane would have been eliminated and David Ramsay would have been without a seat. He would have been forced to retire or run in Timmins-James Bay against Gilles Bisson. Ramsay would have for certain lost that contest. Thunder Bay—Superior North would have gone Liberal. Thunder Bay—Rainy River would likely have gone NDP whether or not Howard Hampton was the candidate there. You see, the federal redistribution put Howard’s hometown of Rainy River into Thunder Bay—Rainy River. So Howard may have run in Thunder Bay—Rainy River instead of the new Kenora riding. As it happened, Liberal incumbent Bill Mauro won Thunder Bay—Atikokan by only 50 votes. I would consider Hampton’s hometown a strong NDP area provincially. And thus I expect that had the federal boundaries been in place, the NDP would have won Thunder Bay—Rainy River whether Hampton was running there or in the Kenora riding. As for the Kenora riding itself, it is hard to say. Kenora is Liberal federally, with the Tories in second and the NDP a few hundred votes behind the Tories in third. If Hampton were to have run there it would have gone easily NDP. If Hampton had run in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Kenora still probably would have gone NDP but could have gone Liberal especially if former Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash had attempted a comeback.
Norm Sterling’s solution is to abolish all Ontario ridings and start from scratch, guaranteeing Northern Ontario 11 ridings. This would mean redrawing all ridings and wiping the political map clean. I do not agree with doing this, at least not until after the 2011 federal redistribution. I feel the current boundaries should be used for the 2011 election. After that, if we are unhappy with the new federal boundaries because they do not suit Ontario as a whole or Northern Ontario, then we can consider wiping the map clean and creating our own electoral boundaries.
Speaking of electoral districts, Tory MPP Norm Sterling is very strongly against the arrangement whereby 10 Northern Ontario electoral districts keep the 1996 federal boundaries, Parry Sound—Muskoka becomes a hybrid of both 1996 and 2004 federal boundaries, and the rest of the province adopts the 2004 federal boundaries. Sterling says that this gives Northern Ontario too much voting clout. What Sterling does not acknowledge is that under his government, Ontario moved to a 103 electoral district system where Northern Ontario’s per-riding population was back than quite a bit less than the per-riding population of Southern Ontario. To the best of my knowledge Sterling did not object to that arrangement then. Even in the days of having 130 MPPs, many Northern Ontario ridings were significantly smaller in population than those elsewhere in the province. All the McGuinty government did was prevent an electoral district from being eliminated in Northern Ontario which would have created crises for numerous incumbents. McGuinty instead said that we can afford to give Northern Ontario a bit more clout at the provincial level than at the federal level because Northern Ontario is important and disadvantaged and has too often been neglected in the past. I think of keeping the extra seat as a compensation for these disadvantages that Northern Ontario has faced.
Adopting the Northern Ontario federal boundaries would have been disastrous for incumbents. Who knows who would have won the Nippising—Timiskaming riding. That is anyone’s guess. Nickel Belt would likely have had an NDP win, possibly larger, possibly narrower. Sault Ste. Marie would have been a Liberal win. Sudbury would have been a Liberal win. Algoma-Manitoulin—Kapaskuing is anyone’s guess. It may well have gone NDP under the federal boundaries. Tamiskaming—Cochrane would have been eliminated and David Ramsay would have been without a seat. He would have been forced to retire or run in Timmins-James Bay against Gilles Bisson. Ramsay would have for certain lost that contest. Thunder Bay—Superior North would have gone Liberal. Thunder Bay—Rainy River would likely have gone NDP whether or not Howard Hampton was the candidate there. You see, the federal redistribution put Howard’s hometown of Rainy River into Thunder Bay—Rainy River. So Howard may have run in Thunder Bay—Rainy River instead of the new Kenora riding. As it happened, Liberal incumbent Bill Mauro won Thunder Bay—Atikokan by only 50 votes. I would consider Hampton’s hometown a strong NDP area provincially. And thus I expect that had the federal boundaries been in place, the NDP would have won Thunder Bay—Rainy River whether Hampton was running there or in the Kenora riding. As for the Kenora riding itself, it is hard to say. Kenora is Liberal federally, with the Tories in second and the NDP a few hundred votes behind the Tories in third. If Hampton were to have run there it would have gone easily NDP. If Hampton had run in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Kenora still probably would have gone NDP but could have gone Liberal especially if former Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash had attempted a comeback.
Norm Sterling’s solution is to abolish all Ontario ridings and start from scratch, guaranteeing Northern Ontario 11 ridings. This would mean redrawing all ridings and wiping the political map clean. I do not agree with doing this, at least not until after the 2011 federal redistribution. I feel the current boundaries should be used for the 2011 election. After that, if we are unhappy with the new federal boundaries because they do not suit Ontario as a whole or Northern Ontario, then we can consider wiping the map clean and creating our own electoral boundaries.
Unthinkable but true
Well, the unthinkable has occurred. Lucienne Robillard has announced that she will resign her Montreal seat on January 25, two years and two days since she won the 2006 election. She has given no reason for her abrupt decision to resign. Months ago she had already announced that she would not run again. That is why they nominated Marc Garneau in her riding. I do not know whether Robillard thought that there would not be a spring election so she had to resign now. The media treats a spring election as a near certainty. I am inclined to agree with the media on this one even though I do not like it. I am a Liberal, but not all Liberals seem to have realized that an election a few months from now is likely counterproductive for the Liberals. I do not see ourselves in any more of a position to win then than we are now. Liberals were recently talking boldly about defeating the government on their own non-confidence motion initiative in the new year. However, even if they were given the opportunity to do this, my guess is the non-confidence motion would not pass. My guess is the Bloc would vote against it so that they could pass judgment on the 2008 budget before making a decision on whether to the defeat the government. But it is the 2008 budget that makes me think a spring election likely. I see it as very difficult for this parliament to survive the 2008 budget. The Liberals do not want to keep abstaining and the Bloc already yanked their support of the government this autumn. I see it as unlikely that the Bloc would go back to supporting the government because this fall Duceppe seemed quite enthusiastic about an election despite the fact that it would cause the Bloc to lose seats. The only way an election can be avoided is if the Liberals are around 10 points or even more behind in the polls. In that case, we might see the Liberals abstaining or registering only token votes against the budget. This makes a Westmount—Ville-Marie by-election unlikely. Westmount—Ville-Marie is a target riding for the NDP, especially in a by-election. This is due to the 15% the NDP received there in the last election. However, Westmount—Ville-Marie was always a stronger Liberal riding than Outremont as far back as the Chrétien glory days. The Liberals got 45% there in the last election, compared with 35% in Outremont.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Minimum Wage Bill
Last Thursday there was a vote at second reading in the Ontario Legislature on Cheri DiNovo’s reintroduced private member’s bill to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. The Bill was defeated 33-11. Almost 60% of the House was absent. There were so few Liberals present that had enough opposition members been there, and had it been a matter of confidence, the government could have been defeated. The government whip’s job is to ensure that such an occurrence never happens. For a majority government to have what I call a guaranteed majority, a certain minimum of government members must be present. This minimum is one more than the total number of opposition members in existence combined. Any less than this and the government can be outvoted. I have looked at numerous House votes both federal and provincial and I have seen that on some occasions the total number of voting government members is less than the guaranteed majority number. My assumption is that in these instances, the whip also counts how many opposition members are present. If the opposition number is insufficient, I can assume the vote proceeds and the government maintains a relative majority for that particular vote. The government whip’s job is to count both government and opposition members present to ensure that the government never loses a crucial vote of any kind.
I have gotten off topic. I wanted to say that my position on the minimum wage has not changed. I do not support Cheri DiNovo’s Bill and instead support the government’s plan to continue to incrementally increase the minimum wage. One Liberal MPP, Tony Ruprecht, voted in favour of the Bill. This is consistent with his statement during the election that he supports an immediate 10 dollar minimum wage. Considering the poverty levels that exist in his riding of Davenport, I do not blame him at all for his position. I feel like listing here the recorded division on DiNovo’s Bill:
In Favour:
Bisson
DiNovo
Gélinas
Hampton
Horwath
Kormos
Marchese
Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek)
Prue
Ruprecht
Tabuns
Against:
Aggelonitis
Arthurs
Balkissoon
Broten
Brownell
Chudleigh
Colle
Delaney
Dhillon
Dickson
Flynn
Gerretsen
Hardeman
Hoy
Jones
Klees
Kwinter
Lalonde
Leal
Levac
Mitchell
Moridi
Naqvi
Ramsay
Rinaldi
Savoline
Scott
Sergio
Shurman
Smith
Van Bommel
Wilkinson
Wilson
I have gotten off topic. I wanted to say that my position on the minimum wage has not changed. I do not support Cheri DiNovo’s Bill and instead support the government’s plan to continue to incrementally increase the minimum wage. One Liberal MPP, Tony Ruprecht, voted in favour of the Bill. This is consistent with his statement during the election that he supports an immediate 10 dollar minimum wage. Considering the poverty levels that exist in his riding of Davenport, I do not blame him at all for his position. I feel like listing here the recorded division on DiNovo’s Bill:
In Favour:
Bisson
DiNovo
Gélinas
Hampton
Horwath
Kormos
Marchese
Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek)
Prue
Ruprecht
Tabuns
Against:
Aggelonitis
Arthurs
Balkissoon
Broten
Brownell
Chudleigh
Colle
Delaney
Dhillon
Dickson
Flynn
Gerretsen
Hardeman
Hoy
Jones
Klees
Kwinter
Lalonde
Leal
Levac
Mitchell
Moridi
Naqvi
Ramsay
Rinaldi
Savoline
Scott
Sergio
Shurman
Smith
Van Bommel
Wilkinson
Wilson
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Put an end to this controversy
I've received a comment from Jeanne Krieber-Dion herself. She sounds unhappy with me. So this message is to Jeanne:
I feel like I've gotten off to a bad start with you. I have a lifelong commitment to politics so we may meet in person someday. That is why I want to correct the problems that have occurred. My opinion about double-barreled last names is my PERSONAL opinion. Anybody is entitled to take double-barreled last names and I have no problem with it. I still believe that the traditional method of assigning last names based on the father is discriminatory, however. I do not want you or anyone else to be upset over the mistake I made on June 2nd so I am soon to go and edit the offending mistake out of that post. If I've offended you, Jeanne, I wholeheartedly apologize. I do not want to be in the bad books of the daughter of a future Prime Minister and I do not want you to misjudge me based on one factual error that I made. So again I am sorry to you and everyone about the mistake.
Sincerely,
Brendan
I feel like I've gotten off to a bad start with you. I have a lifelong commitment to politics so we may meet in person someday. That is why I want to correct the problems that have occurred. My opinion about double-barreled last names is my PERSONAL opinion. Anybody is entitled to take double-barreled last names and I have no problem with it. I still believe that the traditional method of assigning last names based on the father is discriminatory, however. I do not want you or anyone else to be upset over the mistake I made on June 2nd so I am soon to go and edit the offending mistake out of that post. If I've offended you, Jeanne, I wholeheartedly apologize. I do not want to be in the bad books of the daughter of a future Prime Minister and I do not want you to misjudge me based on one factual error that I made. So again I am sorry to you and everyone about the mistake.
Sincerely,
Brendan
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Van Loan vs. McGuinty
I am against the federal government proposal to change the formula of seat allocation for the House of Commons. Sadly the proposal short-changes Ontario. I feel it is better to stick to the current formula. Dalton McGuinty and federal Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan have had a surprisingly partisan exchange over this issue – along party lines. I think you can guess which one of the two I agree with – Dalton! If the choice is between further shortchanging Ontario with the seat plan or keeping the status quo’s shortcomings, I’d stick with the status quo. I am hoping the federal Liberals join with the provincial Liberals in fighting against this bill so that Ontario does not get shortchanged more than it already is. This particular bill should not be a matter of confidence because it was not mentioned in the Throne Speech.
I also think it has become clear that as long as the McGuinty government is in power and as long as the Harper government is in power, n’er the twain shall get along. This is also true of PST harmonization. Harmonizing Ontario’s PST to the federal GST would be detrimental to Ontario consumers. It is for this reason that McGuinty is only willing to harmonize the PST on his terms. Without numerous exemptions on various items in a harmonization agreement, McGuinty has said he is not interested. And those exemptions would make it so that it is not harmonization at all. It is for this reason that PST harmonization is unlikely to occur under McGuinty. Also, I know this was four years ago, but I recall that the Eves Tories also did not believe in PST harmonization.
I also think it has become clear that as long as the McGuinty government is in power and as long as the Harper government is in power, n’er the twain shall get along. This is also true of PST harmonization. Harmonizing Ontario’s PST to the federal GST would be detrimental to Ontario consumers. It is for this reason that McGuinty is only willing to harmonize the PST on his terms. Without numerous exemptions on various items in a harmonization agreement, McGuinty has said he is not interested. And those exemptions would make it so that it is not harmonization at all. It is for this reason that PST harmonization is unlikely to occur under McGuinty. Also, I know this was four years ago, but I recall that the Eves Tories also did not believe in PST harmonization.
