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
Monday, October 22, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)