I am concerned for Bob Rae because he is going to have heart surgery. After that it is supposed to take 6 weeks for him to recover. I am hoping that after that he will be recovered enough to do campaigning in the Toronto Centre by-election. I also worry myself with the wellbeing of politicians’ children, regardless of the politician’s political stripe. For example, I am deeply concerned about the serious health problems more than one of new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s children have suffered. His first child, daughter Jennifer Jane, died at the age of 10 days old of a brain hemorrhage due to her premature birth. More recently, Brown’s youngest son, James Fraser, has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. This means that Gordon Brown will likely outlive James and see another one of his children die. This is terrible. I don’t understand why these illnesses keep befalling Gordon Brown’s children. My condolences for both children.
I’d now like to do a follow-up on something I talked about previously—Niagara Falls. According to recently defeated former Niagara Falls, Ontario city alderman Selina Volpatti, as stated on her web site, Niagara Falls used to have a ward system prior to the 2003 municipal election. Why they switched to an at-large system is beyond me. Selina was the Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls in the 1999 provincial election. Being on city council was not enough to get her elected, however, and she came short by 1400 votes. The winner was Tory Bart Maves. Selina would probably be an MPP today except that for the 2003 election she apparently lost the Liberal nomination to current Liberal MPP Kim Craitor. Instead she is out of politics because she came 9th place in an 8 member at large system in the 2006 municipal election. Based on what she said on her website, she was very popular in her ward. So she’d still be a councilor now without the change in systems. So the switch to an at-large system has ended her political career. However, if she had run for one of three Regional Council seats she may have been elected.
Speaking of party nominations, I know of a way that previously Liberal, now Tory MP Wajid Khan would never have crossed the floor- if he had never been given the Liberal nomination in the first place. In 2004, Khan was unopposed for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Streetsville. It was when he won the nomination that Khan was given his ticket to Parliament because Mississauga—Streetsville is relatively Liberal and twice voted for Khan mainly because he was the Liberal candidate. But Mississauga—Streetsville is in my opinion the old Mississauga West. By contrast, I consider Mississauga—Erindale to be the old Mississauga Centre. In 2004, Carolyn Parrish was the incumbent for Mississauga Centre. Steve Mahoney was the incumbent for Mississauga West. But for some reason Mahoney decided to go head-to-head against Parrish for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Erindale. Parrish won that contest. Rightfully so, in my opinion, in that Mississauga—Streetsville has more of Mississauga West in it than does Mississauga—Erindale. I think Mahoney should have gone head-to-head for the nomination against Khan. Mahoney’s prior experience and incumbency could likely have won the nomination against Khan. Mahoney had a lot of personal popularity, so he may have been able to win Mississauga—Streetsville by a wider margin than Khan both in 2004 and 2006. If Mahoney had taken the Mississauga—Streetsville nomination, he would still be a Liberal MP today. Best of all, unlike Khan, Mahoney was pro-gay marriage. My hypothesis about the old Mississauga Centre being the new Mississauga—Erindale and the old Mississauga West being the new Mississauga—Streetsville is proven at the provincial level. Mississauga Centre incumbent Harinder Takhar is running in Mississauga—Erindale. Missisauge West incumbent Bob Delaney is running in Mississauga—Streetsville. Both are Liberals. No need to challenge each other for a nomination. Problem solved. That problem could have been solved in 2004 and Mississauga—Streetsville, instead of having an anti-gay marriage Conservative MP, would have a pro-gay marriage Liberal MP.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Cabinet shuffle
Stephen Harper’s cabinet shuffle was mostly about selling the mission in Afghanistan and nothing more. Harper also moved the moderate Jim Prentice from Indian Affairs to Industry and put the more conservative Chuck Strahl into Indian Affairs. This change in Indian Affairs minister has frustrated Caledonia First Nations protestors (http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=81574). Yet I find it strange that by contrast it seems to have pleased Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay. Look at thus quote from the article I just cited:
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.
Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.
"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.
Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.
My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.
There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.
Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.
"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.
Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.
My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.
There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Pauline Marois
PQ leader Pauline Marois will run in a Quebec provincial by-election in Charlevoix. While the Liberals have already said they will not run a candidate against her, the ADQ is considering running a candidate against her. One reason she probably chose this seat is due to the Quebec political tradition of other major parties not opposing party leaders in by-elections. Otherwise it would not make sense because Charlevoix is not a safe PQ seat. The resigning PQ member won by only 6.88%. The ADQ had about 30% of the vote. A race with Marois against an ADQ candidate with no Liberal candidate would be strange. It could give the ADQ candidate a chance to win. This could in turn force Marois to resgin as leader and could bring Gilles Duceppe to Quebec City after all. I don’t know how a straight PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate would look like. If all the federalist vote were to unite behind the ADQ, the ADQ could easily beat Marois. If it is more of a left-right thing, then Marois would stand a good chance if the centre/left vote united behind her. I think if the ADQ insists on running a candidate, the Liberals would be doing Marois a favour to run a candidate as well. The Liberals want to let Marois into the legislature. A PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate has the significant danger of Marois being defeated and therefore in this circumstance running a Liberal candidate may be the right thing to do. Maybe ADQ leader Mario Dumont will in the end choose not run a candidate. If they do run a candidate they will receive a lot of criticism for such cruelty and it could cost them the by-election race. I say either both other parties run candidates or neither party runs candidates. The Liberals bowing out if the ADQ won’t does not exactly make sense.
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
Monday, August 13, 2007
A website on gay rights
Gay rights issues have been swirling in my head again. Personally I am glad that I am pro-gay marriage. I couldn’t live with myself if I were anti-gay marriage. I have come across a site created and maintained by Bill Myers from Ohio. It is called GAY RIGHTS INFO. Bill cares passionately about gay rights believes strongly in the expansion of gay rights. So he has compiled voting records of politicians in the US and around the world on gay rights issues. He also gives the status of gay rights in all US states and various other countries including Canada. Bill’s site includes a page that gives a table of voting records for all MPs in the current Canadian House of Commons, those from the 38th House of Commons, and most of those who were in the 37th House of Commons. The reason I say “most” is because the table does not include MPs like Brian Tobin who resigned mid-way through the 37th House of Commons and whose ridings were filled in a by-election. It DOES, however, include MPs such as Jean Chrétien who resigned near the end of the 37th House of Commons and whose seats were vacant at dissolution. Here is a link to the table: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canhoc.html
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Equality, Equality, Equality
I was watching A Channel news and they ran a story on the fact that it is Pride Week in Simcoe County. I was happy to see that the new Mayor of Barrie, Dave Aspden, gave a speech that “emphasized the importance of equality for all community members.” (http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=648542&catname=Local+News). It is my hope that equality for Mr. Aspden includes same-sex marriage. If the previous mayor of Barrie, Rob Hamilton, had been re-elected last November, I’m not sure whether he would have given such a gay-positive speech. I say this because in the 2000 federal election, Hamilton ran for the notoriously anti-gay Canadian Alliance in Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. Regardless, the news story featured a male same-sex couple living in Simcoe who next week will be legally married. Sadly for them and other gay people living in Simcoe County, the support of Simcoe County’s gay community by the county’s federal MPs is severely lacking. All Simcoe MPs are Conservative. All Simcoe MPs are against same-sex marriage. I say this based on their 2005 and 2006 parliamentary voting records. This is despite Simcoe’s gay community which as we can see is becoming more and more active. Thus it is shameful the lack of support local MPs are offering the gay community. It’s sad that former Simcoe North Liberal MP Paul DeVillers chose not to run again in the last election. In his absence, Simcoe North only went Conservative by 2% because of a vote split with the NDP. Had DeVillers run, his incumbency may have been enough to win again. DeVillers supported same-sex marriage way back in 1999 despite representing a conservative rural riding. If he’d run again, Simcoe County might still have one pro-gay MP. This whole thing is a shame. After all, prior to the 2004 election, two of the 3 Simcoe MPs (Paul Bonwick and Paul DeVillers) were solidly in favour of same-sex marriage, and a third (Aileen Carroll) would have come around to support it as she eventually did. It’s facts like this that make me think we never should have had the 2004 election – Paul Martin could have delayed until 2005.
