In a previous blog, I mentioned NDP MPP Cheri Di Novo’s liberal views on homosexuality. The riding’s federal MP Peggy Nash is also in favour of same-sex marriage. For the record, the only MP to oppose same-sex marriage in the City of Toronto excluding Etobicoke and Scarborough was York South—Weston Liberal MP Alan Tonks. Tonks says he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage. The first problem with civil unions is that many experts believe they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal government would have to rely on individual provinces to decide whether they want to enact civil unions. I’m no expert, but I imagine the Alberta government, for one, might have serious trouble passing a civil union law. The next problem with civil unions is there is a glaring equality problem as illustrated in the UK’s civil union legislation. In the UK, same sex couples can enter into a civil union. But they do not have equality because a church minister cannot preside over any legally binding civil union ceremony. By contrast, church ministers can and always have presided over legally binding opposite-sex marriage ceremonies. I consider this discrepancy discriminatory. We could have had the same problem in Canada. Some have argued that the government getting out of the marriage business is a solution. The idea is that only those willing to have a religious ceremony can get married (including same-sex couples). This is discriminatory against non-religious people not willing to have a religious ceremony. It relegates non-religious couples to have a civil union instead of a marriage. This is just as discriminatory as denying marriage to same-sex couples. Yet this is the position of Burlington Conservative MP Mike Wallace (http://www.marriagevote.ca/articles/wallace.html):
"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."
I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:
"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."
McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Bad news about Bob Rae, plus some provincial Liberal candidates
I have some bad news. Bob Rae has a cold and therefore his heart surgery has been delayed. No new date has been set. My concern is that Rae will still be recovering and unable to campaign when Harper calls the Toronto Centre by-election.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Men more likely to oppose gay marriage
It has just occurred to me that every single Liberal MP to vote for Stephen Harper’s December 2006 motion to repeal same-sex marriage were men. In 2005, almost all of the Liberal MPs to vote against same-sex marriage were men, with only a handful of exceptions. In December 2006, all the female Liberal opponents of same-sex marriage were either no longer in Parliament or switched their vote. Speaking of that December 2006 vote, Liberal MP Glen Pearson had been sworn in that very day after winning a by-election and so was able to vote against Harper’s motion. Raymond Gravel, however, also having recently been elected in a by-election, had not been sworn in yet for some reason and was not sworn in until a few days later. I’m not sure why this is. It meant that Gravel (who was an openly gay Catholic priest) was unable to vote against Harper’s motion as he had announced he would. I don’t know why it took longer for him to be sworn in. All I can think of is that the returning officer took longer to submit the results to Parliament for some reason.
Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.
Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.
Sault Ste. Marie
For some reason, Milton Chan from www.electionprediction.com has changed his prediction in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie from Liberal to Too Close for the upcoming provincial election. I’m not sure why he did this. He seemed confident of a Liberal win before and I do not know what made him change it. The incumbent Liberal candidate is by far the highest profile candidate. Neither the Tories nor the NDP have chosen candidates with high name recognition. To boot, Sault Ste. Marie has a popular Liberal incumbent in David Orazietti. Orazietti defeated popular 13 year NDP incumbent Tony Martin by 8000 votes in the 2003 election. He won 57% to Martin’s 32%. In an election where the percentages for the NDP went up in most ridings, this was quite a downturn in NDP support. This was an impressive victory. Tony Martin went on to win the federal Sault Ste. Marie by 700 votes. In the 2006 election when most narrowly elected NDP incumbents won by larger margins, Martin increased his margin to only 2000 votes with the Liberals an impressive second. In 2004, I heard that the Liberals actually won the City of Sault Ste. Marie and that it was the newly added rural portion that put Martin over the top. So even at the federal level Sault Ste. Marie is only a marginal NDP seat. It is for this reason that I think for Sault. Ste. Marie to go NDP provincially, it would take a signficant Liberal meltdown. Thus I don’t understand why Milton Chan suddenly changed the riding to Too Close.
