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.

Barrie examiner letter to the editor

I’ve found a good letter to the editor in the Barrie Examiner. It is entitled “Harper's bluff yet to be called”. I like this part. “Since Canadians want another federal election like they want snow in September, there also needs to be an overwhelming issue to send voters to the polls.” I certainly agree with that. There needs to be an overwhelming issue over which to pull the plug otherwise to me doing so seems inadvisable. There is also a Toronto Star article entitled “Bring on fall election, Liberals say”. It quotes Bob Rae and appears to be implying that Rae is saying “bring on a fall election.” Of course I don’t want the Star to put words in Rae’s mouth. What Rae did say is that it is only a matter of time until an election and that the Liberals are increasingly ready for one. The problem with the Liberal Green Shift is that although it is credible and doable, it is polarizing. People either support it or strongly oppose it. There is a sizeable, although minority, population that opposes the Green Shift. Opposition to the Green Shift is heavily concentrated out west, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta. There is strong opposition in those provinces due to the oil revenue that those two provinces generate due to oil drilling. Of course the Green Shift does not put a tax on petroleum itself. Conservatives still contend that the Green Shift would cause the prices of gasoline to increase. There are genuine fears out west that the Green Shift would devastate the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I would like to reassure those who feel that way. I am thoroughly convinced that the Green Shift would either have no effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan or the Green Shift would have a positive effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. By no means is the Green Shift another National Energy Program as I have seen some contend. The Green Shift is completely different. There is also opposition to the Green Shift in British Columbia where the provincial Liberal government has already implemented a carbon tax. There is strong opposition to the BC government’s carbon tax and as a result there is opposition to the federal Liberal Green Shift. Sadly the Liberals are therefore, I fear, risking the seats they have in British Columbia by promoting a policy that is similar to the provincial carbon tax that British Columbians have already rejected. Thus for all these reasons I am not convinced that the Liberal Green Shift ought to be the overwhelming issue over which the federal Liberals force an election.

The Green Shift will be an integral part of our platform but I firmly believe the Liberals should campaign on other things as well. During an election the Green Shift by no means should be the only thing discussed by the Liberals. There are plenty other issues to promote and plenty of other issues to attack the Conservatives on. Of course we cannot really consider our options on when to force an election until after the by-elections on September 8. If the Liberals, God forbid, get wiped out in the by-elections I am doubtful there would be eagerness on the part of the Liberals to force a quick election. Even if the Liberals lost one of the two seats it held I am doubtful the Liberals would be clamoring to bring down the House. If the Liberals win both, the Liberals can consider their options, part of which should involve weighing the percentage of the vote the Liberals get in each of the three ridings. That being said, I am cautioning against rushing into an election. We need the exact right issue at the exact right time, and I am not convinced we have found those two things yet nor I am I convinced we’d find those two things in the fall. Stephen Harper has talked about making confidence motions in the autumn out of government measures on the economy, crime, and other Conservative policies. It is my guess that the Liberals would look at each of those measures separately and decide individually whether to support or oppose each measure. If an economic proposal put before parliament is not overly radical or nutty, I don’t see why the Liberals wound not support it. Similarly, the Liberals have mostly supported the Conservative crime-fighting agenda. I don’t see this stopping in the fall unless the Conservatives propose something really radical. I do not personally agree with Stephane Dion that Canadians are “hungry for an election”, as one article put it. My party will do what it thinks best on every issue and every vote in the fall. But even when we support certain Conservative measures we will not stop criticizing the government over it’s numerous failures. This is not incompatible. This is what is needed to make a minority parliament work. When the Bloc Quebecois was supporting the Conservatives in confidence votes, the Bloc did not refrain from criticizing the Conservatives at the time. The situation is no different for the Liberals. We will support individual Conservatives proposals as we see fit but we remain the Official Opposition and the role of the Official Opposition is to hold the government to account. We do that by criticizing the many things that this government has done wrong. Anyway, good luck to Frank Valeriote in Guelph, Marc Garneau in Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Roxane Stanners in Saint-Lambert!