Friday, November 16, 2007
I understand
I get the point about Jeanne Krieber-Dion's name. However, taking both parents names musn't be mandatory in Quebec or much of the Quebec population would have double-barrelled name.
Baffling question from Wednesday
I have a quick question. Does anybody know why, on Wednesday, the Liberals abstained in the House of Commons on a Bloc Quebecois opposition motion concerning the forestry industry, thus allowing the motion to fail? The motion couldn’t have been a matter of confidence. If they were in favour of it why didn’t they vote for it and if they were against it why didn’t they vote against it?
Friday, November 9, 2007
Speaker of the Legislature
Something odd is occurring. Liberal MPPs are challenging Mike Brown to be Speaker of the Ontario Legislature. The two challenging are Steve Peters and David Zimmer. I find it odd that these two are challenging because both of them have a Parliamentary Assistant position that they would have to give up should they win. This would force a shuffle. I know cabinet ministers are not eligible to run for Speaker. Does this mean, however, that Parliamentary Assistants are allowed to run for Speaker?
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Statements In Brief
I want to make some brief statements:
I liked McGuinty’s new cabinet except I had concerns when he dropped Monte Kwinter and David Ramsay without giving them a PA job to land on.
The Liberals were right to twice abstain on voting to keep the Tories in power. There was an editorial in the Toronto Star on October 31 saying that the Liberals should have defeated the Tories over the mini-budget. I disagree. The Liberals agreed with all the tax cuts except the GST. There was no point in fighting an election over the GST. So twice the Liberals did the right thing.
Source:
Monday, October 22, 2007
PQ gone extremist
I am strongly opposed to a bill on immigration that the PQ has tabled in the Quebec legislature.
Here is what it is:
“Under the proposed law, immigrants who can't speak proper French after an appropriate apprenticeship in provincially funded language courses would be forbidden from running for election in provincial and municipal elections as well as those for school boards.”
If immigrants to Quebec want to run for office, they should obviously be able to speak French. But first they have to become Canadian citizens. That takes 3 years at the minimum. These courses would last 3 years. I do not think taking these courses should be mandatory for immigrants if they want to run for office. Immigrants can learn French on their own. Why should the state forbid immigrants to run for office who learn French on their own without taking the government-controlled courses? I expect the law would get a Charter challenge and be struck down. If a PQ majority government then wants to use the notwithstanding clause, that is their choice but I’d expect it to cause a significant backlash in the rest of Canada as it always does when a Quebec government uses the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. But a PQ majority government could only use the notwithstanding clause if the law were struck down on equality grounds. The court could, should and probably would do something much more powerful. The court could strike down the law (or at least a significant portion of it) using section 3 of the Charter. Section 3 of the Charter is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. Section 3 guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to qualify for membership in the House of Commons or in a legislative assembly. Prisoners don’t qualify even if they are citizens but I’d expect the court to uphold that under Section 1 of the Charter. Now, if a court struck down the proposed law under Section 3 of the Charter, it may only be able to void the restrictions on running for the National Assembly. Because school boards and municipal councils may not count as legislative assemblies, the court may have to leave the restrictions for running for school boards and municipal councils intact. But if the Supreme Court were to strike down the restrictions on running for the National Assembly under Section 3 of the Charter, it would be a significant blow for a PQ government and could not be overturned by the notwithstanding clause.
In short, as I have demonstrated, the bill in question introduced in the National Assembly is unconstitutional.
Also, under this unconstitutional law, would immigrants who already know French upon arriving in Quebec also be forced to take those courses? The article did not say whether the Quebec government or the ADQ supports this bill. I’ve since found out the government does not support this bill. I still don’t know whether the ADQ supports this bill. Because it is a minority government, the bill could conceivably pass without the government’s consent. In a case like this, the premier might have to order the Lieutenant Governor not to give the bill Royal Assent if he opposes it strongly enough.
Also take a look at this quote from the article:
”Among the measures proposed by the PQ are the creation of a Quebec constitution and a certificate of citizenship, the reinforcement of the province's language laws and the revision of the provincial charter of rights.”
What is this “certificate of citizenship”? Is this some kind of Quebec citizenship? If so, I am very strongly opposed to this proposal. Quebec is part of Canada and has no authorization to implement its own citizenship. Any attempt to do so would likely be unconstitutional. This is just one more reason why I don’t want the PQ back in power.
Source:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071019/immigrants_french_071019/20071019?hub=Politics
Here is what it is:
“Under the proposed law, immigrants who can't speak proper French after an appropriate apprenticeship in provincially funded language courses would be forbidden from running for election in provincial and municipal elections as well as those for school boards.”
If immigrants to Quebec want to run for office, they should obviously be able to speak French. But first they have to become Canadian citizens. That takes 3 years at the minimum. These courses would last 3 years. I do not think taking these courses should be mandatory for immigrants if they want to run for office. Immigrants can learn French on their own. Why should the state forbid immigrants to run for office who learn French on their own without taking the government-controlled courses? I expect the law would get a Charter challenge and be struck down. If a PQ majority government then wants to use the notwithstanding clause, that is their choice but I’d expect it to cause a significant backlash in the rest of Canada as it always does when a Quebec government uses the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. But a PQ majority government could only use the notwithstanding clause if the law were struck down on equality grounds. The court could, should and probably would do something much more powerful. The court could strike down the law (or at least a significant portion of it) using section 3 of the Charter. Section 3 of the Charter is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. Section 3 guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to qualify for membership in the House of Commons or in a legislative assembly. Prisoners don’t qualify even if they are citizens but I’d expect the court to uphold that under Section 1 of the Charter. Now, if a court struck down the proposed law under Section 3 of the Charter, it may only be able to void the restrictions on running for the National Assembly. Because school boards and municipal councils may not count as legislative assemblies, the court may have to leave the restrictions for running for school boards and municipal councils intact. But if the Supreme Court were to strike down the restrictions on running for the National Assembly under Section 3 of the Charter, it would be a significant blow for a PQ government and could not be overturned by the notwithstanding clause.
In short, as I have demonstrated, the bill in question introduced in the National Assembly is unconstitutional.
Also, under this unconstitutional law, would immigrants who already know French upon arriving in Quebec also be forced to take those courses? The article did not say whether the Quebec government or the ADQ supports this bill. I’ve since found out the government does not support this bill. I still don’t know whether the ADQ supports this bill. Because it is a minority government, the bill could conceivably pass without the government’s consent. In a case like this, the premier might have to order the Lieutenant Governor not to give the bill Royal Assent if he opposes it strongly enough.
Also take a look at this quote from the article:
”Among the measures proposed by the PQ are the creation of a Quebec constitution and a certificate of citizenship, the reinforcement of the province's language laws and the revision of the provincial charter of rights.”
What is this “certificate of citizenship”? Is this some kind of Quebec citizenship? If so, I am very strongly opposed to this proposal. Quebec is part of Canada and has no authorization to implement its own citizenship. Any attempt to do so would likely be unconstitutional. This is just one more reason why I don’t want the PQ back in power.
Source:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071019/immigrants_french_071019/20071019?hub=Politics
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Ontario Election results
I am ecstatic, elated, and overjoyed. The Liberals did it! They got a second large majority government. And I was right to repeatedly say that the media was always premature in predicting a minority government. Indeed, as I thought before and during the campaign, the Liberal vote is a lot more efficient than the media gave it credit for! The biggest dark spot for me is that Mario Racco lost in Thornhill. Darn it! This makes the seat threatened for the Liberals at the federal level. And I liked Mario Racco. The Liberals easily won Oak Ridges—Markham. But because the Tories won Thornhill, the provincial Liberals for a second time in a row have been denied a clean sweep of the whole of the Town of Markham. That being said, I am quite certain the Town of Markham itself voted over 50% Liberal. But the Tory win in Thornhill doesn’t make it look like Markham was a clean sweep. I am the most disappointed about the Thornhill result.
I don’t know whether Helena Jaczek can actually make it to cabinet now. This is because York Region already has two cabinet ministers in Michael Chan and Greg Sorbara. I certainly hope neither one of those two is demoted to make way for Helena. But if Dalton has a cabinet spot for Helena, that’s great. If not, she can be given an important parliamentary secretary position. I think I understand why the sprawling Oak Ridges—Markham riding is consistently more Liberal that it appears it should be. I think it is because although the majority of land in Oak Ridges—Markham is rural, the majority of voters in Oak Ridges—Markham are suburban. This allows for a more Liberal-friendly voting base. With the win in Oak Ridges—Markham and Richmond Hill, all of the old Oak Ridges, won by Frank Klees in 2003, is now represented by a Liberal both federally and provincially. I’m starting to think that Klees’ win in 2003 was due to personal popularity and that a new Tory candidate in 2003 would have lost in Oak Ridges. Sadly, Klees won narrowly in Newmarket—Aurora. Once again it has to have been personal popularity. I think with a generic Tory candidate, Newmarket—Aurora would have gone Liberal.
Also of note is that this election marks the fourth federal/provincial election in a row that the Liberals have won every single riding in Brampton and Mississauga. It happened previously in 2003, 2004, and 2006. While twice (once federally and once provincially) a member in Brampton/Mississauga crossed the floor to the Tories, it happened in both cases some time after the election. Speaking of which, Tim Peterson running as a Tory was swept from office by a large margin by Liberal Charles Sousa. What this means is that Tim Peterson’s decision to cross the floor cost him his seat. I expect Peterson would have easily won as a Liberal. So if it weren’t for crossing the floor, I think Peterson would still be an MPP.
Another interesting fact – the Liberal, Leeanna Pendergast, unexpectedly won in Kitchener—Conastoga over PC candidate Michael Harris. Michael Harris used to go by Mike Harris, but for the election wanted to distinguish himself from the former Premier. The interesting fact is that now both Liberal Kitchener seats are represented by one family. Pendergast’s sister is married to re-elected Kitchener Centre Liberal MPP John Milloy. In Kitchener—Waterloo, Elizabeth Witmer won for the PCs. But had she not run, I expect the riding would have gone Liberal. Cambridge re-elected PC MPP Gerry Martiniuk by 7% just like in the 2003 election.
A real shocker was that Liberal cabinet minister Caroline Di Cocco lost her seat in Sarnia—Lambton by a fairly wide margin to a Conservative candidate. The NDP candidate shockingly got almost 27%, denying any chance of victory for Di Cocco. Di Cocco was the only cabinet minister defeated. Although Sarnia—Lambton remains a bellwether riding federally, it is not provincially. The Sarnia riding went PC in 1987. And in 1999, Di Cocco won Sarnia—Lambton for the Liberals while Mike Harris formed a majority government. And now Sarnia—Lambton has elected yet another opposition member to Queen’s Park. What this means is that both federally and provincially, Sarnia—Lambton is trending Conservative. The Liberals managed to retain the neighbouring Lambton—Kent—Middlesex by 6.9% with Liberal incumbent Maria Van Bommel. It is quite odd that this rural riding should end up with a lower PC percentage than in the mixed urban/rural riding of Sarnia—Lambton.
John Tory claims to want to stay on as party leader. But how can he do this without a seat? Does he plan to make one of the freshly-elected PC members in a safe seat resign so he can run in a by-election? Surely he can’t expect to lead his party from the gallery for the next four years.
I would like to note with interest that in both ridings where a federal MP was elected as a Liberal but then crossed the floor to the Conservatives (Thunder Bay—Superior North and Mississauga—Streetsville), the provincial Conservatives did very poorly. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if there is retribution happening for the floor-crossing. It didn’t work the other way in Halton. The Liberals almost won Halton against the Tory incumbent. If there had been retribution for Garth Turner crossing to the Liberals, I don’t think there would have been such a strong Liberal showing in Halton.
I am also disappointed that Nerene Virgin didn’t win in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
But the Liberals were not wiped out in Hamilton and retained Hamilton Mountain.
I am happy overall and wish Dalton luck over the next four years.
I don’t know whether Helena Jaczek can actually make it to cabinet now. This is because York Region already has two cabinet ministers in Michael Chan and Greg Sorbara. I certainly hope neither one of those two is demoted to make way for Helena. But if Dalton has a cabinet spot for Helena, that’s great. If not, she can be given an important parliamentary secretary position. I think I understand why the sprawling Oak Ridges—Markham riding is consistently more Liberal that it appears it should be. I think it is because although the majority of land in Oak Ridges—Markham is rural, the majority of voters in Oak Ridges—Markham are suburban. This allows for a more Liberal-friendly voting base. With the win in Oak Ridges—Markham and Richmond Hill, all of the old Oak Ridges, won by Frank Klees in 2003, is now represented by a Liberal both federally and provincially. I’m starting to think that Klees’ win in 2003 was due to personal popularity and that a new Tory candidate in 2003 would have lost in Oak Ridges. Sadly, Klees won narrowly in Newmarket—Aurora. Once again it has to have been personal popularity. I think with a generic Tory candidate, Newmarket—Aurora would have gone Liberal.