Politicians
In Prince Edward—Hastings, the MPP Ernie Parsons resigned in order to become a justice of the peace. This has left the seat vacant until the general election where another MPP, Leona Drombrowsky, is going to run. Parsons applied for the JP position just like anybody else and had to go through the normal application. It was necessary to do this because Parsons had already decided to retire from politics at the end of his term. Parsons will not make a pension from his years as an MPP because Mike Harris abolished the MPPs pension. Therefore simply going into retirement may not have been an option for Parsons. It may be for this reason that he wanted to become a JP. But Parsons had to leave his old job early because the job stared in July and one cannot be a JP and MPP at the same time. I do not agree with Harris’s decision to eliminate the MPP pension. I believe politicians retiring at the normal retirement age deserve such a pension to live off of for their years of public service. Harris’s reason for eliminating the pension is because the pension was “gold plated”. I don’t know how gold plated it was, though. People need an income after retiring. Eliminating the pension simply discourages people from entering provincial politics. Instead, people may enter municipal politics which often does have a pension or federal politics which also offers a pension. Other provinces do offer pensions to their former legislature members. If such a former member goes on to become a federal MP, and are old enough to collect such a pension from the provincial government, some call this double dipping – collecting an MPs salary as well as a provincial pension. But I do not know why people refer to this negatively. I don’t see why becoming a federal MP should disqualify one from a pension for their years of service at the provincial level. Similarly, I do not know of any law that says a former MP is not eligible to collect a former MP’s pension should they go into another line of work such as politics at another level of government. For example, Carolyn Parrish is a Mississauga City Councilor. Her 12 years as an MP also entitles her to an MPs pension because she is over the age of 55. So I see no reason why she cannot collect a Councilor’s salary and an MPs pension at the same time. By the way, I met Carolyn Parrish at a talk she gave at my university shortly after she retired from federal politics. She said she wanted a seat on Mississauga City Council because otherwise she’d be bored out of her skull. Now that is a sign that she was long ago bitten by the political bug and thus for her quiet retirement is far too boring.
To collect an MP’s pension, one must have been an MP for 6 years, and for at least 2 parliamentary terms. The six years and two terms do not have to be consecutive. What this means is that one term MPs are never eligible for pensions. Here is a scenario where I am not sure whether one is eligible for a pension. Let us say someone is elected to the House of Commons. Just for fun let us imagine that she was previously a long-time municipal and then provincial politician. Yes she is a Liberal. Let us imagine that she is elected to her first term in parliament and that this parliament lasts a normal 4 years. Let us imagine that she is re-elected at the next election and serves another 2 years in parliament. After she has been a Member of Parliament for just over 6 years, she resigns her seat to spend more time with her grandchildren. Is she eligible for an MP’s pension or not. Is she eligible because she served the minimum 6 years or is she ineligible because she did not serve her full second term in parliament?
Speaking of municipal politics, there is a strange loophole in the Ontario’s municipal election’s act. It has to do with campaign surpluses. A municipal politician’s “campaign surplus” cannot be spent by the politician on anything other than future municipal campaigns. If, however, a municipal politician does not run again, the surplus goes into the coffers of the municipality. The loophole is that the surplus can be preserved for future campaigns if the politician registers as a municipal candidate but then later deregisters. This has caused more than one former municipal politician to do a strange thing – register as a candidate and then immediately deregister. They do this just in case they run again municipally some time in the future. I know of two examples when this has happened. Former Toronto City Councilor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski retired from politics in 2003. However, in 2006 he registered to run in his old ward and then immediately deregistered. He did this to keep his campaign surplus from 2000. This could mean that Korwin-Kuczynski is contemplating a municipal run in 2010. MPP Mario Racco has also done this same trick twice, as referenced in a Toronto Star correction notice(http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838085&call_pageid=1051266777375&col=1051266777367). In 2003, while still a councilor, Racco registered to run again municipally and later deregistered because he was in fact running provincially. In January 2006 Racco again registered to run municipally and then immediately withdrew. He did this so that he can still have his campaign surplus from 2000 should he decide to run in 2010. At first I was shocked to see him register even for a moment because he is a sitting MPP. However, I later looked at the law and saw that what he did was ok. The law says that an MPP who registers to run municipally may do so, but if they have not resigned as MPP by the close of municipal nominations, they are deemed ineligible to run municipally and are automatically removed from the ballot. This means that Racco still has his campaign surplus to run in 2010. If Racco is re-elected in 2007 and decides to run municipally in 2010, we can look forward to a Thornhill by-election in late 2010/early 2011. But I do not know whether Racco would actually run in 2010. His old ward is currently held by his wife Sandra Yeung Racco. I don’t know whether she’d be willing to give her seat up for her husband. And as far as running for regional council is concerned, I do not know whether Racco has enough at-large name recognition to capture one of the 3 spots on regional council. So if Racco loses this year, running municipally in 2010 may be his only option to remain politically active. If Racco wins this year, I am doubtful he’d run in 2010 because doing so is risky. It would either mean getting his wife to not run again and risk running in his old ward or it would mean an even riskier run for regional council.
