Conservative crime bill

I am happy to hear that both Ontario and Quebec are refusing to pay for the costs of the federal Conservatives crime bill. The Conservatives crime bill is ineffective, expensive and not very useful. It’s good to see provinces standing up to the Harper government. Also, the Conservatives bill to not only abolish the gun registry but to also destroy all records from the registry is particularly egregious. Quebec wants to create its own gun registry and thus the federal government should give the Quebec data to the Quebec government. Doing otherwise is ideologically extreme. I’m glad to hear that Quebec is thinking of suing the federal government for the data. In principle, Ontario should also create its own gun registry. The votes are likely there for doing that in the legislature. However, some NDP MPPs might vote against it if there were a vote because they represent rural ridings where the gun registry is unpopular. However, if all Liberals MPPs voted for a provincial gun registry, it would need only one NDP vote to pass. Also, the Ontario Liberals need to try to regain support in rural Ontario, and introducing a provincial gun registry wouldn’t be popular in rural Ontario, so I think the Ontario Liberals should put off such an idea right now.
Also of note is that Julian Fantino once supported the federal gun registry but now as a Conservative cabinet minister opposes it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for the gun registry before he was against it.
Also, Vic Toawes needs to lighten up. He takes things too seriously and doesn’t need to keep scowling all the time. He’s just cranky too much.

Column by Robert Fisher en français

I'm taking a course in learning French right now, so I thought I'd make an attempt to translate my most recent blog post into French. Here it is:

Je voudrais profiter de problème avec un article écrite récemment par Robert Fisher de la CBC. Premièrement, il a dit que « Certaines personnes à l’intérieur et à l'extérieur de Queen’s Park me dites que McGuinty a, au mieux, 18 mois et membres de son cabinet peut-être même moins » Il n’est pas clair ce qu’il veut dire par cette déclaration parce qu’il ensuite dit que McGuinty démissionnera au cours de ce mandat parlementaire. Est-ce qu’il veut dire qu’une élection sera forcée en 18 mois même si Andrea Horwath a promis de faire fonctionner ce parlement ? Ou veut-il dire que McGuinty va démissionner en 18 mois ? Il ne peut pas vouloir dire les deux parce que si une élection est forcée en 18 mois, il y aurais aucun temps pour démissionner et McGuinty dirigerait le parti dans l’élection prochaine. Je serais surpris si McGuinty quitte en 18 mois. Il a vient de travaillé très dur pour restaurer sa popularité. Pourquoi quitterait-il si bientôt quand a ce moment son leadership semble être un atout. Je serais surpris que les CPs and les NPDs seraient prêts pour forcer une élection en 18 mois après cette élection était dissolue pour les deux. Par ailleurs, Andrea Horwath, en particulier, a exprimé le désir de faire fonctionner ce parlement à long terme. Si une élection est forcée en 18 mois, il n’y aurait pas de temps pour la retraite et la sélection d'un autre premier ministre libéral, comme j’ai dit.
Fisher est aussi trop dur sur plusieurs ministres. Il dit que Michael Chan, Margarett Best, et Harinder Takhar apportent peu à la table du Cabinet, avant, pendant ou après la période de questions. C'est une légère malheureuse contre 3 ministres bien aimés et compétents qui ont tous récemment été réélus dans leurs circonscriptions.
Fisher a également été surpris que Kathleen Wynne, a été donné Affaires municipales et pas autre chose. Il a dit « Sûrement sa réélection et son travail en tant que co-président de la campagne libérale signifiait qu'elle méritait mieux. » Mais Affaires municipales est un poste ministériel formidable, à mon avis, étant donné l'importance des municipalités sont situées en Ontario. Pour moi, c'est un poste très intéressant et amusant. De plus, Wynne va aller tête à tête avec Rob Ford. Quel pourrait être plus amusant que cela ? De plus, Wynne a aussi été donnée au poste très important de ministre des Affaires autochtones, en plus du portefeuille des Affaires municipales. Donc ce n'est pas qu'elle sûrement a mérité mieux, elle a obtenu les meilleur postes possibles.