By-election results

I have mixed feelings about this week’s by-election results. The Liberals did incredibly well in the Toronto by-elections and increased the Liberal vote percentage in both ridings by several percentage points. The Conservative went down several points in Toronto Centre and went up only .76% in Willowdale. I personally do not consider such a marginal increase in the Tory vote to be very significant. My feelings are mixed however because the by-election results outside Toronto were far worse news for the Liberals. The Liberals lost the Northern Saskatchewan riding badly but I was not surprised by that. I was expecting the Liberals to lose that riding. We badly messed up our chances in that riding by appointing Joan Beatty over the wishes of the powerful and influential David Orchard supporters in the riding. Orchard wanted to run for the Liberals in the by-election and was miffed at being denied a chance to do so. Had Orchard been the candidate it would have still been a tough by-election for the Liberals but the Liberals would have had a fighting chance. Causing so much controversy by appointing Beatty removed any chance the Liberals had in the riding. Now Beatty has no political office and I don’t think she would be allowed run in a by-election for her old Cumberland provincial seat after having already defected from the NDP.


Vancouver Quadra was also bad news for the Liberals. The Liberals held the riding by a mere 151 votes. The Liberal vote in the riding dropped significantly and the Tory vote surged. The Green vote surged as well from low single digits to 13% of the vote. On election night I was shocked when the final two polls came in to see that the Liberal lead had shrunk to 151 votes. Those final two polls must have been won by a landslide by the Tories. Now the Tory central party wants a recount of the results. I highly doubt that a recount would change the outcome but it could delay Liberal Joyce Murray’s ability to take her seat in parliament. From what I read, Tory candidate Deborah Meredith was not consulted on this recount ahead of time and the central party announced the desire for a recount without talking to Meredith first.

So my feelings are very mixed considering the incredibly strong showing for the Tories in the two Western Canadian by-elections. Now there is unfortunately a whole new set of by-elections that the Liberals could always lose. These by-elections would occur if the government does not fall. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is already vacant. It was held by the Liberals and astronaut Mark Garneau is the Liberal candidate. Saint Lambert (south of Montreal) is also already vacant as former Bloc MP Maka Kotto recently resigned his seat to run for the PQ in a provincial by-election. Two more ridings, both held by the Liberals, will become vacant in the near future. Guelph Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain has announced that she will resign her seat on April 7. Don Valley West Liberal MP John Godfrey has announced that he will resign his seat on July 1 to accept a position as headmaster of a Toronto French school. Guelph is very iffy for the Liberals because the Liberals only won the seat last time with 38% of the vote and only 8% over the Tories. The NDP and Greens had a strong showing in the riding as well. In the recent provincial election, the Greens received a whopping 19.5% of the vote. That means that in a by-election even the Greens could win the riding. The NDP has a star candidate – Thomas King. King is a prominent Metis writer and commentator who talks extensively about Metis and aboriginal issues. The Conservatives have a well known candidate – Guelph City councilor Gloria Kovach. Her ability to be elected to Guelph council could propel her to parliament. The Liberals have a much lesser known lawyer. In a by-election the riding could go to any of the four major parties including the Greens. The Greens are a particularly distinct possibility due to the 19.5% they got in Guelph in the provincial election.

Don Valley West was won by 20% over the Tories with 53% of the vote. Local gay United Church minister Rob Oliphant has been nominated for the Liberals. The Tories have nominated the 2006 candidate John Carmichael. This riding is not as safe for the Liberals as Willowdale and in a by-election it could sadly conceivably go Conservative. The Liberals are very likely to again lose Saint Lambert which they lost in the 2004 election so a Liberal loss there would be no surprise. Sadly none of the upcoming by-elections look like a sure bet for the Liberals.

However, I am still delighted at the wonderful Toronto by-election results. Another bright note is that the Liberals easily won the popular vote of the 4 by-elections put together.

