Saturday, June 30, 2007
Ontario Liberals
I think that Dalton McGuinty’s re-election chances depend in part on the relative popularity of the federal Conservative and Liberal parties. I’ve said this before, but once again I think there is a spillover effect between what happens on the federal scene that corresponds to attitudes at the Ontario provincial scene. In my humble opinion, the McGuinty government still has a significant chance of re-election in the fall. However, it must be remembered that 90% of sitting MPPs as well as the government itself was elected during a different political era. The composition of the current legislature was voted on at a time when the federal Liberals reigned supreme under Jean Chrétien. The current legislature was elected at a time when the federal Liberals were ever popular and unbeatable under Chrétien. It is amazing how quickly that decade-long juggernaut came crashing down mere months after the 2003 provincial election. By June 2004, less than a year later, that juggernaut that was supposed to continue under Paul Martin was gone. So the fact that the McGuinty government was elected in that previous political era is something to keep in mind. On the flip side it is important to note that the Ontario Liberals are still stronger in many rural seats than the federal Liberals. However, if the Ontario Liberals want to win the coming election they have to run an actual campaign. They cannot simply coast as the federal Liberals did in the last election. Coasting leads to inevitable defeat. The Liberals must actually campaign. If they do campaign, they still have a decent shot at winning.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Outremont
I never thought I’d say this but I am concerned that the Liberals could lose the Montreal riding of Outremont to the NDP. The NDP is running the very high-profile candidate Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair does not live in Outremont and has never represented it. However, he is high-profile because he until recently represented a Laval riding in the National Assembly for the Quebec Liberals and was previously Jean Charest’s Environment Minister. Mulcair seemed to disagree with the more right-wing aspects of Charest’s premiership such as the privatization of Mont Orford Park. When Charest tried to demote Mulcair (presumably due to these differences) to Government Service Minister, Mulcair refused this position and returned to the backbenches. In the 2007 election, he did not run again. After retiring from provincial politics, all 3 of Canada’s major federalist parties wanted him to join them and run for their respective party. Despite Mulcair’s apparent left-leaning nature, it appears even the Tories wanted him to run for them and the possibility of Mulcair being a Tory candidate was occasionally discussed. However, Mulcair opted instead to join the New Democratic Party and become Jack Layton’s Quebec lieutenant. Why he couldn’t have simply run for the Liberals instead I’m not sure. Notre-Dame-de-Grace Montreal councilor Marcel Tremblay was supposed to be the Tory candidate for the Outremont by-election. Tremblay’s ward doesn’t cover any part of Outremont but he would be high-profile because he is the Montreal mayor’s brother. The Tories apparently heavily courted Tremblay. More recently it appears that Tremblay is not running and plans to continue working on Montreal’s municipal issues. The Tories thus still have yet to announce a candidate for Outremont. The Liberals also have not announced a candidate, although it is supposed to be some kind of star candidate. Some think Dion will simply appoint a female candidate into the riding. But the Liberals have been very tight-lipped and so any speculation on who the Liberal candidate will be is merely guesswork. The Bloc recently nominated some low-profile candidate. I am currently hoping to goodness that the Liberals nominate someone who can match Mulcair’s profile. Otherwise Mulcair could actually win a Quebec riding for the NDP, something that would prove disastrous for the Liberals both short term and long term. Outremont is an Allophone and Anglophone riding that also has a significant French-speaking population. I’d also say that Outremont has a core sovereigntist vote of the mid-20% range. Keeping in mind that the NDP is a federalist party, I have difficulty seeing the BQ vote going much below 25%. I’m guessing that the NDP under Mulcair could get as much as 30% of the vote. In the previous general election the NDP got 17% in Outremont and that is bound to increase with Mulcair. If the vote splits enough, Mulcair could win with 30%. Whether the Liberals could get above that 30% and still take first place all depends on how well the Tories do and how well the Greens do. It all remains to be seen and I am frustrated that I do not know who the Liberal candidate is so that I could better evaluate Liberal chances.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
More about the Senate
While it is true that the Senate is currently blocking a Senator term limit Bill, the Senate is not blocking the three justice Bills Stephen Harper is citing. These Bills have only been in the Senate for a few weeks and the Senate has not expedited them. This quote from Stephen Harper is patently false. Harper said “Our bail reforms are backed by police, prosecutors, big city mayors, the NDP and the Ontario Liberals. But not by the Liberal majority in the Senate,”. In fact the Bill in question has not been voted down by the Senate. It has, however, received only first reading in the Senate. It is not stalled at committee. The Liberals support this Bill and the Senate will pass this Bill. Parliamentary procedure on Bills is sometimes slow, even in the House of Commons on the government’s own Bills even when not at committee. The Senate simply has not had a chance to move the Bill forward to the next stages to be passed. It is just that the Senate has not gotten around to debating and passing the Bill yet. I can assure Stephen Harper that the bail reform Bill will be passed in the Senate in the fall. Saying that Liberal Senators are against this Bill is incorrect and Stephen Harper should know it.
As far as the mandatory minimum sentences Bill, the Liberal leadership opposed the Bill in the House of Commons, but I’m guessing that as with the budget it will be passed in the Senate. The third Bill that the CTV article mentions is as follows : “The blocked bills would have: Raised the age of consent from 14 to 16”. This is a Bill that the Liberals and Bloc reluctantly supported. The NDP has been split on this issue in the past but those previously opposed to raising the age of consent also reluctantly support this Bill. This Bill passed without there ever being a recorded vote. I’m guessing the Senate will get around to passing the Bill in the fall. The Bill gives a close-in-age exemption of up to four years. The opposition parties would never have agreed to this Bill otherwise. The Bill however now prohibits a 19 year old from having sex with a 14 year old. Even 20 year olds are now prohibited from having sex with 15 year olds. Some have argued that the Bill is a violation of human rights because it unduly restricts who 14 year olds and 15 year olds may choose as sex partners. The problem is that this is a side of the story that nobody really wants to hear because everyone is too caught up in the hype about supposed sexual exploitation of 14 year olds. I don’t doubt that there is some sexual exploitation that has occurred. Such sexual exploitation is already illegal, however. Proponents of this Bill have argued that somehow Canada’s current law is being used by sexual predators in the United States to come and sexually exploit 14 year old girls. The first problem with this is that luring children over the internet is already illegal and so if any sexual predator tries this they are already breaking the law. I think proponents of the Bill had the internet in mind when they were arguing that Canada’s law was being used to exploit. And I don’t doubt that there have been some who have used the current law to exploit 14 year old girls. But any of them who did it over the internet were breaking the law right off the bat. And even if they did not use the internet, the moment that there is a hint of exploitation in the relationship with the girl it becomes illegal under the current law. I do not know how many people actually come from the United States to Canada and hang around to pick up 14 year old girls and have sex with them; because that is the only way they could do it without breaking any laws. I don’t doubt there have been a few who have done this. And maybe the new law will discourage them from doing this and there will be even fewer strange men from the US hanging around trying to pick up young girls. But sadly I expect this Bill will reduce sexual exploitation by very little because those who want to sexually exploit will sadly not let the law stand in their way.
The CTV article seems to imply that the age of consent Bill was a Bill that the Ontario Provincial Liberals (of Dalton McGuinty fame) supported being passed. If the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the federal issue of age of consent its news to me. I do not know if this is what the article meant or if they were only referring to the bail and mandatory minimums reform. But if the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the age of consent issue that is outside their jurisdiction, I must have missed that.