Column by Robert Fisher

I’d like to take issue with a column written recently by Robert Fisher of the CBC. Firstly, he said “Some inside and outside Queen’s Park tell me McGuinty has, at best, 18 months and members of his cabinet perhaps even less.” It is not clear what he means by this because he then he goes onto indicate that McGuinty will step down at some point during this parliamentary term. Does he mean that an election will be forced in 18 months even though Andrea Horwath has pledged to make this parliament work? Or does he mean that McGuinty is going to step down in 18 months? He can’t mean both because if an election were forced in 18 months, there would be no time for McGuinty to step down and he’d lead the Liberals into the next election. I’d be surprised if McGuinty quit in 18 months. He just worked really hard to successfully restore his popularity. Why would he quit so soon after that when at the moment his leadership seems an asset to his party? As far as an election being forced in 18 months is concerned, I’d be surprised if at that time both the Tories and NDP are ready to face the electorate again after just coming off a campaign that was a bit disappointing for both of them in terms of results. Besides, Andrea Horwath in particular has expressed a desire to make this parliament work long term. If an election were forced 18 months from now there would be, as I say, no time for succession in the premier’s office from McGuinty to another Liberal even if McGuinty were interested in retiring.
Fisher is also too hard on several cabinet ministers. He says that Michael Chan, Margarett Best and Harinder Takhar bring little to the cabinet table before, during, or after question period. This is an unfortunate slight against 3 well liked and competent ministers all of whom recently won re-election in their ridings.
Fisher also was surprised that Kathleen Wynne was given Municipal Affairs and not something else. He said “Surely, her re-election and her work as co-chair of the Liberal campaign ... meant she deserved better.” But Municipal Affairs is a great cabinet post in my opinion, given how important municipalities are in Ontario. To me it is a very fun and interesting post. Plus Wynne gets to go head to head with Rob Ford. What could be more fun than that? Plus Wynne has also been given the very important post of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in addition to the Municipal Affairs portfolio. So it is not that she surely deserved better, she got the best postings possible.

McGuinty and the HST

One might wonder why Dalton McGuinty, who seems adept at trying political self-preservation, would implement the unpopular HST. I think it must be because he believes it will create jobs by the time of the next election and he can point to the HST being tax neutral. On the related question of why the HST is so much more unpopular in BC than Ontario I would guess it is because in BC the HST is not at all tax neutral because all of the federal exemptions are being applied to fuel so that the HST will not be charged on top of BC’s carbon tax.

St. Paul’s by-election

It is now not a matter of if there will be a provincial St. Paul’s by-election, but when. Michael Bryant is quitting politics and will take a newly created job with the City of Toronto. Unlike current federal vacancies where we don’t know whether there will be a by-election because we don’t know when the government will fall, provincially there is a majority government and a by-election is thus guaranteed because there are over two years left in the mandate. I’m not sure of any possible Tory or NDP candidates for the by-election. But one possible Liberal candidate is St. Paul’s public school trustee Josh Matlow. He ran against Ernie Eves in his by-election in 2002 and did quite well, way better than the 1999 result in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. I wonder if he’d go for it. Another remotely possible candidate is federal St. Paul’s MP Carolyn Bennett. She ran for the provincial Liberals in 1995 in the St. Paul’s predecessor St. Andrew-St. Patrick. The problem with this idea is that it would be a messy situation because it would create a possible federal by-election in St. Paul’s as well as the provincial by-election. Bennett might also face questions about the federal MP’s pension she would collect while also collecting an MPP salary. Bennett is very unlikely to run. I am a bit concerned about this by-election because the McGuinty government has never had to defend a Toronto seat in a by-election where the Tories got over 25% of the vote. The Tories got about 26% of the vote in St. Paul’s in the last provincial election. The Toronto Star article I read said Bryant would return to electoral politics if McGuinty ever retired as party leader. Of course by then Bryant would not have his seat but one must cross that bridge when one comes to it. I wish Bryant well in his new job.