All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?
Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:
“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”
Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):
“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”
I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.
All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?
Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:
“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”
Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):
“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”
I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Jocelyn Coulon
Outremont Liberal candidate Jocelyn Coulon has a website now. The Outremont by-election has been called but I can get very little coverage of it. However, I found an editorial in The Suburban “QUEBEC’S LARGEST ENGLISH WEEKLY NEWSPAPER”( http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=10264485391792019844135862989&ctid=1000002&cnid=1012344) that I found offensive. It was about the history of Liberal foreign policy and Jocelyn Coulon’s own foreign policies. These words from the article alone are offensive to Lester Pearson’s peacekeeping legacy that won him a Nobel prize:
“Lester Pearson’s vaunted role in developing “peacekeepers” following the Suez crisis was more a construct to protect the dignity of the British and offer them an elegant way out.”
The editorial was written from a very neo-conservative prospective on foreign policy. Its perspective appears similar in line to that of Conservative foreign policy, but is far more blatant than the federal government is in making said neo-conservative position stand out. I’m not going to go over the whole article because there are parts that I find too offensive to even repeat. But I will say that the article concludes with this:
“In this most dangerous of worlds, we hope voters in Outremont send a message to “les rouges” that the time for dilettantes and straw men is over. Outremont, on September 17 say “ca suffit” to the Liberals and M. Coulon. It’s time to end the charade.”
I can assume that they hope that Outremont voters vote something other than Liberal. However the NDP and Bloc have similar foreign policy positions to the Liberals on the issues that the article discusses. So what I think they’re really asking is that Outremont voters vote Conservative. However, a large majority of Outremont and Quebec voters do not share this editorial’s neo-conservative view on foreign policy and thus this is not a useful way of convincing Outremont voters to vote Conservative.
Amusingly, one of the article’s complaints was this:
“In continental issues, the Liberals opposed free trade and branded Brian Mulroney an American lackey.” As far as free trade is concerned, it was a contentious issue back then. The Liberals needed to take advantage of the issue as best they could and oppose Mulroney’s Free Trade Agreement due to its many potential flaws. As far as the editorial’s complaints about branding Mulroney an American lackey, what is there to complain about? It was obvious to everyone, including the media and political cartoonists, that Mulroney often did seem like an American lackey. The Liberals were Mulroney’s political opponents. They had every right to exploit that image in the same way that the Liberals now have the right to pound the Conservatives on the Afghan detainee issue. As much as the Tories hate it when the Liberals find something like the detainee issue and pound them with it, this is the Liberals’ job. As much as the Tories still pretend the Liberals have no right to criticize the Harper government, they are wrong. It is the Liberals’ right and obligation to attack the Harper government with anything they see fit that will embarrass the government. So the editorial should not be complaining about how the Liberals portrayed Mulroney. That characteristic of Mulroney was obvious and it was the Liberals’ job to remind voters of one of Mulroney’s signature traits.
By the way, the Outremont race is probably between the Liberals and the NDP. But I still find it hard to believe that such a significant threat is coming from the NDP in a Quebec riding.
“Lester Pearson’s vaunted role in developing “peacekeepers” following the Suez crisis was more a construct to protect the dignity of the British and offer them an elegant way out.”
The editorial was written from a very neo-conservative prospective on foreign policy. Its perspective appears similar in line to that of Conservative foreign policy, but is far more blatant than the federal government is in making said neo-conservative position stand out. I’m not going to go over the whole article because there are parts that I find too offensive to even repeat. But I will say that the article concludes with this:
“In this most dangerous of worlds, we hope voters in Outremont send a message to “les rouges” that the time for dilettantes and straw men is over. Outremont, on September 17 say “ca suffit” to the Liberals and M. Coulon. It’s time to end the charade.”