Also of note is that this election marks the fourth federal/provincial election in a row that the Liberals have won every single riding in Brampton and Mississauga. It happened previously in 2003, 2004, and 2006. While twice (once federally and once provincially) a member in Brampton/Mississauga crossed the floor to the Tories, it happened in both cases some time after the election. Speaking of which, Tim Peterson running as a Tory was swept from office by a large margin by Liberal Charles Sousa. What this means is that Tim Peterson’s decision to cross the floor cost him his seat. I expect Peterson would have easily won as a Liberal. So if it weren’t for crossing the floor, I think Peterson would still be an MPP.
Another interesting fact – the Liberal, Leeanna Pendergast, unexpectedly won in Kitchener—Conastoga over PC candidate Michael Harris. Michael Harris used to go by Mike Harris, but for the election wanted to distinguish himself from the former Premier. The interesting fact is that now both Liberal Kitchener seats are represented by one family. Pendergast’s sister is married to re-elected Kitchener Centre Liberal MPP John Milloy. In Kitchener—Waterloo, Elizabeth Witmer won for the PCs. But had she not run, I expect the riding would have gone Liberal. Cambridge re-elected PC MPP Gerry Martiniuk by 7% just like in the 2003 election.
A real shocker was that Liberal cabinet minister Caroline Di Cocco lost her seat in Sarnia—Lambton by a fairly wide margin to a Conservative candidate. The NDP candidate shockingly got almost 27%, denying any chance of victory for Di Cocco. Di Cocco was the only cabinet minister defeated. Although Sarnia—Lambton remains a bellwether riding federally, it is not provincially. The Sarnia riding went PC in 1987. And in 1999, Di Cocco won Sarnia—Lambton for the Liberals while Mike Harris formed a majority government. And now Sarnia—Lambton has elected yet another opposition member to Queen’s Park. What this means is that both federally and provincially, Sarnia—Lambton is trending Conservative. The Liberals managed to retain the neighbouring Lambton—Kent—Middlesex by 6.9% with Liberal incumbent Maria Van Bommel. It is quite odd that this rural riding should end up with a lower PC percentage than in the mixed urban/rural riding of Sarnia—Lambton.
John Tory claims to want to stay on as party leader. But how can he do this without a seat? Does he plan to make one of the freshly-elected PC members in a safe seat resign so he can run in a by-election? Surely he can’t expect to lead his party from the gallery for the next four years.
I would like to note with interest that in both ridings where a federal MP was elected as a Liberal but then crossed the floor to the Conservatives (Thunder Bay—Superior North and Mississauga—Streetsville), the provincial Conservatives did very poorly. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if there is retribution happening for the floor-crossing. It didn’t work the other way in Halton. The Liberals almost won Halton against the Tory incumbent. If there had been retribution for Garth Turner crossing to the Liberals, I don’t think there would have been such a strong Liberal showing in Halton.
I am also disappointed that Nerene Virgin didn’t win in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
But the Liberals were not wiped out in Hamilton and retained Hamilton Mountain.
I am happy overall and wish Dalton luck over the next four years.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Marc Garneau, Aileen Carroll and Barrie
I’m disappointed that Marc Garneau will not run in any riding for the Liberals. But then again in the 2006 election he was not the strongest candidate. I just hope to goodness the Liberals have an actual good candidate (hopefully a star candidate) up their sleeves in Westmount—Ville Marie. The important part is that Lucienne Robillard does not quit early. The last thing we need is another Quebec by-election.
In Barrie, I’m surprised how competitive Liberal candidate Aileen Carroll is based on what I have read. I’ve read that she is making Barrie a close race and has a chance to win the riding. For a riding that went so solidly Conservative in 2003, this is surprising. It must just be Carroll’s personal strength as a former MP. If the Liberals are competitive in Barrie, the Liberals just have to be doing relatively well. But we can take nothing for granted. We need to get out every vote possible in every riding. That is hard work but I hope we can do it.
In Barrie, I’m surprised how competitive Liberal candidate Aileen Carroll is based on what I have read. I’ve read that she is making Barrie a close race and has a chance to win the riding. For a riding that went so solidly Conservative in 2003, this is surprising. It must just be Carroll’s personal strength as a former MP. If the Liberals are competitive in Barrie, the Liberals just have to be doing relatively well. But we can take nothing for granted. We need to get out every vote possible in every riding. That is hard work but I hope we can do it.
London--Fanshawe
I found an article written prior to the dropping of the writ about the London—Fanshawe. It deals with constituency flyers mailed out from Liberal MPP Khalil Ramal paid for by taxpayer dollars. The article says as follows:
“The latest Ramal flyer to circulate to homes in the London-Fanshawe riding shows a picture of Ramal shaking hands with London Police Chief Murray Faulkner. The flyer claims Ramal has been a leader in providing significant resources for local policing.”
These flyers were sent out prior to the writ being dropped and therefore were perfectly legal. But that did not stop the riding’s PC candidate, Jim Chapman, from making these allegations that I consider outrageous:
Chapman believes the photo was used without Faulkner's permission and is "in contravention of a long-standing policy against involving law enforcement officers in partisan politics. This suggests a serious ethical lapse on the part of Ramal's handlers," Chapman said, "or a lack of understanding on their part about what's legal and what isn't."
I’d be surprised if the police chief would have agreed to have a picture taken with Ramal unless he accepted the fact that the photo might be used for promotional purposes (anyone getting their picture taken with a politician ought to know that the picture could be used for political purposes). As far as a long-standing policy against involving law enforcement officers in partisan politics, such a convention may exist. However, there is no law against involving law enforcement officers in partisan politics. But even this in this case is a moot point. The flyers were technically pre-writ non-partisan constituency newsletters. And in those non-partisan constituency newsletters, I suspect politicians have their photos taken with police chiefs all the time. Note that the Toronto Police Association publicly endorsed John Tory when he was running for Toronto mayor. As far as “a lack of understanding on their part about what's legal and what isn't” is concerned, it is clear that Ramal’s handlers know perfectly well what is legal and what isn’t. They know there is no law against putting a politician’s photo with a police chief in either a constituency newsletter or campaign material. They also know that issuing constituency newsletters prior to the writ dropping is perfectly legal and that is what they did. Even the NDP candidate for the riding, Stephen Maynard, acknowledged that Ramal broke absolutely no rules. Maynard said so himself in the article.
(http://www.londontopic.ca/article.php?artid=4798)
On a closely related note, London—Fanshawe is one of the strangest ridings in the province. In 1999, the riding should have easily gone Liberal. But the NDP vote was at 24%. This split the vote and allowed the PC candidate to come up the middle with 38%. In 2003, the PC incumbent came in third. It was by far the most 3-way of a race in the province and is likely to be so again this time around. In 2006, the riding went NDP federally in another perfect 3-way race. Current London North Centre Liberal MP Glen Pearson was second and a socially conservative Tory candidate was a very close third. One can compare previous election results in this riding easily because there was no boundary change whatsoever in the Federal 2004/Provincial 2007 redistribution. London—Fanshawe and it’s predecessor ridings were bellwether ridings that voted for the same party as the party winning government every time. This applied both federally and provincially. That is why it was a little bit surprising to see London—Fanshawe to go NDP in the 2006 election because that was the first time in a very, very, very long time since the area had elected an opposition member federally or provincially. So that’s why its outcome provincially is uncertain. Any of the 3 parties could win and some people are banking on an NDP win for the capable but young Stephen Maynard (25). If the riding does go NDP, that will be something. If it goes NDP but if at the same time the province-wide trend is still Liberal, that will be quite amazing. But you never know. The legislature once had a member younger than Maynard. Coincidently he was also from Southwestern Ontario. His name was Kimble Sutherland. He was 24 years old when he was elected in the 1990 Ontario election in a fluke. He was a student-activist type. He agreed to run, never expecting to win. Although he was a passionate New Democrat, he was really only meant as a place-holder for the “un-winnable” Oxford riding. Sutherland was probably as surprised as anyone on election night that he had won. He was a University student at the time. I’m not sure whether he was able to finish his degree while being an MPP. He obviously wasn’t able to win re-election in 1995 but came a credible second. Sutherland may well hold the record for the youngest MP/MPP/MLA/MNA/MHA who happened to be a member of the governing party. Here is an interesting tidbit about Sutherland from Wikipedia:
“He first became active in politics in 1981, when he joined the local NDP riding executive during a provincial campaign.” Sutherland was born in 1966. At the time of the 1981 election, Sutherland was 14. I am not sure whether parties other than the NDP allow 14 year olds to be on a party’s riding executive.
Speaking of people named Sutherland, I can’t believe political icon Kiefer Sutherland has been arrested for DUI. I think this may eliminate the possibility that Kiefer could ever run for political office in Canada. I’m shocked that this happened. I thought Kiefer was an outstanding actor and I can’t believe he did this. At least now he won't run as a star NDP candidate.
“The latest Ramal flyer to circulate to homes in the London-Fanshawe riding shows a picture of Ramal shaking hands with London Police Chief Murray Faulkner. The flyer claims Ramal has been a leader in providing significant resources for local policing.”
These flyers were sent out prior to the writ being dropped and therefore were perfectly legal. But that did not stop the riding’s PC candidate, Jim Chapman, from making these allegations that I consider outrageous:
Chapman believes the photo was used without Faulkner's permission and is "in contravention of a long-standing policy against involving law enforcement officers in partisan politics. This suggests a serious ethical lapse on the part of Ramal's handlers," Chapman said, "or a lack of understanding on their part about what's legal and what isn't."
I’d be surprised if the police chief would have agreed to have a picture taken with Ramal unless he accepted the fact that the photo might be used for promotional purposes (anyone getting their picture taken with a politician ought to know that the picture could be used for political purposes). As far as a long-standing policy against involving law enforcement officers in partisan politics, such a convention may exist. However, there is no law against involving law enforcement officers in partisan politics. But even this in this case is a moot point. The flyers were technically pre-writ non-partisan constituency newsletters. And in those non-partisan constituency newsletters, I suspect politicians have their photos taken with police chiefs all the time. Note that the Toronto Police Association publicly endorsed John Tory when he was running for Toronto mayor. As far as “a lack of understanding on their part about what's legal and what isn't” is concerned, it is clear that Ramal’s handlers know perfectly well what is legal and what isn’t. They know there is no law against putting a politician’s photo with a police chief in either a constituency newsletter or campaign material. They also know that issuing constituency newsletters prior to the writ dropping is perfectly legal and that is what they did. Even the NDP candidate for the riding, Stephen Maynard, acknowledged that Ramal broke absolutely no rules. Maynard said so himself in the article.
(http://www.londontopic.ca/article.php?artid=4798)
On a closely related note, London—Fanshawe is one of the strangest ridings in the province. In 1999, the riding should have easily gone Liberal. But the NDP vote was at 24%. This split the vote and allowed the PC candidate to come up the middle with 38%. In 2003, the PC incumbent came in third. It was by far the most 3-way of a race in the province and is likely to be so again this time around. In 2006, the riding went NDP federally in another perfect 3-way race. Current London North Centre Liberal MP Glen Pearson was second and a socially conservative Tory candidate was a very close third. One can compare previous election results in this riding easily because there was no boundary change whatsoever in the Federal 2004/Provincial 2007 redistribution. London—Fanshawe and it’s predecessor ridings were bellwether ridings that voted for the same party as the party winning government every time. This applied both federally and provincially. That is why it was a little bit surprising to see London—Fanshawe to go NDP in the 2006 election because that was the first time in a very, very, very long time since the area had elected an opposition member federally or provincially. So that’s why its outcome provincially is uncertain. Any of the 3 parties could win and some people are banking on an NDP win for the capable but young Stephen Maynard (25). If the riding does go NDP, that will be something. If it goes NDP but if at the same time the province-wide trend is still Liberal, that will be quite amazing. But you never know. The legislature once had a member younger than Maynard. Coincidently he was also from Southwestern Ontario. His name was Kimble Sutherland. He was 24 years old when he was elected in the 1990 Ontario election in a fluke. He was a student-activist type. He agreed to run, never expecting to win. Although he was a passionate New Democrat, he was really only meant as a place-holder for the “un-winnable” Oxford riding. Sutherland was probably as surprised as anyone on election night that he had won. He was a University student at the time. I’m not sure whether he was able to finish his degree while being an MPP. He obviously wasn’t able to win re-election in 1995 but came a credible second. Sutherland may well hold the record for the youngest MP/MPP/MLA/MNA/MHA who happened to be a member of the governing party. Here is an interesting tidbit about Sutherland from Wikipedia:
“He first became active in politics in 1981, when he joined the local NDP riding executive during a provincial campaign.” Sutherland was born in 1966. At the time of the 1981 election, Sutherland was 14. I am not sure whether parties other than the NDP allow 14 year olds to be on a party’s riding executive.