Van Loan vs. McGuinty

I am against the federal government proposal to change the formula of seat allocation for the House of Commons. Sadly the proposal short-changes Ontario. I feel it is better to stick to the current formula. Dalton McGuinty and federal Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan have had a surprisingly partisan exchange over this issue – along party lines. I think you can guess which one of the two I agree with – Dalton! If the choice is between further shortchanging Ontario with the seat plan or keeping the status quo’s shortcomings, I’d stick with the status quo. I am hoping the federal Liberals join with the provincial Liberals in fighting against this bill so that Ontario does not get shortchanged more than it already is. This particular bill should not be a matter of confidence because it was not mentioned in the Throne Speech.


I also think it has become clear that as long as the McGuinty government is in power and as long as the Harper government is in power, n’er the twain shall get along. This is also true of PST harmonization. Harmonizing Ontario’s PST to the federal GST would be detrimental to Ontario consumers. It is for this reason that McGuinty is only willing to harmonize the PST on his terms. Without numerous exemptions on various items in a harmonization agreement, McGuinty has said he is not interested. And those exemptions would make it so that it is not harmonization at all. It is for this reason that PST harmonization is unlikely to occur under McGuinty. Also, I know this was four years ago, but I recall that the Eves Tories also did not believe in PST harmonization.

Statements In Brief

I want to make some brief statements:

I liked McGuinty’s new cabinet except I had concerns when he dropped Monte Kwinter and David Ramsay without giving them a PA job to land on.


The Liberals were right to twice abstain on voting to keep the Tories in power. There was an editorial in the Toronto Star on October 31 saying that the Liberals should have defeated the Tories over the mini-budget. I disagree. The Liberals agreed with all the tax cuts except the GST. There was no point in fighting an election over the GST. So twice the Liberals did the right thing.

Source:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/272037

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.

Leader's Debate

The other night there was a leader’s debate for the Ontario election. Unfortunately for Howard Hampton, he had a bad cold. This may have impeded his debate performance. The result of Hampton’s cold may have been that Hampton was less forceful than in two previous leader’s debates he was in. Nevertheless, Hampton still seemed to do ok. In my humble opinion, Tory could have done better. Also, in my humble opinion McGuinty did well.

That being said, I am VERY apprehensive about whatever Ontario post-debate polls may come out. I am VERY fearful they will show Conservative momentum because of how commentators spun the Ontario leaders debate. Almost all commentators spun the debate as a loser for McGuinty. This despite the fact that when I watched the debate, I saw that McGuinty did just fine. McGuinty was the only leader who was positive. The other two leaders were just continuously attacking McGuinty. Constantly being on the attack does not make you look like a Premier. Only McGuinty offered positive messages. Offering positive messages is how you look like a Premier, not by attacking constantly and not by playing footsie with the other Opposition leader. Interestingly, Dalton McGuinty’s quip that Howard Hampton and John Tory are HoJo is becoming something of a catchphrase. Unlike what Howard Hampton said, McGuinty was not in desperation to use the term HoJo. It was a joke, plain and simple. My deep concern is that people who originally thought that McGuinty won the debate when they watched it will change their minds and decide that Tory won the debate because of what the media said. This could have a devastating effect on the Liberal campaign. I have read a number of user comments on more than one website which said that McGuinty won the debate. I’ve also seen and/or heard occasional comments from Ontarians that their opinion of John Tory worsened because of the debate. I am just dreadfully scared of the pro-Tory media spin on the debate and the negative effect it will have on the Liberal campaign.

I also do not support John Tory’s idea of allowing booze to be sold at convenience stores. For one thing, it breaks with a VERY long tradition in Ontario. Secondly, it means less government regulation and therefore an increase in the likelihood of booze falling into the wrong hands. No I am not questioning the integrity of shopkeepers. No offence to shopkeepers, but I fear that this new lack of government regulation would increase the number of alcohol-caused accidents and deaths.