I can assume that they hope that Outremont voters vote something other than Liberal. However the NDP and Bloc have similar foreign policy positions to the Liberals on the issues that the article discusses. So what I think they’re really asking is that Outremont voters vote Conservative. However, a large majority of Outremont and Quebec voters do not share this editorial’s neo-conservative view on foreign policy and thus this is not a useful way of convincing Outremont voters to vote Conservative.
Amusingly, one of the article’s complaints was this:
“In continental issues, the Liberals opposed free trade and branded Brian Mulroney an American lackey.” As far as free trade is concerned, it was a contentious issue back then. The Liberals needed to take advantage of the issue as best they could and oppose Mulroney’s Free Trade Agreement due to its many potential flaws. As far as the editorial’s complaints about branding Mulroney an American lackey, what is there to complain about? It was obvious to everyone, including the media and political cartoonists, that Mulroney often did seem like an American lackey. The Liberals were Mulroney’s political opponents. They had every right to exploit that image in the same way that the Liberals now have the right to pound the Conservatives on the Afghan detainee issue. As much as the Tories hate it when the Liberals find something like the detainee issue and pound them with it, this is the Liberals’ job. As much as the Tories still pretend the Liberals have no right to criticize the Harper government, they are wrong. It is the Liberals’ right and obligation to attack the Harper government with anything they see fit that will embarrass the government. So the editorial should not be complaining about how the Liberals portrayed Mulroney. That characteristic of Mulroney was obvious and it was the Liberals’ job to remind voters of one of Mulroney’s signature traits.
By the way, the Outremont race is probably between the Liberals and the NDP. But I still find it hard to believe that such a significant threat is coming from the NDP in a Quebec riding.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Brantford
On Sunday, I went to church in the city of Brantford. Complex story. Guess what I’m going to do now? You guessed it. Talk about Brantford politics. Municipally Brantford uses a ward system but elects two councilors per ward. I personally prefer the single-member ward system for municipal politics. I personally find an electoral system whereby a district elects more than one member to be strange because it involves voting for more than one candidate at the same time, and this often makes it unclear just how popular any given elected candidate is. This muddiness increases the more candidates are to be elected. For example, the City of Niagara Falls (Ontario) elects 8 councilors at large. In 2006, 8 people were elected out of a total of 26. The top vote getter received only 9 percent of the vote. This really makes it unclear how popular each of the candidates is which is why I don’t like this method of electing councilors, especially when it gets to such ridiculous numbers as 8 candidates, 8 different people electors vote for at once. Interestingly, the adjacent City of Niagara Falls, New York also uses an at large multiple councilor system of elections except there they have party primaries. Another difference in Niagara Falls New York is that every 4 years 3 councilors are elected at large for a 4 year term. Two years later, two other councilors are elected at large for a 4 year term. Thus Niagara Falls, New York has a staggered election system similar to the federal U.S. Senate electoral system.
At least when it’s two candidates per ward, as it is in Brantford, you can have some idea of how popular a candidate is. For example, in 2006 two Brantford councilors were elected with over 40% of the vote, with the second place (yet still elected) candidate in both cases in the 20s. In a two councilor per ward system, this is a symbol of great popularity.
At the provincial level and federal level Brantford is in the Brant electoral district. Provincially this electoral district is represented by popular Liberal MPP Dave Levac. Federally Brant is represented by Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand. Sadly St. Amand doesn’t have the same personal popularity as his provincial counterpart, given that St. Amand was twice elected by only narrow margins. If the much more personally popular Jane Stewart were still around, I’d expect Brant to be a much safer Liberal seat. As it is, St Amand only has a plurality of around 500 votes over the Tory candidate. This is because the NDP candidate split the vote and almost cost the Liberals the seat. In the next election former Hamilton Mountain MP Ian Deans is going to run in Brant. My advice to the Brant voters thinking of voting NDP is to instead vote for St. Amand unless they want a Tory MP elected in Brant (who would be the first Tory MP elected in Brantford since the 1958 federal election).