I do not believe that Stephane Dion is as bad a leader as everybody says. I fail to understand why no one likes Stephane Dion. He is such a great guy. And as a leader he often seems to know what he is doing. For example, he reached the recent compromise on the Senate budget Bill standoff all by himself. He diffused a potential storm by allowing a free vote on the budget Bill, opening the door for Atlantic and Saskatchewan Liberal Senators to vote against the Bill but still allowing the Bill to pass the Senate. This was an excellent compromise that has allowed the Bill to pass but now be judged in the court of public opinion. It was an excellent solution and it was all done by Stephane Dion. He is a far better leader than people give him credit for. He’s even getting more effective during Question Period. I am overjoyed to see that in the last few weeks and months, the Liberals have finally been able to, on a regular basis, hold the government to account as is the Liberals’ duty as the Official Opposition. The Liberals have finally found themselves able to effectively oppose the government and effectively hold the government to account and I am overjoyed at this. And as any opposition party does this, it increases their viability as a government-in-waiting, and I’m glad to see the Liberals finally as a government-in-waiting working on being able to eventually replace the Conservatives and become the Government of Canada once more.
Sources:
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n062269A
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070622/kyoto_budget_070622/20070622?hub=CTVNewsAt11
As far as the mandatory minimum sentences Bill, the Liberal leadership opposed the Bill in the House of Commons, but I’m guessing that as with the budget it will be passed in the Senate. The third Bill that the CTV article mentions is as follows : “The blocked bills would have: Raised the age of consent from 14 to 16”. This is a Bill that the Liberals and Bloc reluctantly supported. The NDP has been split on this issue in the past but those previously opposed to raising the age of consent also reluctantly support this Bill. This Bill passed without there ever being a recorded vote. I’m guessing the Senate will get around to passing the Bill in the fall. The Bill gives a close-in-age exemption of up to four years. The opposition parties would never have agreed to this Bill otherwise. The Bill however now prohibits a 19 year old from having sex with a 14 year old. Even 20 year olds are now prohibited from having sex with 15 year olds. Some have argued that the Bill is a violation of human rights because it unduly restricts who 14 year olds and 15 year olds may choose as sex partners. The problem is that this is a side of the story that nobody really wants to hear because everyone is too caught up in the hype about supposed sexual exploitation of 14 year olds. I don’t doubt that there is some sexual exploitation that has occurred. Such sexual exploitation is already illegal, however. Proponents of this Bill have argued that somehow Canada’s current law is being used by sexual predators in the United States to come and sexually exploit 14 year old girls. The first problem with this is that luring children over the internet is already illegal and so if any sexual predator tries this they are already breaking the law. I think proponents of the Bill had the internet in mind when they were arguing that Canada’s law was being used to exploit. And I don’t doubt that there have been some who have used the current law to exploit 14 year old girls. But any of them who did it over the internet were breaking the law right off the bat. And even if they did not use the internet, the moment that there is a hint of exploitation in the relationship with the girl it becomes illegal under the current law. I do not know how many people actually come from the United States to Canada and hang around to pick up 14 year old girls and have sex with them; because that is the only way they could do it without breaking any laws. I don’t doubt there have been a few who have done this. And maybe the new law will discourage them from doing this and there will be even fewer strange men from the US hanging around trying to pick up young girls. But sadly I expect this Bill will reduce sexual exploitation by very little because those who want to sexually exploit will sadly not let the law stand in their way.
The CTV article seems to imply that the age of consent Bill was a Bill that the Ontario Provincial Liberals (of Dalton McGuinty fame) supported being passed. If the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the federal issue of age of consent its news to me. I do not know if this is what the article meant or if they were only referring to the bail and mandatory minimums reform. But if the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the age of consent issue that is outside their jurisdiction, I must have missed that.
I do not believe that Stephane Dion is as bad a leader as everybody says. I fail to understand why no one likes Stephane Dion. He is such a great guy. And as a leader he often seems to know what he is doing. For example, he reached the recent compromise on the Senate budget Bill standoff all by himself. He diffused a potential storm by allowing a free vote on the budget Bill, opening the door for Atlantic and Saskatchewan Liberal Senators to vote against the Bill but still allowing the Bill to pass the Senate. This was an excellent compromise that has allowed the Bill to pass but now be judged in the court of public opinion. It was an excellent solution and it was all done by Stephane Dion. He is a far better leader than people give him credit for. He’s even getting more effective during Question Period. I am overjoyed to see that in the last few weeks and months, the Liberals have finally been able to, on a regular basis, hold the government to account as is the Liberals’ duty as the Official Opposition. The Liberals have finally found themselves able to effectively oppose the government and effectively hold the government to account and I am overjoyed at this. And as any opposition party does this, it increases their viability as a government-in-waiting, and I’m glad to see the Liberals finally as a government-in-waiting working on being able to eventually replace the Conservatives and become the Government of Canada once more.
Sources:
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n062269A
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070622/kyoto_budget_070622/20070622?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Farewell to Bill and Jim
Yesterday, Bill Graham announced that he would resign his House of Commons seat on July 2. Today, Jim Peterson announced that he would resign his House of Commons seat on July 12. I’m guessing that both these parliamentary veterans were asked to resign to make way for Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay to run in by-elections. But my concern is that the Liberals could lose one or both of these by-elections to the Conservatives. I’m particularly concerned about Willowdale, where the Conservatives got 29% to the Liberals’ 55%. In Toronto Centre I am concerned that the riding could go something other than Liberal because of continuing dislike of Bob Rae. The Liberals want all Liberal Leadership candidates to be in the House of Commons. There were initially 11 leadership candidates, 8 of which were MPs. 3 candidates, MPs Carolyn Bennett, Maurizio Bevilacqua, and Hedy Fry all dropped out prior to “Super Weekend” and all endorsed Bob Rae. MP John Godfrey was briefly in the Leadership race as well but dropped out in April 2006 before the race really started for health reasons. He did however participate in a leadership race debate in April 2006 and did well at it. It is therefore sad that after such a great start, health had to make Mr. Godfrey drop out. While I expect Godfrey could have been a great leader, he was born in December 1942. No offence to the exemplary Mr. Godfrey, but a younger leader may well have been needed to be able to take on Stephen Harper and form a future government. Not to say that Godfrey too would not have been capable of this, I’m just saying that someone younger may, I stress, may, have been a better choice. Mr. Godfrey also later endorsed Bob Rae.
There were 3 leadership candidates who were not MPs. They were Gerard Kennedy (my candidate!), Bob Rae, and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy is a former Ontario MPP and former Ontario education minister. Rae is a former Ontario MPP and a former NDP Ontario Premier. Rae left the NDP in 2002 over it’s rejection of free market capitalism (he referenced outgoing UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as an example of someone who has praised free markets) and over it’s lack of support for Israel. Bob Rae’s wife is Jewish. Rae is also of Jewish decent although he was raised an Anglican. Some say Rae was the first Jewish Premier of Ontario. After leaving the NDP, Rae slowly drifted his affiliation to the Liberals. In 2006, Rae decided he wanted to seek the federal Liberal leadership. He eventually lost to Stephane Dion. I followed Kennedy’s lead and endorsed Stephane Dion when Kennedy dropped out of the ballot. Rae was also an NDP MP from late 1978 to 1982 when he quit in order to become leader of the provincial NDP. The third leadership candidate who was not an MP was Martha Hall Findlay. She has never held elected office but came close to beating Belinda Stronach in 2004 when Stronach was a Conservative. In the leadership race, Hall Findlay was first to be eliminated and she endorsed Dion. Rae released his delegates and did not endorse either of the two remaining candidates, Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Ever since the leadership race has been over, the Liberals have wanted the 3 non-MP candidates to become MPs in order for there to be a stronger front against Stephen Harper’s government. But now that the next election might not be until 2009, these 3 politicians likely have started to become impatient about being on the sidelines and possibly remaining on the sidelines for a whole another 2 years before they can run in a general election. It is for this reason that I think the two retiring Liberal incumbents were asked to retire early to allow an earlier chance to get the seatless leadership candidates to enter Parliament in by-elections. Rae and Hall Findlay were already nominated in their respective ridings for the next general election. I expect that the two retiring political veterans obliged because they did not want to have to wait around another two years before being able to retire. Both Peterson and Graham announced their retirement at a time that a spring election was expected. I don’t think they were planning on the seemingly inevitable election to fizzle. Graham and Peterson likely were expecting Parliament to be dissolved this spring. I doubt either was betting on the Parliament lasting another two years as now seems probable. It is for this reason I think that both have just announced their resignation to allow for an early retirement and thus some new blood to be elected in their place.