Tory MPP Bill Murdoch has announced that he would almost certainly vote against any legislation implementing John Tory’s faith-based funding plan. Tory simply dismissed Murdoch as a maverick when asked about this. But this is actually significant for a member of the Conservative caucus to so openly rebel against the party leader on this controversial issue. I don’t know whether Murdoch voting against Tory’s faith-based funding plan would get him kicked out of caucus. However, considering the position that the Liberals and NDP have taken on this issue, Tory’s faith-based funding plan could not be pushed through unless there were a Conservative majority government.

I am quite unhappy that Howard Hampton has said that for him to offer support to any minority government, the minority government in power would have to implement the entire NDP platform. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives could ever agree to implement the entire NDP platform. This would mean an incredibly unstable minority government. With this being Hampton’s position, the minority government could easily fall on the Throne Speech – just like at the federal level the government is threatened by a loss of confidence on the Throne Speech. Hampton making the demands he has made, I see no point in an Ontario minority government even trying to pass a budget. And how exactly is this minority government extreme instability supposed to get better under MMP if opposition parties continue to make such un-agreeable demands? For example, if the Greens get seats under MMP they could demand the abolishment of the Catholic school system in exchange for support of the government . That would be a complete no-go and could lead to MMP minority governments to be as unstable as ever. By the way, everybody these days seems to think that for this Ontario election, a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Despite the spin, there is just not enough evidence that a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Take the poll that showed the Liberals with a 9-pont lead. I think the last time a 9 point spread produced a minority government may have been never. I know that that particular poll is now out of date, but still it is something to keep in mind

I want to re-iterate one point – Dalton did far better in the debate than commentators gave him credit for.

Ontario Liberals

I am happy about today’s Strategic Counsel poll about Ontario politics. It shows that Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals still have a chance at re-election. It was 40% for the Liberals, 35% for the PCs, 18% for the NDP, and 8% for the Greens. It is that Green support the Liberals need the most. If even one or two percent of that Green support moved to the Liberals and these numbers occurred on election day, the Liberals would have a majority government for sure. Although I can find no previous Strategic Counsel poll on Ontario politics, the Globe and Mail headline is this: “McGuinty support slips to minority status, poll finds”. I think the polls numbers have just as much a chance to produce a Liberal majority government. Remember that in 1999 Mike Harris won a majority government while only winning the popular vote by 5 points. I’ve applied the numbers to the UBC election forecaster for the upcoming Ontario election. (I made some accommodations to make the numbers fit into the projector). To make numbers add up perfectly I made it look like this: Liberal: 40.0% , PC: 34.7% , NDP : 17.7% , Other: 7.6%.

I needed those approximations to make the grid add up perfectly to 100%. Here are the seat numbers I got for those adapted numbers:

Liberal: 61
PC: 38
NDP: 8

This would be a 57% Liberal majority. However, I have to make some adjustments for things the projector does not factor in. I am giving the NDP the 3 seats it won in by-elections. I am making the assumption that John Tory wins his seat in Don Valley West (the predictor predicts this seat as a Liberal hold). I am also switching several bellwether ridings won by tiny, tiny margins by the PCs back to the Liberals because I expect them to return a Liberal should the Liberals be re-elected due to their bellwether status. Those ridings affected are Ottawa West--Nepean, Huron--Bruce, and Kitchener Centre. I also am moving Oakville back to the Liberal column because the Tories only won it by 0.3% and I expect Liberal incumbent Kevin Flynn to be re-elected should the Liberals win re-election province-wide. These changes make the seat numbers as follows:

Liberal: 61
PC: 35
NDP: 11

That would still be a 57% Liberal majority. So I’d say the Liberals are still in the game and a minority government is far from certain.