The City of Brantford has made the proposal to annex small areas just outside the city that are in Brant County so that they can be developed. While Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock and Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy support this proposal, I strongly oppose it. Firstly, this proposal has met stiff opposition from the Six Nations in Brant County and the two mayors are refusing to listen properly to their concerns. Secondly, it leaves a problem of political representation. The mayors want this to take effect on January 1, 2008. This is not good because this is outside the timeline of a municipal election. They will likely redraw Brantford wards to include the new electors from Brant County. This is undemocratic because this gives these electors elected representatives who they had no opportunity to vote for or against. If they insist on going through with this thoughtless annexation plan, the least they could do would be to make it take effect in December 2010 when a new council is elected in both Brantford and Brant County. This plan also requires provincial approval and I would advise to the province not to approve this plan. There have been threats of Caledonia-style First Nations protests if this plan goes through. That alone should allow this plan to be burned.
Affected residents may also object to becoming residents of the City of Brantford. This proposal will also phase in Brantford’s higher property taxes. This is wrong. Brant County residents like their low property taxes, and should not be forced to live in much higher taxing jurisdiction of Brantford. There is no reason why development of land (if First Nations have no claim to it) cannot occur within the jurisdiction of Brant County. I want an end to this foolhardy proposal as soon as possible.
At least when it’s two candidates per ward, as it is in Brantford, you can have some idea of how popular a candidate is. For example, in 2006 two Brantford councilors were elected with over 40% of the vote, with the second place (yet still elected) candidate in both cases in the 20s. In a two councilor per ward system, this is a symbol of great popularity.
At the provincial level and federal level Brantford is in the Brant electoral district. Provincially this electoral district is represented by popular Liberal MPP Dave Levac. Federally Brant is represented by Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand. Sadly St. Amand doesn’t have the same personal popularity as his provincial counterpart, given that St. Amand was twice elected by only narrow margins. If the much more personally popular Jane Stewart were still around, I’d expect Brant to be a much safer Liberal seat. As it is, St Amand only has a plurality of around 500 votes over the Tory candidate. This is because the NDP candidate split the vote and almost cost the Liberals the seat. In the next election former Hamilton Mountain MP Ian Deans is going to run in Brant. My advice to the Brant voters thinking of voting NDP is to instead vote for St. Amand unless they want a Tory MP elected in Brant (who would be the first Tory MP elected in Brantford since the 1958 federal election).
The City of Brantford has made the proposal to annex small areas just outside the city that are in Brant County so that they can be developed. While Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock and Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy support this proposal, I strongly oppose it. Firstly, this proposal has met stiff opposition from the Six Nations in Brant County and the two mayors are refusing to listen properly to their concerns. Secondly, it leaves a problem of political representation. The mayors want this to take effect on January 1, 2008. This is not good because this is outside the timeline of a municipal election. They will likely redraw Brantford wards to include the new electors from Brant County. This is undemocratic because this gives these electors elected representatives who they had no opportunity to vote for or against. If they insist on going through with this thoughtless annexation plan, the least they could do would be to make it take effect in December 2010 when a new council is elected in both Brantford and Brant County. This plan also requires provincial approval and I would advise to the province not to approve this plan. There have been threats of Caledonia-style First Nations protests if this plan goes through. That alone should allow this plan to be burned.
Affected residents may also object to becoming residents of the City of Brantford. This proposal will also phase in Brantford’s higher property taxes. This is wrong. Brant County residents like their low property taxes, and should not be forced to live in much higher taxing jurisdiction of Brantford. There is no reason why development of land (if First Nations have no claim to it) cannot occur within the jurisdiction of Brant County. I want an end to this foolhardy proposal as soon as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)