Speaking of people named Sutherland, I can’t believe political icon Kiefer Sutherland has been arrested for DUI. I think this may eliminate the possibility that Kiefer could ever run for political office in Canada. I’m shocked that this happened. I thought Kiefer was an outstanding actor and I can’t believe he did this. At least now he won't run as a star NDP candidate.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Shook hands with Ed, Hugh, and Kate
On Thursday I got to shake the hands of Ed Broadbent, Hugh Segal, and Kate Holloway. York University hosted a two-hour forum on electoral reform. I only got to see the last 3 minutes. I had class for almost all of it, and then I needed to look up its location and that is how much time was left. As a result I only got to hear Broadbent speak. Interestingly, York didn’t invite a representative of the Green Party to the debate. Broadbent represented the NDP, Segal is a Conservative Senator and so he represented the federal/provincial Tories. Kate Holloway represented the Liberals. In some way, you CAN say the Greens had representation – in Kate Holloway. Holloway was formerly a prominent member of the federal Green Party. Kate was, however, the only representation the Greens got. All 3 of the speakers are in favour of MMP. I enjoyed the part of Broadbent’s speech I heard, but I strongly disagreed with one part of it in particular. Broadbent referred to the 2006 federal election and said that in the City of Toronto the Conservatives received “thousands” of votes but got no seats in the City of Toronto. Broadbent said the votes the Conservatives received in Toronto should have gotten them seats. I disagree with this. The Conservatives only got about 20% of the vote in the City of Toronto. I don’t think this warrants any seats when it is quite clear that Torontonians overwhelmingly rejected the Conservatives. Broadbent argues that under proportional representation the Conservatives would get seats in Toronto. But frankly I don’t see why we should give the Conservatives an opportunity to win seats in Toronto. I just don’t think 20% of the vote should warrant representation when it was quite obvious the vast majority of Torontonians did not agree with Conservative policies. Broadbent said the same thing about Montreal and Vancouver. He said that there too the Conservatives received votes but got no seats and that this was unfair. Well, we all know what happened in Vancouver. But in Montreal it stands – there are no Conservative seats on the Island of Montreal. And why should there be? The Conservatives got only around 15% or so of the vote in Montreal. I don’t believe that should entitle the Conservatives to seats. This whole thing is another reason I don’t like proportional representation (PR). It looks as though under PR, even when you overwhelmingly reject the Tories, Tory MPs still get elected. For me that is just plain unappealing.
I wonder if people like Ed Broadbent would make the same argument about Markham. Would they argue that the federal Tories deserve representation in the Town of Markham because of the 30-35% of the voters voted Tory in Markham? Markham spans 3 different federal ridings: Markham—Unionville (my riding and where the majority of Markham residents live), Thornhill (this has the far Western part of Markham and the rest of the riding consists of part of the City of Vaughan), and Oak Ridges—Markham (this has the Eastern and Northern parts of Markham). The Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham is the strongest Liberal part of the riding where the Liberals rack up large majorities. Markham—Unionville voted strongly Liberal in the last federal election, as I am certain did the Markham portion of Thornhill. In Markham—Unionville, the Conservatives got just under 27%. In Thornhill, the Conservatives got 33% (this number incorporates the Vaughan portion of Thornhill). In Oak Ridges—Markham, the Conservatives got 38.5%. That 38.5% is the result riding-wide. The Tories received far less than this in the Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham. When you do the estimation math in your head, you come to the conclusion that if the whole Town of Markham were its own riding (as it once was provincially), the Tories would have 30-35% and the Liberals would have somewhere above 50%. I am 90% certain that the whole Town of Markham voted over 50% Liberal in the last federal election. It is for this reason that I wouldn’t buy any MMP argument about Conservatives deserving representation in the Town of Markham. For the record, to contrast those Conservative numbers, here are the riding-wide Liberal numbers for each of the 3 ridings I just discussed. Markham—Unionville: 61.9%. Thornhill: 53%. Oak Ridges—Markham: 47%.
I wonder if people like Ed Broadbent would make the same argument about Markham. Would they argue that the federal Tories deserve representation in the Town of Markham because of the 30-35% of the voters voted Tory in Markham? Markham spans 3 different federal ridings: Markham—Unionville (my riding and where the majority of Markham residents live), Thornhill (this has the far Western part of Markham and the rest of the riding consists of part of the City of Vaughan), and Oak Ridges—Markham (this has the Eastern and Northern parts of Markham). The Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham is the strongest Liberal part of the riding where the Liberals rack up large majorities. Markham—Unionville voted strongly Liberal in the last federal election, as I am certain did the Markham portion of Thornhill. In Markham—Unionville, the Conservatives got just under 27%. In Thornhill, the Conservatives got 33% (this number incorporates the Vaughan portion of Thornhill). In Oak Ridges—Markham, the Conservatives got 38.5%. That 38.5% is the result riding-wide. The Tories received far less than this in the Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham. When you do the estimation math in your head, you come to the conclusion that if the whole Town of Markham were its own riding (as it once was provincially), the Tories would have 30-35% and the Liberals would have somewhere above 50%. I am 90% certain that the whole Town of Markham voted over 50% Liberal in the last federal election. It is for this reason that I wouldn’t buy any MMP argument about Conservatives deserving representation in the Town of Markham. For the record, to contrast those Conservative numbers, here are the riding-wide Liberal numbers for each of the 3 ridings I just discussed. Markham—Unionville: 61.9%. Thornhill: 53%. Oak Ridges—Markham: 47%.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Leader's Debate
The other night there was a leader’s debate for the Ontario election. Unfortunately for Howard Hampton, he had a bad cold. This may have impeded his debate performance. The result of Hampton’s cold may have been that Hampton was less forceful than in two previous leader’s debates he was in. Nevertheless, Hampton still seemed to do ok. In my humble opinion, Tory could have done better. Also, in my humble opinion McGuinty did well.
That being said, I am VERY apprehensive about whatever Ontario post-debate polls may come out. I am VERY fearful they will show Conservative momentum because of how commentators spun the Ontario leaders debate. Almost all commentators spun the debate as a loser for McGuinty. This despite the fact that when I watched the debate, I saw that McGuinty did just fine. McGuinty was the only leader who was positive. The other two leaders were just continuously attacking McGuinty. Constantly being on the attack does not make you look like a Premier. Only McGuinty offered positive messages. Offering positive messages is how you look like a Premier, not by attacking constantly and not by playing footsie with the other Opposition leader. Interestingly, Dalton McGuinty’s quip that Howard Hampton and John Tory are HoJo is becoming something of a catchphrase. Unlike what Howard Hampton said, McGuinty was not in desperation to use the term HoJo. It was a joke, plain and simple. My deep concern is that people who originally thought that McGuinty won the debate when they watched it will change their minds and decide that Tory won the debate because of what the media said. This could have a devastating effect on the Liberal campaign. I have read a number of user comments on more than one website which said that McGuinty won the debate. I’ve also seen and/or heard occasional comments from Ontarians that their opinion of John Tory worsened because of the debate. I am just dreadfully scared of the pro-Tory media spin on the debate and the negative effect it will have on the Liberal campaign.
I also do not support John Tory’s idea of allowing booze to be sold at convenience stores. For one thing, it breaks with a VERY long tradition in Ontario. Secondly, it means less government regulation and therefore an increase in the likelihood of booze falling into the wrong hands. No I am not questioning the integrity of shopkeepers. No offence to shopkeepers, but I fear that this new lack of government regulation would increase the number of alcohol-caused accidents and deaths.
Tory MPP Bill Murdoch has announced that he would almost certainly vote against any legislation implementing John Tory’s faith-based funding plan. Tory simply dismissed Murdoch as a maverick when asked about this. But this is actually significant for a member of the Conservative caucus to so openly rebel against the party leader on this controversial issue. I don’t know whether Murdoch voting against Tory’s faith-based funding plan would get him kicked out of caucus. However, considering the position that the Liberals and NDP have taken on this issue, Tory’s faith-based funding plan could not be pushed through unless there were a Conservative majority government.
I am quite unhappy that Howard Hampton has said that for him to offer support to any minority government, the minority government in power would have to implement the entire NDP platform. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives could ever agree to implement the entire NDP platform. This would mean an incredibly unstable minority government. With this being Hampton’s position, the minority government could easily fall on the Throne Speech – just like at the federal level the government is threatened by a loss of confidence on the Throne Speech. Hampton making the demands he has made, I see no point in an Ontario minority government even trying to pass a budget. And how exactly is this minority government extreme instability supposed to get better under MMP if opposition parties continue to make such un-agreeable demands? For example, if the Greens get seats under MMP they could demand the abolishment of the Catholic school system in exchange for support of the government . That would be a complete no-go and could lead to MMP minority governments to be as unstable as ever. By the way, everybody these days seems to think that for this Ontario election, a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Despite the spin, there is just not enough evidence that a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Take the poll that showed the Liberals with a 9-pont lead. I think the last time a 9 point spread produced a minority government may have been never. I know that that particular poll is now out of date, but still it is something to keep in mind
I want to re-iterate one point – Dalton did far better in the debate than commentators gave him credit for.
That being said, I am VERY apprehensive about whatever Ontario post-debate polls may come out. I am VERY fearful they will show Conservative momentum because of how commentators spun the Ontario leaders debate. Almost all commentators spun the debate as a loser for McGuinty. This despite the fact that when I watched the debate, I saw that McGuinty did just fine. McGuinty was the only leader who was positive. The other two leaders were just continuously attacking McGuinty. Constantly being on the attack does not make you look like a Premier. Only McGuinty offered positive messages. Offering positive messages is how you look like a Premier, not by attacking constantly and not by playing footsie with the other Opposition leader. Interestingly, Dalton McGuinty’s quip that Howard Hampton and John Tory are HoJo is becoming something of a catchphrase. Unlike what Howard Hampton said, McGuinty was not in desperation to use the term HoJo. It was a joke, plain and simple. My deep concern is that people who originally thought that McGuinty won the debate when they watched it will change their minds and decide that Tory won the debate because of what the media said. This could have a devastating effect on the Liberal campaign. I have read a number of user comments on more than one website which said that McGuinty won the debate. I’ve also seen and/or heard occasional comments from Ontarians that their opinion of John Tory worsened because of the debate. I am just dreadfully scared of the pro-Tory media spin on the debate and the negative effect it will have on the Liberal campaign.
I also do not support John Tory’s idea of allowing booze to be sold at convenience stores. For one thing, it breaks with a VERY long tradition in Ontario. Secondly, it means less government regulation and therefore an increase in the likelihood of booze falling into the wrong hands. No I am not questioning the integrity of shopkeepers. No offence to shopkeepers, but I fear that this new lack of government regulation would increase the number of alcohol-caused accidents and deaths.
Tory MPP Bill Murdoch has announced that he would almost certainly vote against any legislation implementing John Tory’s faith-based funding plan. Tory simply dismissed Murdoch as a maverick when asked about this. But this is actually significant for a member of the Conservative caucus to so openly rebel against the party leader on this controversial issue. I don’t know whether Murdoch voting against Tory’s faith-based funding plan would get him kicked out of caucus. However, considering the position that the Liberals and NDP have taken on this issue, Tory’s faith-based funding plan could not be pushed through unless there were a Conservative majority government.
I am quite unhappy that Howard Hampton has said that for him to offer support to any minority government, the minority government in power would have to implement the entire NDP platform. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives could ever agree to implement the entire NDP platform. This would mean an incredibly unstable minority government. With this being Hampton’s position, the minority government could easily fall on the Throne Speech – just like at the federal level the government is threatened by a loss of confidence on the Throne Speech. Hampton making the demands he has made, I see no point in an Ontario minority government even trying to pass a budget. And how exactly is this minority government extreme instability supposed to get better under MMP if opposition parties continue to make such un-agreeable demands? For example, if the Greens get seats under MMP they could demand the abolishment of the Catholic school system in exchange for support of the government . That would be a complete no-go and could lead to MMP minority governments to be as unstable as ever. By the way, everybody these days seems to think that for this Ontario election, a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Despite the spin, there is just not enough evidence that a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Take the poll that showed the Liberals with a 9-pont lead. I think the last time a 9 point spread produced a minority government may have been never. I know that that particular poll is now out of date, but still it is something to keep in mind
I want to re-iterate one point – Dalton did far better in the debate than commentators gave him credit for.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Willowdale, Oshawa, Ajax--Pickering
Yesterday I drove through a neighbourhood in the northeastern part of the Willowdale. The lawn signs there were about 10 to 1 for the Liberals. This is despite the fact that the neighbourhood is in Tory candidate David Shiner’s municipal ward that he represents on city council. I’ve seen Liberal lawn sings in other parts of Willowdale as well. I really hope that Willowdale Liberal incumbent David Zimmer is able to win re-election over David Shiner.