Davenport and Markham--Unionville

The NDP candidate for the provincial NDP in Davenport is going to be Peter Ferreira. He is Portugese and Davenport has a lot of Portugese people but I don’t know whether they would automatically switch their votes just because the NDP candidate is Portugese. The fact that he is Portugese is one of the assets he has if he wants to beat Tony Ruprecht. But his beating the well-established and well entrenched Tony Ruprecht will be difficult. The other problem Ferreira faces is that he seems to be the same Peter Ferreira who spent time as a Catholic school trustee in Mississauga, which is several kilometers from Davenport. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat on Mississauga City Council last November. On the election website for city council he says he has long lived in Mississauga. Therefore he seems to be something of a parachute candidate for Davenport and doesn’t seem too have many roots in the community in which he is running. It is for that reason that I would still give Ruprecht the edge.


On the electionprediction.com page for Markham—Unionville, somebody has gone and predicted a PC win for physiotherapist Ki Kit Li because it is a traditional Conservative seat as well as because of “strong credentials” for the Tory candidate. Here is the full quote, by someone called “Full Name”: “Considering that the by election of 2007 had one of the lowest number of registered voters voting, that this is traditionally a PC riding, and that there is a PC candidate that has strong credentials and has been an active member of the community, I would say that John Tory and his team will probably gain back this seat for the PC Party” To go from “strong credentials” and “active member of the community” to “probably gain back this seat for the PC Party” is a bit of a stretch. The Tories winning Markham—Unionville is always physically possible but “probably”??????? Full Name gave too far a certainty. There are several things to refute this post. I want to post them on the site but I can’t get the submission page to work. Firstly Full Name is not taking into account the federal results in Markham—Unionville. In the 2006 Federal Election, Markham—Unionville was in the top 5 of strongest Liberal results across the whole country. Markham—Unionville came out in 5th place out of 308 with 61.9% of the vote, one of only 6 ridings to vote more than 60% Liberal in the whole country. Secondly, Full Name fails to take into account Michael Chan’s roots in the community. Thirdly, about the by-election and its turnout, by-elections often have low turnout and Markham was no exception. One reason the turnout was low was no doubt the cold (though not snowing) weather. That being said, I do not see low turnout as a bad sign for the Liberals. In by-elections, those who turn out to vote are a lot more likely to be those who are not satisfied with the government and wish to vote against the governing party. We saw this occur significantly in York South-Weston, as well as to a lesser extent in Parkdale-High Park. Markham does not appear to be an exception to this rule. I’d say that this factor played out in Markham. Yet despite this factor the Liberals still easily beat the Tories. Also notable is that I was involved in the by-election campaign for the Liberals and did a lot of sign counting. The Liberals easily won the sign war (only counting signs on lawns) by a 2 to one margin. Some of the committed Liberals may not have voted on election day because it was cold out. Based on what I saw of canvass results as well, there appeared to be a largely Liberal result. So there is no questioning that that support for the Liberals was there and it was not some aberration due to turnout. Based on what I saw in the election campaign, it was a little surprising to see a result of 34.9% for the Tories. One may have expected a maximum result of about 30% but on election day it was a little higher than this. My theory is that the 34.9% result was because of the factor I mentioned earlier – those wishing to vote against the government have a higher tendency to vote in a by-election. So my guess is that a higher turnout would thus likely have seen a stronger Liberal result. The next factor Full Name leaves out is that if the by-election results are applied only to the new Markham—Unionville part of the riding, the results would almost certainly be higher for the Liberals and lower for the Tories because the new riding loses some of the strongest areas for the Tories to the new Oak Ridges—Markham riding. Thus in Markham—Unionville we may have seen something like Liberal 53%, Conservative 31%. By my theory an increased turnout would likely have expanded the Liberal margin further. So really the Liberals have some distance to fall before they lose Markham—Unionville. It would take a real Tory sweep and a humiliating disaster for the Liberals before they would lose Markham—Unionville. The Tories would probably have to take 45% or so of the vote province-wide for Markham—Unionville to fall to the Tories. So for Full Name to predict a probable win for the Tories at this point is, in my view, a little far from reality.