Unfortunately this all leaves out my guy Gerard Kennedy. Under this current plan Kennedy remains on the sidelines until the next election which could be another two years. Kennedy decided to run in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park against NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. I’m glad Kennedy is running there as he is just about the only one who could win this increasingly NDP riding back for the Liberals. However, this leaves Kennedy out until the next general election unless another seat opens up and Kennedy opts to run there instead. It previously seemed like a good seat for Kennedy to run in was York South-Weston. After all Kennedy represented much of the riding from 1996-1999. However this was based on the assumption that Alan Tonks (who was born in 1943) would retire. Since then Tonks has, however, committed to running again so the seat is not becoming vacated. This is on top of the fact that there are now doubts about how safe the seat is on the federal level given the recent NDP victory in the provincial York South-Weston seat. So I’m sad to say that for now my guy Gerard Kennedy is stuck out of Parliament.
There were 3 leadership candidates who were not MPs. They were Gerard Kennedy (my candidate!), Bob Rae, and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy is a former Ontario MPP and former Ontario education minister. Rae is a former Ontario MPP and a former NDP Ontario Premier. Rae left the NDP in 2002 over it’s rejection of free market capitalism (he referenced outgoing UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as an example of someone who has praised free markets) and over it’s lack of support for Israel. Bob Rae’s wife is Jewish. Rae is also of Jewish decent although he was raised an Anglican. Some say Rae was the first Jewish Premier of Ontario. After leaving the NDP, Rae slowly drifted his affiliation to the Liberals. In 2006, Rae decided he wanted to seek the federal Liberal leadership. He eventually lost to Stephane Dion. I followed Kennedy’s lead and endorsed Stephane Dion when Kennedy dropped out of the ballot. Rae was also an NDP MP from late 1978 to 1982 when he quit in order to become leader of the provincial NDP. The third leadership candidate who was not an MP was Martha Hall Findlay. She has never held elected office but came close to beating Belinda Stronach in 2004 when Stronach was a Conservative. In the leadership race, Hall Findlay was first to be eliminated and she endorsed Dion. Rae released his delegates and did not endorse either of the two remaining candidates, Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Ever since the leadership race has been over, the Liberals have wanted the 3 non-MP candidates to become MPs in order for there to be a stronger front against Stephen Harper’s government. But now that the next election might not be until 2009, these 3 politicians likely have started to become impatient about being on the sidelines and possibly remaining on the sidelines for a whole another 2 years before they can run in a general election. It is for this reason that I think the two retiring Liberal incumbents were asked to retire early to allow an earlier chance to get the seatless leadership candidates to enter Parliament in by-elections. Rae and Hall Findlay were already nominated in their respective ridings for the next general election. I expect that the two retiring political veterans obliged because they did not want to have to wait around another two years before being able to retire. Both Peterson and Graham announced their retirement at a time that a spring election was expected. I don’t think they were planning on the seemingly inevitable election to fizzle. Graham and Peterson likely were expecting Parliament to be dissolved this spring. I doubt either was betting on the Parliament lasting another two years as now seems probable. It is for this reason I think that both have just announced their resignation to allow for an early retirement and thus some new blood to be elected in their place.
Unfortunately this all leaves out my guy Gerard Kennedy. Under this current plan Kennedy remains on the sidelines until the next election which could be another two years. Kennedy decided to run in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park against NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. I’m glad Kennedy is running there as he is just about the only one who could win this increasingly NDP riding back for the Liberals. However, this leaves Kennedy out until the next general election unless another seat opens up and Kennedy opts to run there instead. It previously seemed like a good seat for Kennedy to run in was York South-Weston. After all Kennedy represented much of the riding from 1996-1999. However this was based on the assumption that Alan Tonks (who was born in 1943) would retire. Since then Tonks has, however, committed to running again so the seat is not becoming vacated. This is on top of the fact that there are now doubts about how safe the seat is on the federal level given the recent NDP victory in the provincial York South-Weston seat. So I’m sad to say that for now my guy Gerard Kennedy is stuck out of Parliament.
Rural Eastern Ontario ridings
I miss the riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington because it returned Liberals in all federal and provincial elections in which it existed as a riding from 1993 onwards. In 1988 the Liberals could have won the riding had there been more strategic voting. The Tories won it by only 868 votes. If several thousand of the 7000 NDP voters had voted strategically Liberal, the Liberals could have won the seat. In 1993, the Liberals won the seat in a landslide. In 1997, and 2000, Liberal Larry McCormick won the riding both times by a comfortable margin but with only 39% of the vote. In 1997, he won the riding by a large 6000 votes yet with only 39%. In 2000, the Alliance candidate did well enough to receive 30% of the vote to McCormick’s 39%, closing the gap somewhat and the Liberals being victorious by a reduced margin of 3769 votes. In this riding it was the PCs and the Reform/Alliance who split the vote and allowed the Liberals to win. The PC candidate was Daryl Kramp in 1997 and 2000, who is now a Tory MP for the neighbouring Prince Edward—Hastings riding. He claims to be a Red Tory but has never voted in parliament like a Red Tory so is in my opinion much like any other Conservative. I believe that even in 2000 with a Red Tory leader Joe Clark, the votes for the PC candidate Kramp were mostly Conservative minded voters who would have moved and eventually did move to the new Conservative party in 2004. This is unlike in more left-leaning ridings where 1 Alliance vote plus 1 PC vote did not equal 2 Conservative votes because a number of the PC votes were more Red Tory-oriented votes. It was in ridings like Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington that a true vote split did exist in the 2000 election. I however think that indeed in many ridings the vote splitting issue in 2000 did not have as big an effect on the final outcome as Conservatives claim. Clark after all was a Red Tory and if you look closely at the results of the 2004 election you will see approximately half, give or take, of the PC votes of the 2000 election moving to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party only lost ground overall in 2004 because of a surge in support for both the Bloc and NDP. Without the NDP and Bloc surge, the Liberals could have clearly won another majority government even with a United Right. By that same token, as much as Conservative supporters do not want to hear this, the optics of the 2000 election mean that the Liberals could have won a majority government against a United Right had that United Right been led by Stockwell Day or some other Alliance type possibly even including Stephen Harper. Such a United Right would have taken at most around half of what went to the PCs (as the 2004 election shows) due to this right-wing party being unable to have broad appeal because of it’s right wing policies due to it being led by an Alliance-type leader. The result would have been a smaller Liberal majority government but a majority government nevertheless. Even in Ontario ridings in 2000 with a technical vote split, many would have gone Liberal because even a small amount of the PC vote going Liberal would have enabled the Liberal candidate to beat the united Conservatives. I know it pains Conservatives to hear this, but I suspect the 2000 election results with a United Right would likely have looked approximately something like this:
Liberal: 46%
United Right/Conservative: 32%
Bloc Quebecois: 11%
NDP: 9%
Such a result almost certainly would have produced a Liberal majority against a United Right.