The Election Projection Project has called Ajax—Pickering for the Conservatives and Oshawa for the NDP. I wonder whether the prediction for Ajax—Pickering is a little premature. The seat is Liberal federally. If provincially there is a Liberal majority government, shouldn’t Ajax—Pickering go Liberal? As for Oshawa, I think the prediction is based on lawn signs and reports on what is happening on the ground. I want the Liberals to win Oshawa. However, I’ve heard tell the provincial Liberals haven’t won Oshawa ever since Liberal Premier Mitch Hepburn tried to break up a strike in Oshawa in the 1930s. Between the NDP and the Conservatives, I’m not sure which I’d like better to win. The NDP candidate in Oshawa is Sid Ryan. He has already run several times previously for the NDP federally and provincially. He’s come close all but one of those times. In the 2006 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 5 points of beating incumbent Conservative Colin Carrie. In the 2004 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 400 votes of beating Carrie in an open seat contest. In the 2003 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 1000 votes of beating Conservative incumbent Jerry Ouellette. In the 1999 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Scarborough Centre and placed an above average but still distant third. He split the vote and allowed Conservative incumbent Marilyn Muchinski to be re-elected by a wide margin despite several other Tory candidates being defeated in the same election with higher shares of the vote than Muchinski received. Ryan is president of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) Ontario. Ryan was born in Dublin, Ireland. He is considered something of a socialist. He may win in Oshawa. We shall see. But the Liberals need to focus not on Oshawa, but on Ajax—Pickering.
The Election Projection Project has called Ajax—Pickering for the Conservatives and Oshawa for the NDP. I wonder whether the prediction for Ajax—Pickering is a little premature. The seat is Liberal federally. If provincially there is a Liberal majority government, shouldn’t Ajax—Pickering go Liberal? As for Oshawa, I think the prediction is based on lawn signs and reports on what is happening on the ground. I want the Liberals to win Oshawa. However, I’ve heard tell the provincial Liberals haven’t won Oshawa ever since Liberal Premier Mitch Hepburn tried to break up a strike in Oshawa in the 1930s. Between the NDP and the Conservatives, I’m not sure which I’d like better to win. The NDP candidate in Oshawa is Sid Ryan. He has already run several times previously for the NDP federally and provincially. He’s come close all but one of those times. In the 2006 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 5 points of beating incumbent Conservative Colin Carrie. In the 2004 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 400 votes of beating Carrie in an open seat contest. In the 2003 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 1000 votes of beating Conservative incumbent Jerry Ouellette. In the 1999 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Scarborough Centre and placed an above average but still distant third. He split the vote and allowed Conservative incumbent Marilyn Muchinski to be re-elected by a wide margin despite several other Tory candidates being defeated in the same election with higher shares of the vote than Muchinski received. Ryan is president of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) Ontario. Ryan was born in Dublin, Ireland. He is considered something of a socialist. He may win in Oshawa. We shall see. But the Liberals need to focus not on Oshawa, but on Ajax—Pickering.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Outremont and Ontario Election
I’m as worried as ever that on Monday the NDP will win over the Liberals in Outremont. This would be a serious blow to my leader Stephane Dion and would make the appearance of the Liberals not having momentum. My understanding is that for the last couple weeks the Liberals have been running a spirited campaign, but I don’t know if it was enough to catch up to Mulcair. I can’t conjecture what the election results would look like. One conjecture seems as doubtful as the next.
I’ve now joined Michael Chan’s re-election campaign. I’ve also joined his re-election campaign group on Facebook. I’m afraid that there there are a few “wall” comments but not too much else content. Nobody is doing in depth discussion about how the campaign is going. I am, however, getting daily email campaign updates from the central Liberal campaign. Needless to say they highlight Liberal policy announcements and criticize the Tories and the NDP. Speaking of policy, the Green Party has announced that a Green government would put into place SIX new statutory holidays. These include Earth Day, “Ontario’s birthday”, Remembrance Day and provincial and municipal election days. What about times like this year when Earth Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday? I especially do not agree with statutory holidays on election days. That is too much of a disruption and does not necessarily encourage people to vote. The reason according to Green Party leader Frank De Jong is that workers in other countries who have more days off are more productive. I wonder if De Jong has the statistical evidence to back this up. This statutory holiday policy has a European feel to it. It is in many continental European countries that have an increased number of holidays and also often have election day as a holiday. Another thing about election day on a holiday is that there is one group of workers who don’t get the day off – election workers! Another problem is that on election day schools are a common source of location for polls to be placed. On a statutory holiday schools will be closed and unable to be used for polling locations, causing a serious administrative headache. That’s why I prefer Dalton’s single new holiday in February.
I’ve now joined Michael Chan’s re-election campaign. I’ve also joined his re-election campaign group on Facebook. I’m afraid that there there are a few “wall” comments but not too much else content. Nobody is doing in depth discussion about how the campaign is going. I am, however, getting daily email campaign updates from the central Liberal campaign. Needless to say they highlight Liberal policy announcements and criticize the Tories and the NDP. Speaking of policy, the Green Party has announced that a Green government would put into place SIX new statutory holidays. These include Earth Day, “Ontario’s birthday”, Remembrance Day and provincial and municipal election days. What about times like this year when Earth Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday? I especially do not agree with statutory holidays on election days. That is too much of a disruption and does not necessarily encourage people to vote. The reason according to Green Party leader Frank De Jong is that workers in other countries who have more days off are more productive. I wonder if De Jong has the statistical evidence to back this up. This statutory holiday policy has a European feel to it. It is in many continental European countries that have an increased number of holidays and also often have election day as a holiday. Another thing about election day on a holiday is that there is one group of workers who don’t get the day off – election workers! Another problem is that on election day schools are a common source of location for polls to be placed. On a statutory holiday schools will be closed and unable to be used for polling locations, causing a serious administrative headache. That’s why I prefer Dalton’s single new holiday in February.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Coming Throne Speech
I can’t deal with whether the federal government will fall on the coming Throne Speech. That seems too far away right now. I want to focus on the provincial campaign. There will be a lot of Throne Speech optics later. If we’re lucky, someone will find away to keep this government in power for now – Liberals in Ontario cannot have two elections so close together. I want this Conservative government out of office just as much as the next Liberal, but a 2007 election is not the way to do it. Bringing down the government only creates an election that the Conservatives could easily win with a minority or majority. Not for decades upon decades has the Governor General asked an opposition party to form government without an election victory for said opposition party. That just doesn’t happen anymore. If we could bring down the government in hopes of Dion simply being appointed Prime Minister on the spot, I’d go for it. But Governors General just don’t appoint new Prime Ministers on the spot following the loss of confidence of a government anymore. So it just is not a doable option. That is why we need to keep this Conservative government in power in the year 2007 and explore our options next year. That’s all the dealing I’m going to do on this topic for now.
But as a closely related aside I want to mention that Harper has been bold enough to say he won’t hold a vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan unless he thinks the government can win that vote. The implication is he may hold it eventually, as the current deadline of February 2009 comes close. But he will not hold such an early vote because he thinks he can’t win it. I seem to read signals from the government that the government was hoping certain Liberals would again break ranks and support the extension past 2009 in the same way that certain Liberals voted for the extension to 2009. I expect the government to be disappointed if they are hoping for this. Dion has more or less united the Liberals on this issue. In the spring there was a Liberal motion to end the mission in 2009. Individual Liberals did not break ranks and I wouldn’t expect them to in a future vote. We are now quite united on this issue. When it comes down to it, there cannot be an extension of the Afghanistan mission within the context of this current parliament. Harper would still need a majority government to push through such an extension of the mission. And even then, it would go against the type of “all-party consensus” that Harper has been promising.
But as a closely related aside I want to mention that Harper has been bold enough to say he won’t hold a vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan unless he thinks the government can win that vote. The implication is he may hold it eventually, as the current deadline of February 2009 comes close. But he will not hold such an early vote because he thinks he can’t win it. I seem to read signals from the government that the government was hoping certain Liberals would again break ranks and support the extension past 2009 in the same way that certain Liberals voted for the extension to 2009. I expect the government to be disappointed if they are hoping for this. Dion has more or less united the Liberals on this issue. In the spring there was a Liberal motion to end the mission in 2009. Individual Liberals did not break ranks and I wouldn’t expect them to in a future vote. We are now quite united on this issue. When it comes down to it, there cannot be an extension of the Afghanistan mission within the context of this current parliament. Harper would still need a majority government to push through such an extension of the mission. And even then, it would go against the type of “all-party consensus” that Harper has been promising.
Monday, September 10, 2007
I need some help
Somebody has made the claim on the electionprediction.com page that there were polls in and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot showing a tight two way race in both ridings in the by-elections. The claim was that the poll was in the Toronto Star. I can find the poll absolutely nowhere on the internet and I have searched thoroughly. If anyone can point out to me where this poll is and what the numbers say I would be most appreciative.
Larry Zolf
Larry Zolf wrote an opinion piece in August about the 2007 Ontario Election (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20070806.html). There are some things he said that I would like to dispute. A general problem is that Zolf makes far too many generalizations. Here is one such generalization:
“Hampton represents the Rainy River-Kenora riding, which boasts a huge aboriginal community, effectively giving him the aboriginal vote of Northern Ontario.”
That may be true within Hampton’s riding, but I see no evidence of the NDP having the Northern Ontario aboriginal vote outside Kenora-Rainy-River. Each aboriginal voter makes his or her own decision and I expect a number of them choose to vote Liberal.
This next quote by Zolf I find incredibly strange and it makes little sense:
“Harper's stand on the war will cost him at Camp Petawawa and other military towns, and in rural Ontario.
The NDP stand on Afghanistan, on the other hand, will win seats for Hampton's party in large cities.”
What stand on the war of Stephen Harper’s is Zolf referring to? Harper is very popular in the military town of Petawawa and places like that. His pro-military stand makes that a given. So what is Zolf referring to? Is he referring to the fact that Harper will not extend the Afghan mission without a parliamentary consensus? In those military towns, some may wish for the mission to be extended, but voters there are hardly going to switch to the Liberals, who have a much clearer stand to end the combat mission in 2009. Besides, this is a provincial election he is supposed to be talking about. Is Zolf implying that this “stand” Harper has taken, whatever it may be, will be detrimental to John Tory in those military towns. That whole first sentence from the quote I just cited makes no sense whatsoever. And even the second sentence has little logic either. This is a provincial election. At the provincial level, Afghanistan has not been an issue at all in this provincial campaign, and I see no evidence that Afghanistan will become an issue at all in the provincial campaign. I also do not see Howard Hampton campaigning on the federal NDP’s stance on Afghanistan; instead Hampton is opting for provincial issues.
As an aside, here are the four federal parties positions, as I see them, on Afghanistan:
Conservative: Would like to extend combat mission past 2009 if that were politically possible and if there were an all-party consensus.
Liberal: End combat mission in 2009.
Bloc: End combat mission in 2009, but did not support the extension to 2009 in the first place. Bring down government unless it commits to end mission in 2009.
NDP: End mission now and bring troops home, but support the government’s official position by voting against Liberal motion to end mission in 2009.
The Liberal position as you can see is actually the simplest. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals have not waffled on this issue since Dion took over. Dion has long been quite clear about the 2009 exit date. We are not hypocrites for wanting the mission to end in 2009. I know it was our previous Liberal government who sent the troops in, but that does not mean we did not want the combat mission to end at some point.
I am getting sidetracked from Larry Zolf’s article. To me, Afghanistan could not be more irrelevant for this provincial campaign.
There are another couple quotes from Zolf that I take issue with. Here is the first:
“Hampton is no pal of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the Canadian Auto Workers' union. (He realizes that Hargrove wants to reward McGuinty for all his auto industry efforts.) But Hampton will do well in Oshawa, Oakville, St. Thomas and other auto union towns regardless.”
I can agree with Oshawa. The Oakville riding, on the other hand, has long had among the absolute lowest results for the NDP both federally and provincially despite the presence of a Ford plant. This has been true even at the height of NDP popularity. For example, the NDP was third in Oakville South in the 1990 election, 4000 votes behind the second placed Liberal candidate, who in turn was only 100 votes behind the PC candidate. Hampton’s party has never done well in the Oakville riding before; I see no evidence of that changing now. I also have trouble seeing the NDP doing well in St. Thomas, which is the political base of Liberal MPP Steve Peters, who prior to his election to the legislature was the popular mayor of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where the NDP has also never done well.