On one more point, I am tired of waiting for the provincial election. I wish I could already be helping out Michael Chan and rooting for Dalton McGuinty and I am tired of the suspense of having to wait for the provincial election to officially start.

Ontario Liberals

I think that Dalton McGuinty’s re-election chances depend in part on the relative popularity of the federal Conservative and Liberal parties. I’ve said this before, but once again I think there is a spillover effect between what happens on the federal scene that corresponds to attitudes at the Ontario provincial scene. In my humble opinion, the McGuinty government still has a significant chance of re-election in the fall. However, it must be remembered that 90% of sitting MPPs as well as the government itself was elected during a different political era. The composition of the current legislature was voted on at a time when the federal Liberals reigned supreme under Jean Chrétien. The current legislature was elected at a time when the federal Liberals were ever popular and unbeatable under Chrétien. It is amazing how quickly that decade-long juggernaut came crashing down mere months after the 2003 provincial election. By June 2004, less than a year later, that juggernaut that was supposed to continue under Paul Martin was gone. So the fact that the McGuinty government was elected in that previous political era is something to keep in mind. On the flip side it is important to note that the Ontario Liberals are still stronger in many rural seats than the federal Liberals. However, if the Ontario Liberals want to win the coming election they have to run an actual campaign. They cannot simply coast as the federal Liberals did in the last election. Coasting leads to inevitable defeat. The Liberals must actually campaign. If they do campaign, they still have a decent shot at winning.

More about the Senate

While it is true that the Senate is currently blocking a Senator term limit Bill, the Senate is not blocking the three justice Bills Stephen Harper is citing. These Bills have only been in the Senate for a few weeks and the Senate has not expedited them. This quote from Stephen Harper is patently false. Harper said “Our bail reforms are backed by police, prosecutors, big city mayors, the NDP and the Ontario Liberals. But not by the Liberal majority in the Senate,”. In fact the Bill in question has not been voted down by the Senate. It has, however, received only first reading in the Senate. It is not stalled at committee. The Liberals support this Bill and the Senate will pass this Bill. Parliamentary procedure on Bills is sometimes slow, even in the House of Commons on the government’s own Bills even when not at committee. The Senate simply has not had a chance to move the Bill forward to the next stages to be passed. It is just that the Senate has not gotten around to debating and passing the Bill yet. I can assure Stephen Harper that the bail reform Bill will be passed in the Senate in the fall. Saying that Liberal Senators are against this Bill is incorrect and Stephen Harper should know it.

As far as the mandatory minimum sentences Bill, the Liberal leadership opposed the Bill in the House of Commons, but I’m guessing that as with the budget it will be passed in the Senate. The third Bill that the CTV article mentions is as follows : “The blocked bills would have: Raised the age of consent from 14 to 16”. This is a Bill that the Liberals and Bloc reluctantly supported. The NDP has been split on this issue in the past but those previously opposed to raising the age of consent also reluctantly support this Bill. This Bill passed without there ever being a recorded vote. I’m guessing the Senate will get around to passing the Bill in the fall. The Bill gives a close-in-age exemption of up to four years. The opposition parties would never have agreed to this Bill otherwise. The Bill however now prohibits a 19 year old from having sex with a 14 year old. Even 20 year olds are now prohibited from having sex with 15 year olds. Some have argued that the Bill is a violation of human rights because it unduly restricts who 14 year olds and 15 year olds may choose as sex partners. The problem is that this is a side of the story that nobody really wants to hear because everyone is too caught up in the hype about supposed sexual exploitation of 14 year olds. I don’t doubt that there is some sexual exploitation that has occurred. Such sexual exploitation is already illegal, however. Proponents of this Bill have argued that somehow Canada’s current law is being used by sexual predators in the United States to come and sexually exploit 14 year old girls. The first problem with this is that luring children over the internet is already illegal and so if any sexual predator tries this they are already breaking the law. I think proponents of the Bill had the internet in mind when they were arguing that Canada’s law was being used to exploit. And I don’t doubt that there have been some who have used the current law to exploit 14 year old girls. But any of them who did it over the internet were breaking the law right off the bat. And even if they did not use the internet, the moment that there is a hint of exploitation in the relationship with the girl it becomes illegal under the current law. I do not know how many people actually come from the United States to Canada and hang around to pick up 14 year old girls and have sex with them; because that is the only way they could do it without breaking any laws. I don’t doubt there have been a few who have done this. And maybe the new law will discourage them from doing this and there will be even fewer strange men from the US hanging around trying to pick up young girls. But sadly I expect this Bill will reduce sexual exploitation by very little because those who want to sexually exploit will sadly not let the law stand in their way.