Unfortunately, any pretense of ever winning back the rural Frontenac/Lennox and Addington riding are gone now that it has been redistributed to include much of the very, very Conservative Lanark County. Lanark County’s conservatism greatly overshadows any moderation that exists in Frontenac and Lennox and Addington and makes the riding one of the safest Tory seats in the country outside Alberta with no hope of the Liberals winning the riding ever in the foreseeable future.
This unfortunate product of redistribution also negatively affects two Eastern Ontario ridings at the provincial level. That same redistributed Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington riding and the modified Prince Edward-Hastings riding in essence have neither of their respective Liberal incumbents running in the riding again. Ernie Parsons of Prince Edward-Hastings is for some reason not running again after only two terms in the legislature even though Parsons is only 61. Although the modified riding now includes conservative northern Hastings that was previously part of the other riding, the redistributed results still have the Liberals easily winning the riding by over 10,000 votes. What this indicates to me is that although northern Hastings is normally very conservative, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington’s incumbent Leona Dombrowsky (who hails from the northern Hastings part of her current riding) has enough personal popularity in northern Hastings that she was able to win the Hastings part of the riding that the Liberals came third in in 1997 and in which the Liberals came second to the Alliance in 2000. It is presumably for this reason that Dombrowsky is moving over and running in the now vacated Prince Edward-Hastings and leaving Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington to some unnamed Liberal candidate. I only hope that Ernie is retiring on his own and didn’t retire only due to the threat of a nomination challenge from the sitting Minister Dombrowsky. Perhaps Dombrowsky did not want to run in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington because she thought she might lose. Although the Liberals narrowly won in the redistributed results, I expect the results were too close to give Dombrowsky much comfort. As a result I suspect she took advantage of the incumbent retiring in Prince Edward-Hastings to run in a seat that contains part of her old riding and in which she has a better chance of winning than in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. The unfortunate part of this is that now Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington will almost certainly be won by the right-wing Tory candidate now running in it because there is no Liberal incumbent running in the riding.
On a related note, Dombrowsky was first elected in her seat in 1999 in what was supposed to be a safe Tory seat. Pundits and commentators, however, failed to realize that that riding contained dissatisfaction with the Harris government DESPITE being a rural riding. The result was that Dombrowsky was able to unexpectedly beat the incumbent Tory candidate and became the MPP. Both times Dombrowsky ran, she outpolled her federal Liberal counterpart Larry McCormick. In fact, the provincial Liberals have outpolled the federal Liberals in many rural parts of the province in both 1999 and 2003. If the Liberals want to be re-elected in 2007, they need to again outpoll the federal Liberals in these rural areas and indeed have to win some seats that are held by the federal Tories. I’m worried that a recent bill the Liberals passed may make this harder. A recent Bill that amended the election act included amendments to make it so that the political affiliation of each candidate is listed directly on the ballot rather than on a piece of paper near the ballot box. I’m concerned that this will hurt the Liberals in anti-federal Liberal ridings like Elgin-Middlesex-London that have a popular provincial Liberal incumbent for voters to see the name “Liberal” on the ballot. I’m concerned this will disincline people to personally support the popular Liberal incumbent and instead to vote Conservative as no doubt many of them would in a federal election. I don’t know why the Liberals made this change to the law when it could make it harder for them to win re-election.
I’ve mentioned several of these rural ridings. Another one to watch is Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry. This riding has swung sharply to the federal Tories in the last two federal elections. Although this riding was only narrowly won by the Liberals in 1999, in 2003 the Liberals easily won the riding with a new Liberal candidate. However, the Tories did get a slightly above-average showing. This newly elected Liberal from 2003, Jim Brownell, I hear is very personally popular. Although Mayor of Cornwall since 2006, the 2004 Liberal incumbent Bob Kilger was in 2004 not that personally popular. This, combined with the social conservatism of the region, made Kilger lose his seat. In my estimation, Brownell has more personal popularity than Kilger did at the time. It is because of this that Brownell has a chance to win the riding for the provincial Liberals even though the seat has swung so sharply to the Tories at the federal level. It is these ridings that the Conservatives hold at the federal level that it is vital that the Liberals win if they want to win another majority government.
Liberal: 46%
United Right/Conservative: 32%
Bloc Quebecois: 11%
NDP: 9%
Such a result almost certainly would have produced a Liberal majority against a United Right.
Unfortunately, any pretense of ever winning back the rural Frontenac/Lennox and Addington riding are gone now that it has been redistributed to include much of the very, very Conservative Lanark County. Lanark County’s conservatism greatly overshadows any moderation that exists in Frontenac and Lennox and Addington and makes the riding one of the safest Tory seats in the country outside Alberta with no hope of the Liberals winning the riding ever in the foreseeable future.
This unfortunate product of redistribution also negatively affects two Eastern Ontario ridings at the provincial level. That same redistributed Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington riding and the modified Prince Edward-Hastings riding in essence have neither of their respective Liberal incumbents running in the riding again. Ernie Parsons of Prince Edward-Hastings is for some reason not running again after only two terms in the legislature even though Parsons is only 61. Although the modified riding now includes conservative northern Hastings that was previously part of the other riding, the redistributed results still have the Liberals easily winning the riding by over 10,000 votes. What this indicates to me is that although northern Hastings is normally very conservative, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington’s incumbent Leona Dombrowsky (who hails from the northern Hastings part of her current riding) has enough personal popularity in northern Hastings that she was able to win the Hastings part of the riding that the Liberals came third in in 1997 and in which the Liberals came second to the Alliance in 2000. It is presumably for this reason that Dombrowsky is moving over and running in the now vacated Prince Edward-Hastings and leaving Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington to some unnamed Liberal candidate. I only hope that Ernie is retiring on his own and didn’t retire only due to the threat of a nomination challenge from the sitting Minister Dombrowsky. Perhaps Dombrowsky did not want to run in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington because she thought she might lose. Although the Liberals narrowly won in the redistributed results, I expect the results were too close to give Dombrowsky much comfort. As a result I suspect she took advantage of the incumbent retiring in Prince Edward-Hastings to run in a seat that contains part of her old riding and in which she has a better chance of winning than in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. The unfortunate part of this is that now Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington will almost certainly be won by the right-wing Tory candidate now running in it because there is no Liberal incumbent running in the riding.
On a related note, Dombrowsky was first elected in her seat in 1999 in what was supposed to be a safe Tory seat. Pundits and commentators, however, failed to realize that that riding contained dissatisfaction with the Harris government DESPITE being a rural riding. The result was that Dombrowsky was able to unexpectedly beat the incumbent Tory candidate and became the MPP. Both times Dombrowsky ran, she outpolled her federal Liberal counterpart Larry McCormick. In fact, the provincial Liberals have outpolled the federal Liberals in many rural parts of the province in both 1999 and 2003. If the Liberals want to be re-elected in 2007, they need to again outpoll the federal Liberals in these rural areas and indeed have to win some seats that are held by the federal Tories. I’m worried that a recent bill the Liberals passed may make this harder. A recent Bill that amended the election act included amendments to make it so that the political affiliation of each candidate is listed directly on the ballot rather than on a piece of paper near the ballot box. I’m concerned that this will hurt the Liberals in anti-federal Liberal ridings like Elgin-Middlesex-London that have a popular provincial Liberal incumbent for voters to see the name “Liberal” on the ballot. I’m concerned this will disincline people to personally support the popular Liberal incumbent and instead to vote Conservative as no doubt many of them would in a federal election. I don’t know why the Liberals made this change to the law when it could make it harder for them to win re-election.