Unthinkable but true

Well, the unthinkable has occurred. Lucienne Robillard has announced that she will resign her Montreal seat on January 25, two years and two days since she won the 2006 election. She has given no reason for her abrupt decision to resign. Months ago she had already announced that she would not run again. That is why they nominated Marc Garneau in her riding. I do not know whether Robillard thought that there would not be a spring election so she had to resign now. The media treats a spring election as a near certainty. I am inclined to agree with the media on this one even though I do not like it. I am a Liberal, but not all Liberals seem to have realized that an election a few months from now is likely counterproductive for the Liberals. I do not see ourselves in any more of a position to win then than we are now. Liberals were recently talking boldly about defeating the government on their own non-confidence motion initiative in the new year. However, even if they were given the opportunity to do this, my guess is the non-confidence motion would not pass. My guess is the Bloc would vote against it so that they could pass judgment on the 2008 budget before making a decision on whether to the defeat the government. But it is the 2008 budget that makes me think a spring election likely. I see it as very difficult for this parliament to survive the 2008 budget. The Liberals do not want to keep abstaining and the Bloc already yanked their support of the government this autumn. I see it as unlikely that the Bloc would go back to supporting the government because this fall Duceppe seemed quite enthusiastic about an election despite the fact that it would cause the Bloc to lose seats. The only way an election can be avoided is if the Liberals are around 10 points or even more behind in the polls. In that case, we might see the Liberals abstaining or registering only token votes against the budget. This makes a Westmount—Ville-Marie by-election unlikely. Westmount—Ville-Marie is a target riding for the NDP, especially in a by-election. This is due to the 15% the NDP received there in the last election. However, Westmount—Ville-Marie was always a stronger Liberal riding than Outremont as far back as the Chrétien glory days. The Liberals got 45% there in the last election, compared with 35% in Outremont.

I need some help

Somebody has made the claim on the electionprediction.com page that there were polls in and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot showing a tight two way race in both ridings in the by-elections. The claim was that the poll was in the Toronto Star. I can find the poll absolutely nowhere on the internet and I have searched thoroughly. If anyone can point out to me where this poll is and what the numbers say I would be most appreciative.

Bad news about Bob Rae, plus some provincial Liberal candidates

I have some bad news. Bob Rae has a cold and therefore his heart surgery has been delayed. No new date has been set. My concern is that Rae will still be recovering and unable to campaign when Harper calls the Toronto Centre by-election.

Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.

Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):

“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”

Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.

On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):


“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”


I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.

Men more likely to oppose gay marriage

It has just occurred to me that every single Liberal MP to vote for Stephen Harper’s December 2006 motion to repeal same-sex marriage were men. In 2005, almost all of the Liberal MPs to vote against same-sex marriage were men, with only a handful of exceptions. In December 2006, all the female Liberal opponents of same-sex marriage were either no longer in Parliament or switched their vote. Speaking of that December 2006 vote, Liberal MP Glen Pearson had been sworn in that very day after winning a by-election and so was able to vote against Harper’s motion. Raymond Gravel, however, also having recently been elected in a by-election, had not been sworn in yet for some reason and was not sworn in until a few days later. I’m not sure why this is. It meant that Gravel (who was an openly gay Catholic priest) was unable to vote against Harper’s motion as he had announced he would. I don’t know why it took longer for him to be sworn in. All I can think of is that the returning officer took longer to submit the results to Parliament for some reason.

Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.

Bob Rae, health, nominations, municipal politics

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.

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.

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!

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.

Supplementary to my previous blog post

The by-elections have been called, but only the two in Quebec. The Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean should be able to be called for the same date of September 17 now that Michel Gauthier has resigned. Harper wants political conditions for him to improve before risking any of the by-elections in Ontario or British Columbia. Harper can't have thought Outremont to be that winnable for his party since he waited until the absolutely last day before calling the by-election. In my opinion political conditions for Harper in Quebec are not as good as he may have hoped, but still better for Harper than the Liberals would have hoped.