Here is the next quote from Zolf’s article that I take issue with. This sentence in Zolf’s article is referring to Howard Hampton:
“He also has the gay and lesbian vote in Ontario.”
That is a sweeping generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Tell that to George Smitherman’s gay voting base in Toronto Centre. I think Dalton McGuinty is the most gay-positive Premier in Ontario history. In my opinion, McGuinty has actually focused more on gay rights than Howard Hampton has. People who are gay don’t vote only on the single issue of gay rights. They also will evaluate the government’s record on health care, education, and other issues. They will make their decision based on many issues. People who happen to be gay will not vote in bloc for the NDP, and never have.
Zolf concludes by predicting a surefire minority government. The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed the NDP at 16%. That is not likely enough to make a minority government happen. We won’t know for sure anything about majorities or minorities until we are much closer to election day.
“Hampton represents the Rainy River-Kenora riding, which boasts a huge aboriginal community, effectively giving him the aboriginal vote of Northern Ontario.”
That may be true within Hampton’s riding, but I see no evidence of the NDP having the Northern Ontario aboriginal vote outside Kenora-Rainy-River. Each aboriginal voter makes his or her own decision and I expect a number of them choose to vote Liberal.
This next quote by Zolf I find incredibly strange and it makes little sense:
“Harper's stand on the war will cost him at Camp Petawawa and other military towns, and in rural Ontario.
The NDP stand on Afghanistan, on the other hand, will win seats for Hampton's party in large cities.”
What stand on the war of Stephen Harper’s is Zolf referring to? Harper is very popular in the military town of Petawawa and places like that. His pro-military stand makes that a given. So what is Zolf referring to? Is he referring to the fact that Harper will not extend the Afghan mission without a parliamentary consensus? In those military towns, some may wish for the mission to be extended, but voters there are hardly going to switch to the Liberals, who have a much clearer stand to end the combat mission in 2009. Besides, this is a provincial election he is supposed to be talking about. Is Zolf implying that this “stand” Harper has taken, whatever it may be, will be detrimental to John Tory in those military towns. That whole first sentence from the quote I just cited makes no sense whatsoever. And even the second sentence has little logic either. This is a provincial election. At the provincial level, Afghanistan has not been an issue at all in this provincial campaign, and I see no evidence that Afghanistan will become an issue at all in the provincial campaign. I also do not see Howard Hampton campaigning on the federal NDP’s stance on Afghanistan; instead Hampton is opting for provincial issues.
As an aside, here are the four federal parties positions, as I see them, on Afghanistan:
Conservative: Would like to extend combat mission past 2009 if that were politically possible and if there were an all-party consensus.
Liberal: End combat mission in 2009.
Bloc: End combat mission in 2009, but did not support the extension to 2009 in the first place. Bring down government unless it commits to end mission in 2009.
NDP: End mission now and bring troops home, but support the government’s official position by voting against Liberal motion to end mission in 2009.
The Liberal position as you can see is actually the simplest. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals have not waffled on this issue since Dion took over. Dion has long been quite clear about the 2009 exit date. We are not hypocrites for wanting the mission to end in 2009. I know it was our previous Liberal government who sent the troops in, but that does not mean we did not want the combat mission to end at some point.
I am getting sidetracked from Larry Zolf’s article. To me, Afghanistan could not be more irrelevant for this provincial campaign.
There are another couple quotes from Zolf that I take issue with. Here is the first:
“Hampton is no pal of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the Canadian Auto Workers' union. (He realizes that Hargrove wants to reward McGuinty for all his auto industry efforts.) But Hampton will do well in Oshawa, Oakville, St. Thomas and other auto union towns regardless.”
I can agree with Oshawa. The Oakville riding, on the other hand, has long had among the absolute lowest results for the NDP both federally and provincially despite the presence of a Ford plant. This has been true even at the height of NDP popularity. For example, the NDP was third in Oakville South in the 1990 election, 4000 votes behind the second placed Liberal candidate, who in turn was only 100 votes behind the PC candidate. Hampton’s party has never done well in the Oakville riding before; I see no evidence of that changing now. I also have trouble seeing the NDP doing well in St. Thomas, which is the political base of Liberal MPP Steve Peters, who prior to his election to the legislature was the popular mayor of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where the NDP has also never done well.
Here is the next quote from Zolf’s article that I take issue with. This sentence in Zolf’s article is referring to Howard Hampton:
“He also has the gay and lesbian vote in Ontario.”
That is a sweeping generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Tell that to George Smitherman’s gay voting base in Toronto Centre. I think Dalton McGuinty is the most gay-positive Premier in Ontario history. In my opinion, McGuinty has actually focused more on gay rights than Howard Hampton has. People who are gay don’t vote only on the single issue of gay rights. They also will evaluate the government’s record on health care, education, and other issues. They will make their decision based on many issues. People who happen to be gay will not vote in bloc for the NDP, and never have.
Zolf concludes by predicting a surefire minority government. The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed the NDP at 16%. That is not likely enough to make a minority government happen. We won’t know for sure anything about majorities or minorities until we are much closer to election day.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
No Proportional Representation
I will vote for the status quo on the electoral reform referendum. Firstly, I, as do many, dislike the idea of having list MPPs that parties can select in an elite manner. MPPs in danger of defeat who are high-profile could simply be added to the top of the list to prevent their defeat. We could also experience the phenomenon whereby MPPs can run both locally and on a list, so that when defeated locally they are still elected on a list. This happens all the time in New Zealand and I don’t agree with it. The second problem is that proportional representation would result in perpetual minority governments. Proponents of proportional representation counter that these minority governments would be stable coalition governments. But I don’t like the idea of the Liberals having to make a semi-permanent coalition with the NDP. As it is, the Ontario NDP is fiercely anti-Liberal in nature. How we could ever make any kind of alliance with them I’m not sure. The NDP never has anything good to say about the Liberals. I don’t see how that could change in the context of minority governments.
As far as the coming election is concerned, based on my experience at the federal level, I fear that a minority Liberal win would be almost as bad as losing outright. Once again, people say the Liberals would need the NDP to stay in power in this situation. But the NDP dislike the Liberals so much I don’t see how any kind of alliance could be formed. I expect that the minority government would be unstable. I can just see now both opposition parties announcing they cannot support the 2008 budget, causing the government to fall in 2008. I foresee a Liberal minority as a disaster. But sometimes I wonder whether the talk of minority government is only being used to sell more newspapers. A 5, 6, or 7 point lead could just as easily translate into a majority government.
The Ontario Liberal Party has nominated all its candidates and exceeded its goal of nominating females in half of ridings not held by the Liberal Party. And overall the party has one third of its candidates women. This is excellent. This includes Helena Jaczek in Oak Ridges—Markham, the riding neighbouring mine.
I am impressed by the candidate running for the Liberals in Hamilton Centre. His name is Steve Ruddick. He is a CH (Hamilton’s local television station) weatherman and is a media personality who is also a news reporter and journalist. The Liberals pulled out of their hat a candidate much stronger than I expected (I feared the Liberal candidate would be much lesser known after Judy Marsales announced she wasn’t going to run again). I wish Steve Ruddick the absolute best of luck.
As far as the coming election is concerned, based on my experience at the federal level, I fear that a minority Liberal win would be almost as bad as losing outright. Once again, people say the Liberals would need the NDP to stay in power in this situation. But the NDP dislike the Liberals so much I don’t see how any kind of alliance could be formed. I expect that the minority government would be unstable. I can just see now both opposition parties announcing they cannot support the 2008 budget, causing the government to fall in 2008. I foresee a Liberal minority as a disaster. But sometimes I wonder whether the talk of minority government is only being used to sell more newspapers. A 5, 6, or 7 point lead could just as easily translate into a majority government.
The Ontario Liberal Party has nominated all its candidates and exceeded its goal of nominating females in half of ridings not held by the Liberal Party. And overall the party has one third of its candidates women. This is excellent. This includes Helena Jaczek in Oak Ridges—Markham, the riding neighbouring mine.
I am impressed by the candidate running for the Liberals in Hamilton Centre. His name is Steve Ruddick. He is a CH (Hamilton’s local television station) weatherman and is a media personality who is also a news reporter and journalist. The Liberals pulled out of their hat a candidate much stronger than I expected (I feared the Liberal candidate would be much lesser known after Judy Marsales announced she wasn’t going to run again). I wish Steve Ruddick the absolute best of luck.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Prorogue????
Harper prorogued parliament. When I think about it I'm not surprised. He wants to start his government fresh and is willing to risk an election that he thinks he'd win anyway by having a new Throne Speech. I'm not sure how much emphasis on the environment this throne speech will have. The government says its Clean Air Act won’t be one of the killed pieces of legislation to be resurrected. However, the numerous justice bills that reached the Senate shortly before summer and thus could not be passed will be resurrected at the stage at which they were previously. I don’t know how this works. I can only assume that they have to renumber the bills the match the new parliamentary session. Apparently private members bills don’t die when parliament is prorogued. I was under the impression that ALL bills died, including private members bills. It must be different somehow at the federal level. Recently, I saw some articles referring to a private member’s bill to implement the Kyoto Protocol. These articles said that this was a private member’s bill and thus it would not die when parliament is prorogued. But that bill has already received Royal Assent, so not only does the bill not die, it is already law! I’m not sure where the misconception that this bill had not yet received Royal Assent came from. One of the articles I read said that there is a group (I forget what it was called) that is thrilled parliament was prorogued because doing so temporarily kills the age of consent bill. This group opposes this bill. One argument they make is that teenagers under the age of consent are less likely to speak out and seek health information regarding sexual relationships. Maybe that is true in many U.S. States, with their mishmash of age of consent laws. However, I’m hoping it would be different in Canada because 14 year olds under the new law are not prohibited from having sex. Having sex with someone as much as four years older than them is still legal. So as long as their sexual partner is of the right age there should be no disincentive to seek health information. If however, the partner is more than 4 years older than the 14 year old, then there may be a case of not seeking information in hopes of not being caught. This leads to the group’s other argument against the bill, it limits sexual freedom for young teenagers. Now this is true to a certain extent. The maximum limit of 4 years may have been too few. Any attempts by the Senate to change this, however, will be swiftly rejected by the government as the government is want to do. At least if this Bill is resurrected, it can also receive a fair examination in the Senate before being passed.
I have a bit of political humour. The NDP candidate in my riding of Markham—Unionville for the upcoming provincial election is Andy Arifin. But currently on the NDP website, I can get information on him only in French! Clearly that part of their site is a work in progress. Here is the humourous translation of Arifin’s blurb into English using the Google translator:
Andy Arifin is enthusiastic with the idea to insufflate a new energy with the Ontarian policy. Inspired by the optimistic vision of Howard Hampton of the future of Ontario, it is happy to represent the district of Markham-Unionville in the name of the team of the New democratic Party.Andy always lived in Markham. While it finishes a baccalaureat specialized in political sciences at the York University, it finds time to militate actively.As a student, Andy saw closely how the badly advised policies of Dalton McGuinty as regards education postsecondaire push a number growing of students to be involved in debt always more. Following the deregulation of the expenses of the professional training schemes, a measurement of the McGuinty government, certain students cannot consider higher education any more or to continue their program of studies.Andy impatiently waits the moment to represent the families of workers as new deputy of the district of Markham Unionville in Queen' S Park.
“New deputy” means new MPP. If Arifin wants to be the new MPP for Markham—Unionville, he has his work cut out for him. After all, I think that if the NDP were to win 106/107 seats in the province, Markham—Unionville would be the one seat that didn’t go NDP.
I have a bit of political humour. The NDP candidate in my riding of Markham—Unionville for the upcoming provincial election is Andy Arifin. But currently on the NDP website, I can get information on him only in French! Clearly that part of their site is a work in progress. Here is the humourous translation of Arifin’s blurb into English using the Google translator:
Andy Arifin is enthusiastic with the idea to insufflate a new energy with the Ontarian policy. Inspired by the optimistic vision of Howard Hampton of the future of Ontario, it is happy to represent the district of Markham-Unionville in the name of the team of the New democratic Party.Andy always lived in Markham. While it finishes a baccalaureat specialized in political sciences at the York University, it finds time to militate actively.As a student, Andy saw closely how the badly advised policies of Dalton McGuinty as regards education postsecondaire push a number growing of students to be involved in debt always more. Following the deregulation of the expenses of the professional training schemes, a measurement of the McGuinty government, certain students cannot consider higher education any more or to continue their program of studies.Andy impatiently waits the moment to represent the families of workers as new deputy of the district of Markham Unionville in Queen' S Park.