I’ve mentioned several of these rural ridings. Another one to watch is Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry. This riding has swung sharply to the federal Tories in the last two federal elections. Although this riding was only narrowly won by the Liberals in 1999, in 2003 the Liberals easily won the riding with a new Liberal candidate. However, the Tories did get a slightly above-average showing. This newly elected Liberal from 2003, Jim Brownell, I hear is very personally popular. Although Mayor of Cornwall since 2006, the 2004 Liberal incumbent Bob Kilger was in 2004 not that personally popular. This, combined with the social conservatism of the region, made Kilger lose his seat. In my estimation, Brownell has more personal popularity than Kilger did at the time. It is because of this that Brownell has a chance to win the riding for the provincial Liberals even though the seat has swung so sharply to the Tories at the federal level. It is these ridings that the Conservatives hold at the federal level that it is vital that the Liberals win if they want to win another majority government.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Atlantic Canada and the Canadian Senate
Sources:
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=37506&sc=98
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2007/06/14/cabinet-react.html
Now that Liberal Robert Ghiz has been sworn in as PEI Premier and now that Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald has come out against the federal budget, there are no longer any pro-Harper Premiers in Atlantic Canada. I am glad that this is the case. What a spectacle this Atlantic Accord debacle has been. One of the debacle’s casualties, Bill Casey, recently did something abnormal in the House of Commons. I’m not exactly sure what happened the other day when Bill Casey initially voted for Liberal MP John Cannis’s private members’ motion on income trusts, but after the vote was held he stood up and announced that he missed the whip so much he voted the wrong way and that he meant to vote nay. How is that possible? It was so obvious that when Mr. Casey had stood up it was when the yea votes were being counted. Did he change his mind after initially voting or what happened? Somehow the House accepted his change of vote even though I thought that to change one’s vote required unanimous consent of the House. Does this mean that he personally supports the government’s income trust policy?
Even though the Green Party of PEI did relatively poorly in the recent PEI election, I recall federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May saying she was encouraged by the PEI election results. I believe the highest vote that any Green candidate received in the PEI election was 8%. Sure one could say it was a breakthrough that the Greens finished ahead of the New Democrats in popular vote, but that is likely because the Greens ran more candidates than the New Democrats. Had the New Democrats fielded a full slate and the Greens fielded the same partial slate that they did field, the New Democrats would likely have polled ahead of the Greens. Even if the Greens and New Democrats had both fielded a full slate of candidates, the New Democrats would likely have finished ahead of the Greens. I consider it likely that the Greens only finished third because they had more candidates than the New Democrats. Green Party leader Sharon Labchuk has challenged the appointment of the new Environment Minister George Webster because, as quoted in the PEI Guardian “ ‘Environment Minister George Webster is one of P.E.I.’s larger potato producers and represents the global industrialized system of agriculture that’s poisoned our air, contaminated our water and mined our soil,’ said Labchuk.
‘His appointment is a slap in the face to every Islander with nitrate-contaminated water and to every parent who fears for their children’s health and safety in the upcoming spray season.’ ” My goodness, Islanders have been farming potatoes for generations. Why does she just assume that there are lots of pesticides involved, including in the case of the Minister’s potato farming? After all, Mr. Webster has won environment awards according to the same article. Comments from the Green leader mentioned in an online CBC article are even more disturbing. This is what the article paraphrased Ms. Labchuk as saying: “Labchuk said P.E.I. needs someone who is going to work to dismantle the potato industry, not protect it. She said a better choice would have been somebody who doesn't come from a farming background.” Dismantle the potato industry, the lifeblood of PEI? Come on now. If everyone knew that this was the PEI Green Party’s position, I doubt any Green candidate would have received 2% letalone 8%.
On another topic, I’m tired of Liberal Senators defying the directives of Liberal leader Stephane Dion. There is this whole thing about Senators defying Dion and defeating the budget. It’s likely that the Senate will at least delay the passing of the Bill into the summer and make the Senate sit into the summer. However I am a bit disturbed at the Liberal leader’s inability to make Liberal Senators follow his directives. I get the feeling that it is often this way. Senators often refuse to follow the directives of their Commons leader. What else would explain how a Tory budget was defeated by the Senate in 1993 when the PCs had a majority in the Senate. Clearly some Senators then too defied their Commons leader, a seemingly common occurance. Personally I have no problem with Senators from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan voting against the budget. But I think Dion should maybe threaten to punush any Liberal Senator outside those provinces if they vote against the budget. I don’t mean to be unfair to Senators based on what their home province is, but it is for the good of the Liberal Party that we let the budget pass and let the Atlantic Accord debacle be judged in the court of public opinion. I just feel that giving Senators from those 3 provinces an exemption from the directive to vote for the budget is a reasoable compromise to this emotional topic. I am going to assume that Conservative Senators from those 3 provinces will be like their Commons counterparts from those 3 provinces and vote for the budget. If so, the budget can still easily pass with the support of the other Liberal Senators plus the Conservative Senators. No budget amendments are possible because those would presumably be rejected in the Commons. If certain Senators move amendments at committee, hopefully those amendments can be defeated by the full Senate. The budget bill needs to be passed as quickly as possible to avoid a political crisis that could rub off badly on the Liberals. I have no problem with some delay on the budget Bill, but I want to see the Bill passed by the end of June. Barring that, the Senate needs to sit in July to get the Bill passed. I know that this is a bad budget, but that has to play out in the court of public opinion without any negative effect occuring on the Liberals. The only way to ensure this is to pass the bad budget bill.
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=37506&sc=98
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2007/06/14/cabinet-react.html
Now that Liberal Robert Ghiz has been sworn in as PEI Premier and now that Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald has come out against the federal budget, there are no longer any pro-Harper Premiers in Atlantic Canada. I am glad that this is the case. What a spectacle this Atlantic Accord debacle has been. One of the debacle’s casualties, Bill Casey, recently did something abnormal in the House of Commons. I’m not exactly sure what happened the other day when Bill Casey initially voted for Liberal MP John Cannis’s private members’ motion on income trusts, but after the vote was held he stood up and announced that he missed the whip so much he voted the wrong way and that he meant to vote nay. How is that possible? It was so obvious that when Mr. Casey had stood up it was when the yea votes were being counted. Did he change his mind after initially voting or what happened? Somehow the House accepted his change of vote even though I thought that to change one’s vote required unanimous consent of the House. Does this mean that he personally supports the government’s income trust policy?
Even though the Green Party of PEI did relatively poorly in the recent PEI election, I recall federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May saying she was encouraged by the PEI election results. I believe the highest vote that any Green candidate received in the PEI election was 8%. Sure one could say it was a breakthrough that the Greens finished ahead of the New Democrats in popular vote, but that is likely because the Greens ran more candidates than the New Democrats. Had the New Democrats fielded a full slate and the Greens fielded the same partial slate that they did field, the New Democrats would likely have polled ahead of the Greens. Even if the Greens and New Democrats had both fielded a full slate of candidates, the New Democrats would likely have finished ahead of the Greens. I consider it likely that the Greens only finished third because they had more candidates than the New Democrats. Green Party leader Sharon Labchuk has challenged the appointment of the new Environment Minister George Webster because, as quoted in the PEI Guardian “ ‘Environment Minister George Webster is one of P.E.I.’s larger potato producers and represents the global industrialized system of agriculture that’s poisoned our air, contaminated our water and mined our soil,’ said Labchuk.