Andy Savoy was a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2006. He physically sat in Parliament from 2001 to 2005. In the 2006 election, he unexpectedly lost his seat to Conservative Mike Allen by some 200 votes. Despite this close result he is for some reason not running in the next federal election. He should consider attempting to re-enter parliament at some point so that in future he could be eligible for a pension. He served only 5 years in parliament which is less than the requisite 6 years. He would have made it to 6 years had the 38th Parliament not been so abnormally short. It occurs to me that in Ontario one possible reason we have so many MPPs not seeking re-election after only one term is because there is not a pension and therefore there is no motivation to seek a second term in order to be eligible for a pension. But this is just a guess. I know in Mary Anne Chambers’ case it was due to health. But I still hope the Liberals can win Scarborough—Guildwood.
To collect an MP’s pension, one must have been an MP for 6 years, and for at least 2 parliamentary terms. The six years and two terms do not have to be consecutive. What this means is that one term MPs are never eligible for pensions. Here is a scenario where I am not sure whether one is eligible for a pension. Let us say someone is elected to the House of Commons. Just for fun let us imagine that she was previously a long-time municipal and then provincial politician. Yes she is a Liberal. Let us imagine that she is elected to her first term in parliament and that this parliament lasts a normal 4 years. Let us imagine that she is re-elected at the next election and serves another 2 years in parliament. After she has been a Member of Parliament for just over 6 years, she resigns her seat to spend more time with her grandchildren. Is she eligible for an MP’s pension or not. Is she eligible because she served the minimum 6 years or is she ineligible because she did not serve her full second term in parliament?
Speaking of municipal politics, there is a strange loophole in the Ontario’s municipal election’s act. It has to do with campaign surpluses. A municipal politician’s “campaign surplus” cannot be spent by the politician on anything other than future municipal campaigns. If, however, a municipal politician does not run again, the surplus goes into the coffers of the municipality. The loophole is that the surplus can be preserved for future campaigns if the politician registers as a municipal candidate but then later deregisters. This has caused more than one former municipal politician to do a strange thing – register as a candidate and then immediately deregister. They do this just in case they run again municipally some time in the future. I know of two examples when this has happened. Former Toronto City Councilor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski retired from politics in 2003. However, in 2006 he registered to run in his old ward and then immediately deregistered. He did this to keep his campaign surplus from 2000. This could mean that Korwin-Kuczynski is contemplating a municipal run in 2010. MPP Mario Racco has also done this same trick twice, as referenced in a Toronto Star correction notice(http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838085&call_pageid=1051266777375&col=1051266777367). In 2003, while still a councilor, Racco registered to run again municipally and later deregistered because he was in fact running provincially. In January 2006 Racco again registered to run municipally and then immediately withdrew. He did this so that he can still have his campaign surplus from 2000 should he decide to run in 2010. At first I was shocked to see him register even for a moment because he is a sitting MPP. However, I later looked at the law and saw that what he did was ok. The law says that an MPP who registers to run municipally may do so, but if they have not resigned as MPP by the close of municipal nominations, they are deemed ineligible to run municipally and are automatically removed from the ballot. This means that Racco still has his campaign surplus to run in 2010. If Racco is re-elected in 2007 and decides to run municipally in 2010, we can look forward to a Thornhill by-election in late 2010/early 2011. But I do not know whether Racco would actually run in 2010. His old ward is currently held by his wife Sandra Yeung Racco. I don’t know whether she’d be willing to give her seat up for her husband. And as far as running for regional council is concerned, I do not know whether Racco has enough at-large name recognition to capture one of the 3 spots on regional council. So if Racco loses this year, running municipally in 2010 may be his only option to remain politically active. If Racco wins this year, I am doubtful he’d run in 2010 because doing so is risky. It would either mean getting his wife to not run again and risk running in his old ward or it would mean an even riskier run for regional council.
Andy Savoy was a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2006. He physically sat in Parliament from 2001 to 2005. In the 2006 election, he unexpectedly lost his seat to Conservative Mike Allen by some 200 votes. Despite this close result he is for some reason not running in the next federal election. He should consider attempting to re-enter parliament at some point so that in future he could be eligible for a pension. He served only 5 years in parliament which is less than the requisite 6 years. He would have made it to 6 years had the 38th Parliament not been so abnormally short. It occurs to me that in Ontario one possible reason we have so many MPPs not seeking re-election after only one term is because there is not a pension and therefore there is no motivation to seek a second term in order to be eligible for a pension. But this is just a guess. I know in Mary Anne Chambers’ case it was due to health. But I still hope the Liberals can win Scarborough—Guildwood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)