“New deputy” means new MPP. If Arifin wants to be the new MPP for Markham—Unionville, he has his work cut out for him. After all, I think that if the NDP were to win 106/107 seats in the province, Markham—Unionville would be the one seat that didn’t go NDP.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Provinical poll form Ipsos Reid
There is a provincial poll released August 28 from Ipsos Reid showing the Liberals at 42%, the Conservatives at 35%, the NDP at 16%, and the Greens at 6%. This is a drop for the Greens and a significant drop for the NDP. It is also an increase for the Liberals and a drop for the Tories. This poll also provides strong evidence to me that regional breakdowns for polls within the province, especially for Northern Ontario, are unreliable. This poll shows for Northern Ontario the Liberals at 51%, the Tories at 20%, and the NDP at 18%. The previous Ipsos Reid poll (released August 21) showed the Tories at 41% in Northern Ontario, and the Liberals at 34%. The current poll has the Tories dropping 21 points in Northern Ontario. Such a large fluctuation is not realistic in my opinion. I’d also expect the NDP to be higher than 20% in Northern Ontario. I thus suspect that the Northern Ontario results are not accurate possibly due to small sample size within that region. I’m also wondering if it is the same thing in the 416 and 905. Even though the Liberal lead expanded in this poll overall, it somehow shrunk substantially in the 905. The Liberal lead in the 416 also shrank to just 3 points. Is it possible that the results for both the 416 and 905 may be inaccurate due to small sample size within those regions? I’m inclined to believe that regional results within Ontario tend to be inaccurate due to sample size and thus to get the real picture it is best to look at the province-wide poll results. In my opinion, a 7 point lead would be hard pressed not to produce a majority government.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Cheri Di Novo, Alan Tonks, John McKay, Mike Wallace
In a previous blog, I mentioned NDP MPP Cheri Di Novo’s liberal views on homosexuality. The riding’s federal MP Peggy Nash is also in favour of same-sex marriage. For the record, the only MP to oppose same-sex marriage in the City of Toronto excluding Etobicoke and Scarborough was York South—Weston Liberal MP Alan Tonks. Tonks says he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage. The first problem with civil unions is that many experts believe they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal government would have to rely on individual provinces to decide whether they want to enact civil unions. I’m no expert, but I imagine the Alberta government, for one, might have serious trouble passing a civil union law. The next problem with civil unions is there is a glaring equality problem as illustrated in the UK’s civil union legislation. In the UK, same sex couples can enter into a civil union. But they do not have equality because a church minister cannot preside over any legally binding civil union ceremony. By contrast, church ministers can and always have presided over legally binding opposite-sex marriage ceremonies. I consider this discrepancy discriminatory. We could have had the same problem in Canada. Some have argued that the government getting out of the marriage business is a solution. The idea is that only those willing to have a religious ceremony can get married (including same-sex couples). This is discriminatory against non-religious people not willing to have a religious ceremony. It relegates non-religious couples to have a civil union instead of a marriage. This is just as discriminatory as denying marriage to same-sex couples. Yet this is the position of Burlington Conservative MP Mike Wallace (http://www.marriagevote.ca/articles/wallace.html):
"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."
I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:
"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."
McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."
I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:
"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."
McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
Bad news about Bob Rae, plus some provincial Liberal candidates
I have some bad news. Bob Rae has a cold and therefore his heart surgery has been delayed. No new date has been set. My concern is that Rae will still be recovering and unable to campaign when Harper calls the Toronto Centre by-election.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Men more likely to oppose gay marriage
It has just occurred to me that every single Liberal MP to vote for Stephen Harper’s December 2006 motion to repeal same-sex marriage were men. In 2005, almost all of the Liberal MPs to vote against same-sex marriage were men, with only a handful of exceptions. In December 2006, all the female Liberal opponents of same-sex marriage were either no longer in Parliament or switched their vote. Speaking of that December 2006 vote, Liberal MP Glen Pearson had been sworn in that very day after winning a by-election and so was able to vote against Harper’s motion. Raymond Gravel, however, also having recently been elected in a by-election, had not been sworn in yet for some reason and was not sworn in until a few days later. I’m not sure why this is. It meant that Gravel (who was an openly gay Catholic priest) was unable to vote against Harper’s motion as he had announced he would. I don’t know why it took longer for him to be sworn in. All I can think of is that the returning officer took longer to submit the results to Parliament for some reason.
Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.
Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.
Sault Ste. Marie
For some reason, Milton Chan from www.electionprediction.com has changed his prediction in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie from Liberal to Too Close for the upcoming provincial election. I’m not sure why he did this. He seemed confident of a Liberal win before and I do not know what made him change it. The incumbent Liberal candidate is by far the highest profile candidate. Neither the Tories nor the NDP have chosen candidates with high name recognition. To boot, Sault Ste. Marie has a popular Liberal incumbent in David Orazietti. Orazietti defeated popular 13 year NDP incumbent Tony Martin by 8000 votes in the 2003 election. He won 57% to Martin’s 32%. In an election where the percentages for the NDP went up in most ridings, this was quite a downturn in NDP support. This was an impressive victory. Tony Martin went on to win the federal Sault Ste. Marie by 700 votes. In the 2006 election when most narrowly elected NDP incumbents won by larger margins, Martin increased his margin to only 2000 votes with the Liberals an impressive second. In 2004, I heard that the Liberals actually won the City of Sault Ste. Marie and that it was the newly added rural portion that put Martin over the top. So even at the federal level Sault Ste. Marie is only a marginal NDP seat. It is for this reason that I think for Sault. Ste. Marie to go NDP provincially, it would take a signficant Liberal meltdown. Thus I don’t understand why Milton Chan suddenly changed the riding to Too Close.
Politicians
In Prince Edward—Hastings, the MPP Ernie Parsons resigned in order to become a justice of the peace. This has left the seat vacant until the general election where another MPP, Leona Drombrowsky, is going to run. Parsons applied for the JP position just like anybody else and had to go through the normal application. It was necessary to do this because Parsons had already decided to retire from politics at the end of his term. Parsons will not make a pension from his years as an MPP because Mike Harris abolished the MPPs pension. Therefore simply going into retirement may not have been an option for Parsons. It may be for this reason that he wanted to become a JP. But Parsons had to leave his old job early because the job stared in July and one cannot be a JP and MPP at the same time. I do not agree with Harris’s decision to eliminate the MPP pension. I believe politicians retiring at the normal retirement age deserve such a pension to live off of for their years of public service. Harris’s reason for eliminating the pension is because the pension was “gold plated”. I don’t know how gold plated it was, though. People need an income after retiring. Eliminating the pension simply discourages people from entering provincial politics. Instead, people may enter municipal politics which often does have a pension or federal politics which also offers a pension. Other provinces do offer pensions to their former legislature members. If such a former member goes on to become a federal MP, and are old enough to collect such a pension from the provincial government, some call this double dipping – collecting an MPs salary as well as a provincial pension. But I do not know why people refer to this negatively. I don’t see why becoming a federal MP should disqualify one from a pension for their years of service at the provincial level. Similarly, I do not know of any law that says a former MP is not eligible to collect a former MP’s pension should they go into another line of work such as politics at another level of government. For example, Carolyn Parrish is a Mississauga City Councilor. Her 12 years as an MP also entitles her to an MPs pension because she is over the age of 55. So I see no reason why she cannot collect a Councilor’s salary and an MPs pension at the same time. By the way, I met Carolyn Parrish at a talk she gave at my university shortly after she retired from federal politics. She said she wanted a seat on Mississauga City Council because otherwise she’d be bored out of her skull. Now that is a sign that she was long ago bitten by the political bug and thus for her quiet retirement is far too boring.
To collect an MP’s pension, one must have been an MP for 6 years, and for at least 2 parliamentary terms. The six years and two terms do not have to be consecutive. What this means is that one term MPs are never eligible for pensions. Here is a scenario where I am not sure whether one is eligible for a pension. Let us say someone is elected to the House of Commons. Just for fun let us imagine that she was previously a long-time municipal and then provincial politician. Yes she is a Liberal. Let us imagine that she is elected to her first term in parliament and that this parliament lasts a normal 4 years. Let us imagine that she is re-elected at the next election and serves another 2 years in parliament. After she has been a Member of Parliament for just over 6 years, she resigns her seat to spend more time with her grandchildren. Is she eligible for an MP’s pension or not. Is she eligible because she served the minimum 6 years or is she ineligible because she did not serve her full second term in parliament?
Speaking of municipal politics, there is a strange loophole in the Ontario’s municipal election’s act. It has to do with campaign surpluses. A municipal politician’s “campaign surplus” cannot be spent by the politician on anything other than future municipal campaigns. If, however, a municipal politician does not run again, the surplus goes into the coffers of the municipality. The loophole is that the surplus can be preserved for future campaigns if the politician registers as a municipal candidate but then later deregisters. This has caused more than one former municipal politician to do a strange thing – register as a candidate and then immediately deregister. They do this just in case they run again municipally some time in the future. I know of two examples when this has happened. Former Toronto City Councilor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski retired from politics in 2003. However, in 2006 he registered to run in his old ward and then immediately deregistered. He did this to keep his campaign surplus from 2000. This could mean that Korwin-Kuczynski is contemplating a municipal run in 2010. MPP Mario Racco has also done this same trick twice, as referenced in a Toronto Star correction notice(http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838085&call_pageid=1051266777375&col=1051266777367). In 2003, while still a councilor, Racco registered to run again municipally and later deregistered because he was in fact running provincially. In January 2006 Racco again registered to run municipally and then immediately withdrew. He did this so that he can still have his campaign surplus from 2000 should he decide to run in 2010. At first I was shocked to see him register even for a moment because he is a sitting MPP. However, I later looked at the law and saw that what he did was ok. The law says that an MPP who registers to run municipally may do so, but if they have not resigned as MPP by the close of municipal nominations, they are deemed ineligible to run municipally and are automatically removed from the ballot. This means that Racco still has his campaign surplus to run in 2010. If Racco is re-elected in 2007 and decides to run municipally in 2010, we can look forward to a Thornhill by-election in late 2010/early 2011. But I do not know whether Racco would actually run in 2010. His old ward is currently held by his wife Sandra Yeung Racco. I don’t know whether she’d be willing to give her seat up for her husband. And as far as running for regional council is concerned, I do not know whether Racco has enough at-large name recognition to capture one of the 3 spots on regional council. So if Racco loses this year, running municipally in 2010 may be his only option to remain politically active. If Racco wins this year, I am doubtful he’d run in 2010 because doing so is risky. It would either mean getting his wife to not run again and risk running in his old ward or it would mean an even riskier run for regional council.
Andy Savoy was a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2006. He physically sat in Parliament from 2001 to 2005. In the 2006 election, he unexpectedly lost his seat to Conservative Mike Allen by some 200 votes. Despite this close result he is for some reason not running in the next federal election. He should consider attempting to re-enter parliament at some point so that in future he could be eligible for a pension. He served only 5 years in parliament which is less than the requisite 6 years. He would have made it to 6 years had the 38th Parliament not been so abnormally short. It occurs to me that in Ontario one possible reason we have so many MPPs not seeking re-election after only one term is because there is not a pension and therefore there is no motivation to seek a second term in order to be eligible for a pension. But this is just a guess. I know in Mary Anne Chambers’ case it was due to health. But I still hope the Liberals can win Scarborough—Guildwood.
To collect an MP’s pension, one must have been an MP for 6 years, and for at least 2 parliamentary terms. The six years and two terms do not have to be consecutive. What this means is that one term MPs are never eligible for pensions. Here is a scenario where I am not sure whether one is eligible for a pension. Let us say someone is elected to the House of Commons. Just for fun let us imagine that she was previously a long-time municipal and then provincial politician. Yes she is a Liberal. Let us imagine that she is elected to her first term in parliament and that this parliament lasts a normal 4 years. Let us imagine that she is re-elected at the next election and serves another 2 years in parliament. After she has been a Member of Parliament for just over 6 years, she resigns her seat to spend more time with her grandchildren. Is she eligible for an MP’s pension or not. Is she eligible because she served the minimum 6 years or is she ineligible because she did not serve her full second term in parliament?