‘His appointment is a slap in the face to every Islander with nitrate-contaminated water and to every parent who fears for their children’s health and safety in the upcoming spray season.’ ” My goodness, Islanders have been farming potatoes for generations. Why does she just assume that there are lots of pesticides involved, including in the case of the Minister’s potato farming? After all, Mr. Webster has won environment awards according to the same article. Comments from the Green leader mentioned in an online CBC article are even more disturbing. This is what the article paraphrased Ms. Labchuk as saying: “Labchuk said P.E.I. needs someone who is going to work to dismantle the potato industry, not protect it. She said a better choice would have been somebody who doesn't come from a farming background.” Dismantle the potato industry, the lifeblood of PEI? Come on now. If everyone knew that this was the PEI Green Party’s position, I doubt any Green candidate would have received 2% letalone 8%.
On another topic, I’m tired of Liberal Senators defying the directives of Liberal leader Stephane Dion. There is this whole thing about Senators defying Dion and defeating the budget. It’s likely that the Senate will at least delay the passing of the Bill into the summer and make the Senate sit into the summer. However I am a bit disturbed at the Liberal leader’s inability to make Liberal Senators follow his directives. I get the feeling that it is often this way. Senators often refuse to follow the directives of their Commons leader. What else would explain how a Tory budget was defeated by the Senate in 1993 when the PCs had a majority in the Senate. Clearly some Senators then too defied their Commons leader, a seemingly common occurance. Personally I have no problem with Senators from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan voting against the budget. But I think Dion should maybe threaten to punush any Liberal Senator outside those provinces if they vote against the budget. I don’t mean to be unfair to Senators based on what their home province is, but it is for the good of the Liberal Party that we let the budget pass and let the Atlantic Accord debacle be judged in the court of public opinion. I just feel that giving Senators from those 3 provinces an exemption from the directive to vote for the budget is a reasoable compromise to this emotional topic. I am going to assume that Conservative Senators from those 3 provinces will be like their Commons counterparts from those 3 provinces and vote for the budget. If so, the budget can still easily pass with the support of the other Liberal Senators plus the Conservative Senators. No budget amendments are possible because those would presumably be rejected in the Commons. If certain Senators move amendments at committee, hopefully those amendments can be defeated by the full Senate. The budget bill needs to be passed as quickly as possible to avoid a political crisis that could rub off badly on the Liberals. I have no problem with some delay on the budget Bill, but I want to see the Bill passed by the end of June. Barring that, the Senate needs to sit in July to get the Bill passed. I know that this is a bad budget, but that has to play out in the court of public opinion without any negative effect occuring on the Liberals. The only way to ensure this is to pass the bad budget bill.
Monday, June 11, 2007
All about Ontario politics
It is frustrating how many by-elections the Ontario Liberals lost in the past term. The Liberals fielded candidates in all 10 by-elections this past term but lost every single by-election except two. The Liberals retained two suburban ridings in by-elections: Scarborough—Rouge River and Markham. The Liberals failed to gain from the Tories the suburban ridings of Nepean-Carleton, Whitby-Ajax, or Burlington. The Liberals failed to gain from the Tories the rural riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. The Liberals failed to pick up from the NDP the urban riding of Toronto-Danforth. When the urban Liberal-held ridings of Hamilton East, Parkdale—High Park, and York South—Weston were vacated, the Liberals lost all three to the NDP. That’s a bad record considering all the opportunities there were to win in York South—Weston, Parkdale—High Park, Hamilton East, and even Whitby-Ajax. The Liberals put their best effort in the 3 March 2006 by-elections but ended up coming up short in all 3. In Whitby-Ajax the Liberals came within 3.8% of winning but it was close but no cigar. The 2006 Parkdale-High Park by-election the Liberals blundered big time by acting vulnerable on the issue of education, running a disorganized campaign, and attacking the NDP candidate with a controversial personal attack campaign that backfired badly. Instead the Liberals should have only talked about welfare, health care and education. In the 2007 by-elections, the Liberals tried their best in Burlington but Burlington proved too Conservative a riding, although they still managed a good 40%+ showing. In York South-Weston, the Liberals dropped over 20 points to just above 40%, just behind the NDP candidate. The Liberals lost out because of the unresolved and polarizing issue of a $10 minimum wage. This was an issue that the NDP ran on and won on in the poor riding of York South—Weston. I fully agree with the government’s plan to slowly raise the minimum wage past $10 per hour. I agree with those who argue that an immediate increase to $10 per hour would have a negative effect on the economy. In Markham, the Liberals managed to win a by-election for a change. Unfortunately, Markham’s result was the exception, not the norm.
However, I calculated and found that the Liberals easily won the popular vote if you add up the results of the 3 2007 by-elections with about 42% or by about 10 points. This is an improvement to the 2006 popular vote by-election results which the Tories narrowly won. And the truth is, for all the talk of there being dissatisfaction in the McGuinty government, in February at least there was enough satisfaction to give the Liberals above 40% in all 3 by-elections. There may be more satisfaction with the McGuinty government out there then people are giving credit for. I would attribute the recent close polls mostly to the controversies surrounding the OLG and grants to immigrant groups. I also think that there is a correlation between poll results at the federal and provincial level. My theory is that when Stephen Harper’s popularity goes up, McGuinty’s popularity goes down. Conversely, when Stephen Harper’s popularity goes down, McGuinty’s popularity goes up. And there is evidence that John Tory suffers from Stephen Harper. A recent Ian Urquhart article describes the fact that Mr. Urquhart recently went canvassing alongside both Education Minister Kathleen Wynne and Tory leader John Tory in the riding of Don Valley West. When Tory was canvassing, this sometimes happened: “But – and this is a potential problem for Tory province-wide – several residents questioned him about stands taken by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He pointed out to them that Harper represents a different level of government and, indeed, a different party.” That just proves my point about the fact that people associate John Tory with Stephen Harper and thus Tory’s popularity waxes and wanes along with Harper’s. If Tory came to my door, I’d make the Stephen Harper connection. When Tory points out about the different level of government and different parties, I make connections between the two Tory parties. After all, it is obviously John Tory that Harper endorses to be Premier.
Speaking of John Tory, Tory is proposing to provide funding to private religious schools. Firstly, out of curiosity, I wonder whether this funding would be extended to private Catholic schools when there is already a publicly funded Catholic school system. Secondly, this is a divisive can of worms. If Tory is to come up with millions of new dollars to give money to private schools, I think that money would be better spent improving the existing publicly funded school system. Unfortunately this proposal takes away potential money from the existing system and blurs the distinctions between public and private schools. Personally I find it is duplicative to have a public and publicly funded Catholic system, but I do not favor the sweeping change and constitutional amendments required to merge the two systems. I looked at the comments on the article about this on the Globe and Mail website and found mostly comments against Tory’s proposal. I prefer we better fund the existing system and not divide the province any more on religious grounds than we already are doing.
However, I calculated and found that the Liberals easily won the popular vote if you add up the results of the 3 2007 by-elections with about 42% or by about 10 points. This is an improvement to the 2006 popular vote by-election results which the Tories narrowly won. And the truth is, for all the talk of there being dissatisfaction in the McGuinty government, in February at least there was enough satisfaction to give the Liberals above 40% in all 3 by-elections. There may be more satisfaction with the McGuinty government out there then people are giving credit for. I would attribute the recent close polls mostly to the controversies surrounding the OLG and grants to immigrant groups. I also think that there is a correlation between poll results at the federal and provincial level. My theory is that when Stephen Harper’s popularity goes up, McGuinty’s popularity goes down. Conversely, when Stephen Harper’s popularity goes down, McGuinty’s popularity goes up. And there is evidence that John Tory suffers from Stephen Harper. A recent Ian Urquhart article describes the fact that Mr. Urquhart recently went canvassing alongside both Education Minister Kathleen Wynne and Tory leader John Tory in the riding of Don Valley West. When Tory was canvassing, this sometimes happened: “But – and this is a potential problem for Tory province-wide – several residents questioned him about stands taken by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He pointed out to them that Harper represents a different level of government and, indeed, a different party.” That just proves my point about the fact that people associate John Tory with Stephen Harper and thus Tory’s popularity waxes and wanes along with Harper’s. If Tory came to my door, I’d make the Stephen Harper connection. When Tory points out about the different level of government and different parties, I make connections between the two Tory parties. After all, it is obviously John Tory that Harper endorses to be Premier.