The CTV article seems to imply that the age of consent Bill was a Bill that the Ontario Provincial Liberals (of Dalton McGuinty fame) supported being passed. If the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the federal issue of age of consent its news to me. I do not know if this is what the article meant or if they were only referring to the bail and mandatory minimums reform. But if the Ontario Liberals have an official position on the age of consent issue that is outside their jurisdiction, I must have missed that.

I do not believe that Stephane Dion is as bad a leader as everybody says. I fail to understand why no one likes Stephane Dion. He is such a great guy. And as a leader he often seems to know what he is doing. For example, he reached the recent compromise on the Senate budget Bill standoff all by himself. He diffused a potential storm by allowing a free vote on the budget Bill, opening the door for Atlantic and Saskatchewan Liberal Senators to vote against the Bill but still allowing the Bill to pass the Senate. This was an excellent compromise that has allowed the Bill to pass but now be judged in the court of public opinion. It was an excellent solution and it was all done by Stephane Dion. He is a far better leader than people give him credit for. He’s even getting more effective during Question Period. I am overjoyed to see that in the last few weeks and months, the Liberals have finally been able to, on a regular basis, hold the government to account as is the Liberals’ duty as the Official Opposition. The Liberals have finally found themselves able to effectively oppose the government and effectively hold the government to account and I am overjoyed at this. And as any opposition party does this, it increases their viability as a government-in-waiting, and I’m glad to see the Liberals finally as a government-in-waiting working on being able to eventually replace the Conservatives and become the Government of Canada once more.


Sources:
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n062269A

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070622/kyoto_budget_070622/20070622?hub=CTVNewsAt11

New Ontario provincial poll

Source for blog post:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=a2d2efab-7cdc-40b4-9ffd-166ae1ef2b16&k=4761


A new poll out by Ipsos-Reid shows the McGuinty Liberals 4 points ahead of the Tories – 41% to 37%. The pollster and/or media were spinning this result as bad news for the Liberals. But this spinning ignores the fact that the Liberals are actually up 3 points from the previous Ipsos-Reid poll. It puts the Tories up 4 points. But more good news that the spinning fails to mention is that both the NDP and Green Party are down from the previous Ipsos-Reid poll. This is obviously good news for the Liberals. What’s more, in my opinion I think this poll is actually good news for the Liberals. For the last several months, the Ontario government has been under constant Opposition attack over the Ontario Lottery Corporation and over grants to immigrant service groups. Even after all the negative publicity that occurred due to these Opposition attacks, the Liberals are still ahead by 4 points. I think that that is significant. If it weren’t for those attacks, no doubt the Liberals would be ahead by a greater margin. I applied the poll results to the UBC election forecaster. It predicted a narrow Liberal majority government based on the results I entered. In the article I sourced it says that a minority government is a distinct possibility. While that is true that a minority government is very possible, a 41-37 spread in favour of the Liberals could just as easily produce a majority government depending on how the votes in each riding are actually cast, and the UBC election forecaster confirms a majority government is possible with a 41-37 spread in favour of the Liberals.

On a slightly related note, I think pollsters should start polling support for voting yes in the upcoming Ontario referendum on electoral reform. For the record, I plan to vote no in the referendum. Sometime soon I will make a blog explaining why I am against the proposed electoral reform.

Meanwhile, us Ontario Liberals have to continue to fight to get re-elected with a majority in October, 2007.