Speaking of municipal politics, there is a strange loophole in the Ontario’s municipal election’s act. It has to do with campaign surpluses. A municipal politician’s “campaign surplus” cannot be spent by the politician on anything other than future municipal campaigns. If, however, a municipal politician does not run again, the surplus goes into the coffers of the municipality. The loophole is that the surplus can be preserved for future campaigns if the politician registers as a municipal candidate but then later deregisters. This has caused more than one former municipal politician to do a strange thing – register as a candidate and then immediately deregister. They do this just in case they run again municipally some time in the future. I know of two examples when this has happened. Former Toronto City Councilor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski retired from politics in 2003. However, in 2006 he registered to run in his old ward and then immediately deregistered. He did this to keep his campaign surplus from 2000. This could mean that Korwin-Kuczynski is contemplating a municipal run in 2010. MPP Mario Racco has also done this same trick twice, as referenced in a Toronto Star correction notice(http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838085&call_pageid=1051266777375&col=1051266777367). In 2003, while still a councilor, Racco registered to run again municipally and later deregistered because he was in fact running provincially. In January 2006 Racco again registered to run municipally and then immediately withdrew. He did this so that he can still have his campaign surplus from 2000 should he decide to run in 2010. At first I was shocked to see him register even for a moment because he is a sitting MPP. However, I later looked at the law and saw that what he did was ok. The law says that an MPP who registers to run municipally may do so, but if they have not resigned as MPP by the close of municipal nominations, they are deemed ineligible to run municipally and are automatically removed from the ballot. This means that Racco still has his campaign surplus to run in 2010. If Racco is re-elected in 2007 and decides to run municipally in 2010, we can look forward to a Thornhill by-election in late 2010/early 2011. But I do not know whether Racco would actually run in 2010. His old ward is currently held by his wife Sandra Yeung Racco. I don’t know whether she’d be willing to give her seat up for her husband. And as far as running for regional council is concerned, I do not know whether Racco has enough at-large name recognition to capture one of the 3 spots on regional council. So if Racco loses this year, running municipally in 2010 may be his only option to remain politically active. If Racco wins this year, I am doubtful he’d run in 2010 because doing so is risky. It would either mean getting his wife to not run again and risk running in his old ward or it would mean an even riskier run for regional council.
Andy Savoy was a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2006. He physically sat in Parliament from 2001 to 2005. In the 2006 election, he unexpectedly lost his seat to Conservative Mike Allen by some 200 votes. Despite this close result he is for some reason not running in the next federal election. He should consider attempting to re-enter parliament at some point so that in future he could be eligible for a pension. He served only 5 years in parliament which is less than the requisite 6 years. He would have made it to 6 years had the 38th Parliament not been so abnormally short. It occurs to me that in Ontario one possible reason we have so many MPPs not seeking re-election after only one term is because there is not a pension and therefore there is no motivation to seek a second term in order to be eligible for a pension. But this is just a guess. I know in Mary Anne Chambers’ case it was due to health. But I still hope the Liberals can win Scarborough—Guildwood.
Friday, August 24, 2007
CNE and Trinity--Spadina
I recently took a day-long trip to the CNE. There was a sign that listed all of this years Ex sponsors. I saw the symbol for Ontario there but I did not see a symbol for the government of Canada. Either I missed it or somehow the federal government is not sponsoring the CNE despite the fact that CNE stands for Canadian National Exhibition. The CNE grounds are in the Trinity—Spadina riding. I want to save time so I’ll call the riding TS. TS is home to some of the most exiting and famous attractions in Toronto. These include the CNE grounds, the CN Tower, the SkyDome (Rogers Centre) and the Air Canada Centre. All these things with the exception of the CNE grounds are in very short walking distance from the Union Subway station. To get the CNE grounds from the Union Subway station, you take a streetcar. The famous Eaton Centre is also in the federal TS riding, but not yet in the provincial version of TS. Federally TS is held by New Democrat Olivia Chow. Formerly it was held by Tony Ianno. Ianno is again the Liberal candidate for TS. His motto is “Send a strong voice back to Ottawa”. Ianno has run in every federal election since and including 1988. In 1988 Ianno came within 400 votes of winning, losing to New Democrat Dan Heap. In 1993 Heap retired and Ianno scored the largest electoral victory of his political career. In 1997 Ianno won in a tight race against Olivia Chow. In 2000, Ianno won by a 9 point margin over author Michael Valpy. In 2004, Ianno scored a 800 vote victory over Olivia Chow, surprising many. In this election Ianno made a very big deal about Chow’s refusal to resign her council seat (which she had recently been elected in) when running for federal office. In 2006, Chow responded to this by resigning her council seat and stating that win or lose the election she was going to move to Ottawa to be with her husband Jack Layton. As it happened the national Liberal loss allowed Chow to win the seat although still by a fairly narrow margin. It is for this reason that the Liberals have a shot to win this seat back. But as the 1988 election proved, this can only be done if the Liberals win government. So that is one of many reasons why the Liberals must get their act together and win government. One encouraging sign for the Liberals in TS is that municipally half the riding is no longer represented by a New Democrat. The western half of the riding is represented by 20+ year incumbent Joe Pantalone. Pantalone’s sister was an elementary school principal but last year precipitated a very embarrassing, bizarre, and illegal incident at her school that is too embarrassing even to discuss. This however did not affect Joe Pantalone because after this embarrassing incident Pantalone was easily re-elected. The encouraging part for the Liberals is in the eastern end of TS. Here independent/small-l liberal candidate Adam Vaughan won against semi-official NDP candidate Helen Kennedy by a large margin. So I wish Tony Ianno luck.
The provincial level is the level at which TS is the toughest for the Liberals. Not since the 1987-1990 period have the Liberals held the predecessor to TS (Fort York). In this 1987-1990 period the Liberals also held all the other ridings that make up the modern TS (Dovercourt, Parkdale, St. Andrew-St. Patrick). Since 1990 life has been tough here for the Liberals. Since 1990 the only component riding of TS the Liberals have ever been able to win is Parkdale (which only made up 5% of TS). The PCs were third in Fort York in 1987, 1990, 1995, and third in TS in 1999 and 2003. Even in 1987, life was not the best for the Liberals in Fort York considering that even then Liberal Bob Wong only won Fort York by about 100 votes over Joe Pantalone of the NDP. In 2003, some thought the Liberals could win the riding with then-Davenport trustee Nellie Pedro. But the Liberals did not come close. This time round again the Liberals hope that they can win the riding with Kate Holloway. Holloway was until recently an active member of the Green Party of Canada. She also ran for the Green Party in the 2004 Federal Election in Scarborough—Rouge River. When Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party, his environmental credentials caused Holloway to join the Liberals. The Liberals are hoping that an as an environmental candidate Holloway can pose a credible challenge to TS NDP incumbent Rosario Marchese. I certainly hope Holloway can win but I fear TS may be to strong an NDP riding at the provincial level for that to happen. A Holloway win would certainly bode well for Tony Ianno, however. I wish Kate luck.
The provincial level is the level at which TS is the toughest for the Liberals. Not since the 1987-1990 period have the Liberals held the predecessor to TS (Fort York). In this 1987-1990 period the Liberals also held all the other ridings that make up the modern TS (Dovercourt, Parkdale, St. Andrew-St. Patrick). Since 1990 life has been tough here for the Liberals. Since 1990 the only component riding of TS the Liberals have ever been able to win is Parkdale (which only made up 5% of TS). The PCs were third in Fort York in 1987, 1990, 1995, and third in TS in 1999 and 2003. Even in 1987, life was not the best for the Liberals in Fort York considering that even then Liberal Bob Wong only won Fort York by about 100 votes over Joe Pantalone of the NDP. In 2003, some thought the Liberals could win the riding with then-Davenport trustee Nellie Pedro. But the Liberals did not come close. This time round again the Liberals hope that they can win the riding with Kate Holloway. Holloway was until recently an active member of the Green Party of Canada. She also ran for the Green Party in the 2004 Federal Election in Scarborough—Rouge River. When Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party, his environmental credentials caused Holloway to join the Liberals. The Liberals are hoping that an as an environmental candidate Holloway can pose a credible challenge to TS NDP incumbent Rosario Marchese. I certainly hope Holloway can win but I fear TS may be to strong an NDP riding at the provincial level for that to happen. A Holloway win would certainly bode well for Tony Ianno, however. I wish Kate luck.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Ontario Liberals
I am happy about today’s Strategic Counsel poll about Ontario politics. It shows that Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals still have a chance at re-election. It was 40% for the Liberals, 35% for the PCs, 18% for the NDP, and 8% for the Greens. It is that Green support the Liberals need the most. If even one or two percent of that Green support moved to the Liberals and these numbers occurred on election day, the Liberals would have a majority government for sure. Although I can find no previous Strategic Counsel poll on Ontario politics, the Globe and Mail headline is this: “McGuinty support slips to minority status, poll finds”. I think the polls numbers have just as much a chance to produce a Liberal majority government. Remember that in 1999 Mike Harris won a majority government while only winning the popular vote by 5 points. I’ve applied the numbers to the UBC election forecaster for the upcoming Ontario election. (I made some accommodations to make the numbers fit into the projector). To make numbers add up perfectly I made it look like this: Liberal: 40.0% , PC: 34.7% , NDP : 17.7% , Other: 7.6%.
I needed those approximations to make the grid add up perfectly to 100%. Here are the seat numbers I got for those adapted numbers:
Liberal: 61
PC: 38
NDP: 8
This would be a 57% Liberal majority. However, I have to make some adjustments for things the projector does not factor in. I am giving the NDP the 3 seats it won in by-elections. I am making the assumption that John Tory wins his seat in Don Valley West (the predictor predicts this seat as a Liberal hold). I am also switching several bellwether ridings won by tiny, tiny margins by the PCs back to the Liberals because I expect them to return a Liberal should the Liberals be re-elected due to their bellwether status. Those ridings affected are Ottawa West--Nepean, Huron--Bruce, and Kitchener Centre. I also am moving Oakville back to the Liberal column because the Tories only won it by 0.3% and I expect Liberal incumbent Kevin Flynn to be re-elected should the Liberals win re-election province-wide. These changes make the seat numbers as follows:
Liberal: 61
PC: 35
NDP: 11
That would still be a 57% Liberal majority. So I’d say the Liberals are still in the game and a minority government is far from certain.
I needed those approximations to make the grid add up perfectly to 100%. Here are the seat numbers I got for those adapted numbers:
Liberal: 61
PC: 38
NDP: 8
This would be a 57% Liberal majority. However, I have to make some adjustments for things the projector does not factor in. I am giving the NDP the 3 seats it won in by-elections. I am making the assumption that John Tory wins his seat in Don Valley West (the predictor predicts this seat as a Liberal hold). I am also switching several bellwether ridings won by tiny, tiny margins by the PCs back to the Liberals because I expect them to return a Liberal should the Liberals be re-elected due to their bellwether status. Those ridings affected are Ottawa West--Nepean, Huron--Bruce, and Kitchener Centre. I also am moving Oakville back to the Liberal column because the Tories only won it by 0.3% and I expect Liberal incumbent Kevin Flynn to be re-elected should the Liberals win re-election province-wide. These changes make the seat numbers as follows:
Liberal: 61
PC: 35
NDP: 11
That would still be a 57% Liberal majority. So I’d say the Liberals are still in the game and a minority government is far from certain.
Gordon Brown and Paul Martin
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is speculated to be considering calling a snap election for October. I say don’t do it. Having an election this early is always risky because the public reacts badly to unnecessary early elections – just ask David Peterson. In this case it would be even worse – an election after only two years. The public could definitely react negatively to such an early and unnecessary election. The general rule is that the possible earliest that one can voluntarily dissolve Parliament and be re-elected with a majority is 3 years and a few months into the mandate, as judged by the Canadian Liberals majority wins in 1997 and 2000 which were both 3 years and a few months into the mandate. 3 years exactly is not enough as proven by David Peterson. Imagine, thus, the disaster that could occur for Labour with an election only 2 years into the mandate. By my theory, Brown needs to wait until the fall of 2008 at the earliest for an election. Yet despite my warning there is serious talk of there being an election in the spring of 2008. But as I said, exactly 3 years into a mandate is not enough time – new Prime Minister or not. I’ve even heard of there being an election on the 1 year anniversary of Brown taking power. I assume they meant an election at this time, not a dissolution at this time. A dissolution at this time would result in an election in July or August which I think would be considered unacceptable. Election Day being held at the first anniversary of Brown taking power would also be a bad idea for a reason other than it being only 3 years into the mandate. Having an election at such a time would mean holding the election in late June. There is strong evidence that holding the 2004 Canadian election in late June reduced voter turnout. There is reason to believe the same would happen in the United Kingdom with a late June election. Lower voter turnout is bad for democracy and will not necessarily favour the incumbent government. Strangely, the UK Conservatives say that Brown should have called an election immediately after becoming Prime Minister. This is impractical for several reasons. Firstly, it would have resulted in a summer election. Secondly, it would have left no time for Brown to establish himself and his policies. Thirdly, it would have left no time for Labour to refill it’s empty electoral coffers, giving the Tories an unfair advantage. Fourthly, it would not have left time for Labour even to have an election manifesto (a terse platform). Fifthly, it would have left no time for Labour to develop an election platform. Sixthly, it would have ended MPs term in office too early. I could go on. The fact is as much as the Tories don’t like it, Gordon Brown has the exact same authority to govern as did Tony Blair – it is the way the system works. An October election is also a bad idea because it would deny the two newly elected MPs in the recent by-elections a chance to settle into their jobs. It would barely give them time to receive their first paycheck. Besides, Labour’s 10 point lead might be smaller or nonexistent by October. That’s why Brown has to stay in character and be his usual cautious self.
I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.
Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.
On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.
I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.
Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.
On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)