Speaking of John Tory, Tory is proposing to provide funding to private religious schools. Firstly, out of curiosity, I wonder whether this funding would be extended to private Catholic schools when there is already a publicly funded Catholic school system. Secondly, this is a divisive can of worms. If Tory is to come up with millions of new dollars to give money to private schools, I think that money would be better spent improving the existing publicly funded school system. Unfortunately this proposal takes away potential money from the existing system and blurs the distinctions between public and private schools. Personally I find it is duplicative to have a public and publicly funded Catholic system, but I do not favor the sweeping change and constitutional amendments required to merge the two systems. I looked at the comments on the article about this on the Globe and Mail website and found mostly comments against Tory’s proposal. I prefer we better fund the existing system and not divide the province any more on religious grounds than we already are doing.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Bill Casey was longest serving Tory
The media was referring to the fact that Bill Casey was until Tuesday the longest serving Tory Member of Parliament. Casey was first elected in the 1988 federal election. He lost in 1993 but became an MP again in 1997. Tory cabinet minister Greg Thompson also was first elected in 1988. In 1993, Thompson lost by only about 800 votes. Thompson also became an MP again in 1997. I’ve done some research and appears that Bill Casey was sworn in as an MP a little bit before Greg Thompson and therefore Bill Casey was the longest serving Tory in the House of Commons. Now that Casey is no longer a member of the Tory caucus Greg Thompson is now the longest serving Tory MP. Being the longest serving Tory MP did not prevent Casey from being kicked out of caucus.
The longest continuously serving MP is currently New Democrat Bill Blaikie. He has been an MP since 1979. However, Blaikie isn’t running again maybe because he wants a life beyond politics. The second longest continuously serving MP is BQer Louis Plamondon. Plamondon was first elected in the 1984 federal election as a Progressive Conservative. After the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, Plamondon left the Tories and joined the Bloc Quebecois.
It is not entirely clear who the third longest serving MP is because there are several Liberal MPs plus one Independent MP who is a former Liberal (Joe Comuzzi) who were all elected concurrently in 1988 and have continuously served since. Those Liberals serving continuously since 1988 are:
Albina Guarnieri
Jim Karygiannis
Derek Lee
Lawrence MacCaulay
Diane Marleau
Paul Martin
Joe McGuire
Peter Milliken
Jim Peterson
Joe Volpe
Tom Wappel
As I mentioned, Independent and former Liberal MP Joe Comuzzi has also continuously served since 1988. Of note is the fact that no Tory MP has served continuously longer than the longest continuously serving Bloc MP, the longest continuously serving NDP MP, or any of the longest continuously serving Liberal MPs I just mentioned. No Tory MP has even served as continuously long as the Independent MP who has served continuously since 1988 (Comuzzi). Of that fact that every other political affiliation in the House has at least one MP who has served continuously longer than any Tory MP is something I am very proud of.
If Louis Plamondon runs and wins again in the next election, he will become the Dean of the House. The Dean of the House is the House’s longest continuously serving member. It is the longest continuously serving member of the House who presides over the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons (assuming they are not a cabinet minister; if they are a cabinet minister the honour goes to the longest continuously serving member who is not a cabinet minister). If Plamondon runs and wins again in the next election he will preside over the election of the next Parliament’s Speaker. It does however seem strange to have a separatist Dean of the House. If Plamondon retires or fails to be elected again, it is slightly unclear who would become the new Dean of the House. My theory is that MPs are always sworn-in in alphabetical order, although not all are sworn in on the same day. It appears that Comuzzi, Guarnieri, and Wappel were sworn in a little bit later than the others still left from 1988. Assuming that on a given day, everyone is sworn-in in alphabetical order, that would leave the first remaining MP first elected in 1988 to have been sworn-in to be Jim Karygiannis. After that, next in line would be Derek Lee, followed by Lawrence MacAulay, followed by Diane Marleau, followed by Peter Milliken, followed by Joe Volpe, followed by Albina Guarnieri. I have obviously not listed the other MPs continuously serving since 1988 because they have already announced that they are not running again. If Peter Milliken were to be designated the Dean of the House, there could be potential problems. Milliken is the current Speaker of the House of Commons and if theoretically speaking (it is not likely as there are several MPs in line before Milliken to be Dean of the House) Milliken is the Dean of the House, the problem would arise from the fact that Milliken would almost certainly be again running to be Speaker. I don’t know if it is possible to preside over the election of the Speaker when you yourself are a candidate to be Speaker. I expect that if this unlikely scenario were to arise, the MP next in line after Milliken would have to preside over the Speaker’s election.
In conclusion, I want to wish Bill Casey well on his future as a non-Tory MP.
The longest continuously serving MP is currently New Democrat Bill Blaikie. He has been an MP since 1979. However, Blaikie isn’t running again maybe because he wants a life beyond politics. The second longest continuously serving MP is BQer Louis Plamondon. Plamondon was first elected in the 1984 federal election as a Progressive Conservative. After the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, Plamondon left the Tories and joined the Bloc Quebecois.
It is not entirely clear who the third longest serving MP is because there are several Liberal MPs plus one Independent MP who is a former Liberal (Joe Comuzzi) who were all elected concurrently in 1988 and have continuously served since. Those Liberals serving continuously since 1988 are:
Albina Guarnieri
Jim Karygiannis
Derek Lee
Lawrence MacCaulay
Diane Marleau
Paul Martin
Joe McGuire
Peter Milliken
Jim Peterson
Joe Volpe
Tom Wappel
As I mentioned, Independent and former Liberal MP Joe Comuzzi has also continuously served since 1988. Of note is the fact that no Tory MP has served continuously longer than the longest continuously serving Bloc MP, the longest continuously serving NDP MP, or any of the longest continuously serving Liberal MPs I just mentioned. No Tory MP has even served as continuously long as the Independent MP who has served continuously since 1988 (Comuzzi). Of that fact that every other political affiliation in the House has at least one MP who has served continuously longer than any Tory MP is something I am very proud of.
If Louis Plamondon runs and wins again in the next election, he will become the Dean of the House. The Dean of the House is the House’s longest continuously serving member. It is the longest continuously serving member of the House who presides over the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons (assuming they are not a cabinet minister; if they are a cabinet minister the honour goes to the longest continuously serving member who is not a cabinet minister). If Plamondon runs and wins again in the next election he will preside over the election of the next Parliament’s Speaker. It does however seem strange to have a separatist Dean of the House. If Plamondon retires or fails to be elected again, it is slightly unclear who would become the new Dean of the House. My theory is that MPs are always sworn-in in alphabetical order, although not all are sworn in on the same day. It appears that Comuzzi, Guarnieri, and Wappel were sworn in a little bit later than the others still left from 1988. Assuming that on a given day, everyone is sworn-in in alphabetical order, that would leave the first remaining MP first elected in 1988 to have been sworn-in to be Jim Karygiannis. After that, next in line would be Derek Lee, followed by Lawrence MacAulay, followed by Diane Marleau, followed by Peter Milliken, followed by Joe Volpe, followed by Albina Guarnieri. I have obviously not listed the other MPs continuously serving since 1988 because they have already announced that they are not running again. If Peter Milliken were to be designated the Dean of the House, there could be potential problems. Milliken is the current Speaker of the House of Commons and if theoretically speaking (it is not likely as there are several MPs in line before Milliken to be Dean of the House) Milliken is the Dean of the House, the problem would arise from the fact that Milliken would almost certainly be again running to be Speaker. I don’t know if it is possible to preside over the election of the Speaker when you yourself are a candidate to be Speaker. I expect that if this unlikely scenario were to arise, the MP next in line after Milliken would have to preside over the Speaker’s election.
In conclusion, I want to wish Bill Casey well on his future as a non-Tory MP.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Bill Casey ejected from caucus
So Bill Casey voted against his government’s budget and was promptly kicked out of caucus. Mr. Casey believes that the budget implementation bill does not honour the Atlantic Accord. I agree with Mr. Casey that the 2007 budget does not honour the Atlantic Accord. The Atlantic Accord on equalization allows both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to not be penalized in equalization payments as a result of newly found oil revenues. The budget also shortchanges Saskatchewan on oil revenues. In this article, http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n0605164A , it says “As an MP, it's a very difficult situation to vote against the budget of your own government. You've gotta have guts and I'm proud of him," said fellow Nova Scotian Mark Eyking.
Asked if Liberals would accept Casey into their fold, Eyking said: "Oh, sure would. He's very like-minded to us. He's welcome aboard any time." I don’t consider it likely that Casey would move to the Liberal Party and I did not realize that Casey was very like-minded to the Liberals. Unlike in the cases of former Conservatives Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach, and Garth Turner who all joined the Liberal Party while supporting same-sex marriage, Casey by contrast opposed same-sex marriage at least until 2006. Casey voted against Bill C-38 (the same-sex marriage bill). I do not know whether Casey supports same-sex marriage now because in December 2006 he voted against his government’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. That makes it unclear to me how supportive he now is of same-sex marriage rights. I have trouble seeing Casey becoming a loyal Liberal like Scott Brison or Garth Turner. It would be more likely that he would remain an independent and simply retire at the next general election. But I do want to congratulate Casey on standing up for his constituents against the promise-breaking government.
Asked if Liberals would accept Casey into their fold, Eyking said: "Oh, sure would. He's very like-minded to us. He's welcome aboard any time." I don’t consider it likely that Casey would move to the Liberal Party and I did not realize that Casey was very like-minded to the Liberals. Unlike in the cases of former Conservatives Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach, and Garth Turner who all joined the Liberal Party while supporting same-sex marriage, Casey by contrast opposed same-sex marriage at least until 2006. Casey voted against Bill C-38 (the same-sex marriage bill). I do not know whether Casey supports same-sex marriage now because in December 2006 he voted against his government’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. That makes it unclear to me how supportive he now is of same-sex marriage rights. I have trouble seeing Casey becoming a loyal Liberal like Scott Brison or Garth Turner. It would be more likely that he would remain an independent and simply retire at the next general election. But I do want to congratulate Casey on standing up for his constituents against the promise-breaking government.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Quebec and Jean Charest
I’m glad the Charest government survived its budget vote on Friday. The budget passed 46-44. There was one missing Liberal whom I haven’t figured out who it is. I’m glad the PQ backed off and now the tax cuts can take effect.
Speaking of the PQ, it is unfortunately true that former PQ leader André Boisclair’s sexual orientation had a negative impact on the PQ in the campaign trail. I find this odd because Quebec is supposed to be very tolerant of homosexuality. In fact it is. The only exception seems to be Quebec shock jocks. Shock jocks are radio jocks who make their career out of purposefully making inflammatory statements. Shock jocks have a propensity to exist in the United States, but I find they are even more common in Quebec. As a result, Boisclair suffered homophobic slurs against him by at least two shock jocks, one of whom is now a federal Member of Parliament. During the campaign, a shock jock used a French homophobic slur against Boisclair that I can’t remember. Then at the time of the leader’s debate Independent MP André Arthur called Mr. Boisclair a ‘p'tite fille’, a little girl, which is obviously a homophobic slur. Arthur is a former Quebec City area shock jock. It’s unfortunate that these shock jocks have to resort to personal insult. But it becomes obvious how much Boisclair’s sexual orientation negatively affected the PQ campaign.
Speaking of issues to do with sexual orientation, I want to discuss a topic that I am fascinated by – civil unions in Quebec. Since 2002, Quebec has had a civil union law. It allows two people who are both of the same sex or of opposite sexes to enter into a civil union. It gives largely the same rights as marriage. For opposite-sex couples, it gave a less legally entangling alternative to marriage. For same-sex couples, it offered them much sought-after spousal rights. The Quebec court later ruled that civil unions were not the equality needed under the Charter and immediately legalized same-sex marriage in Quebec. The civil union alternative is not available to anyone who lives in Ontario. I kind of wish Ontario offered a civil union alternative like Quebec. But I suppose marriages and common-law relationship recognition is good enough too.
I want to mention one more unique aspect of Quebec law. As in France, when a marriage between a man and woman occurs, the woman in the marriage cannot change her last name to her husband’s name. That is probably why Stéphane Dion’s wife’s name is Janine Krieber. Dion’s daughter has the double-barreled name Jeanne Krieber-Dion. For the record I can’t help but think it is sex discrimination that traditionally it is the male in an opposite-sex marriage that is expected to pass his surname to his children, but I can go on about that on another day. For now I want to just congratulate Jean Charest on being the first minority Quebec premier to survive a confidence vote in over 100 years.
Speaking of the PQ, it is unfortunately true that former PQ leader André Boisclair’s sexual orientation had a negative impact on the PQ in the campaign trail. I find this odd because Quebec is supposed to be very tolerant of homosexuality. In fact it is. The only exception seems to be Quebec shock jocks. Shock jocks are radio jocks who make their career out of purposefully making inflammatory statements. Shock jocks have a propensity to exist in the United States, but I find they are even more common in Quebec. As a result, Boisclair suffered homophobic slurs against him by at least two shock jocks, one of whom is now a federal Member of Parliament. During the campaign, a shock jock used a French homophobic slur against Boisclair that I can’t remember. Then at the time of the leader’s debate Independent MP André Arthur called Mr. Boisclair a ‘p'tite fille’, a little girl, which is obviously a homophobic slur. Arthur is a former Quebec City area shock jock. It’s unfortunate that these shock jocks have to resort to personal insult. But it becomes obvious how much Boisclair’s sexual orientation negatively affected the PQ campaign.
Speaking of issues to do with sexual orientation, I want to discuss a topic that I am fascinated by – civil unions in Quebec. Since 2002, Quebec has had a civil union law. It allows two people who are both of the same sex or of opposite sexes to enter into a civil union. It gives largely the same rights as marriage. For opposite-sex couples, it gave a less legally entangling alternative to marriage. For same-sex couples, it offered them much sought-after spousal rights. The Quebec court later ruled that civil unions were not the equality needed under the Charter and immediately legalized same-sex marriage in Quebec. The civil union alternative is not available to anyone who lives in Ontario. I kind of wish Ontario offered a civil union alternative like Quebec. But I suppose marriages and common-law relationship recognition is good enough too.
I want to mention one more unique aspect of Quebec law. As in France, when a marriage between a man and woman occurs, the woman in the marriage cannot change her last name to her husband’s name. That is probably why Stéphane Dion’s wife’s name is Janine Krieber. Dion’s daughter has the double-barreled name Jeanne Krieber-Dion. For the record I can’t help but think it is sex discrimination that traditionally it is the male in an opposite-sex marriage that is expected to pass his surname to his children, but I can go on about that on another day. For now I want to just congratulate Jean Charest on being the first minority Quebec premier to survive a confidence vote in over 100 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)