I have also found out that in Welland, Jody Di Bartolomeo lost the NDP nomination to Malcolm Allen in March 2007, and that is the reason Di Bartolomeo is not running for the NDP again. The NDP sometimes ends up denying the nomination to a candidate who came close in the previous election. For example, Steve McClurg came within 100 votes of winning in New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal Election, but in 2005 lost the nomination for the 2006 Federal Election to Dawn Black, who is now the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. If McClurg had won the nomination, he might well be the MP now. What happened instead is that McClurg recently became a Liberal and sought the Liberal nomination in Burnaby-New Westminster before giving up his ambition for being an MP and withdrawing.

Jody Di Bartolomeo similarly came fairly close in the last election and evidently wanted to again make an attempt to become an MP. While I wholeheartedly endorse John Maloney to win the next Federal Election in Welland, I feel a little bit sorry for Di Bartolomeo because he was denied a chance to run in the next election.

Miller’s honeymoon is over

Toronto Mayor David Miller’s honeymoon is over and in 2010 he is going to have to actually run an offensive campaign. He will not be able to run the passive, frontrunner’s campaign he ran in 2006. In 2006, Miller was able to run as complacent a campaign as the federal Liberals were able to run in the 2000 federal election. In both the 2000 federal election, and the 2006 Toronto Mayoral election, the incumbent cruised to victory by running a complacent frontrunner’s campaign. I don’t see how Miller will be able to do this again after the ruckus of the past week. David Miller’s proposed taxes on land transfer and automobile registration proved extremely unpopular among Toronto’s electorate. While I personally do not find the proposed fee on car registrations to be that bad, the proposed land transfer tax was WAY too high. The only way I could support it is if it is made 10 to 20 times lower. Toronto’s housing market is what is keeping Toronto’s economy competitive these days. Such a high transfer tax would thus devastate Toronto’s economy. I’m not sure whether the province should have given Toronto the power to tax land transfers. Is it even allowed under the new Toronto Act? Has the city even checked the act to see whether a land transfer tax is permissible under the Act? The Act does expand Toronto’s taxation power, but only in specific areas. The city cannot charge income tax, general sales tax, or many other types of taxes. But it can charge entertainment and booze tax (bought at a restaurant). Why isn’t the city looking at entertainment and booze tax as an option. It would cause a lot less of a ruckus than the land transfer tax. My proposal is as follows. The city should charge 250 dollars on land transfer, charge the car registration fee, and introduce a reasonable booze and entertainment tax. These should really help the city out of its financial troubles. A 250 dollar land transfer tax wouldn’t cause too much trouble, unlike the currently proposed 4000 dollar land transfer tax.


City council voted on Monday to defer a vote on the two proposed taxes until after the provincial election. The councilors are hoping that provincial politicians will sometime between now and then bail the city out (so far politicians from both parties that have a shot at forming government in the upcoming election have been quite non-committal on any such possible financial help). Right after that, David Miller has made things worse by saying that the failure to immediately approve his proposed taxes could mean cuts that shut down Toronto’s Sheppard Subway. The backlash facilitated by this threat has been severe by both politicians and citizens alike. Citizens such as myself and councilors not in Miller’s inner circle are outraged by this threat, including erstwhile moderate centrist Miller allies such as John Filion, Brian Ashton, Peter Milczyn, and myself (an aspiring politician who has seen himself as such a moderate centrist Miller ally). I do not think that Subway line will close down. This is clearly a scare tactic by Miller and his ally and TTC chair Adam Giambrone. It is now ironically the most left-leaning councilors on Toronto Council who want to shut down the Sheppard Subway. But if doing so were to come to a vote on council, I think it would be defeated because Miller’s staunchest allies make up a plurality, not a majority, of council. The centrists and right-wingers hold a combined majority on council. I also do not think the province will allow the city to shut down the Sheppard Subway. I’m not even sure shutting it down can even be done unilaterally without authorization from the province. Miller could obviously come back to council with a completely alternative tax proposal such as the one I suggested and try to get it passed (presumably with much more success) to help dig Toronto out of it’s financial hole, but sadly Miller has adopted a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. Considering the backlash both against the proposed taxes and against “crying wolf” on the Sheppard Subway, I’d say David Miller’s three and a half year old political honeymoon is over. Granted, three and a half years is a very, very long time for a political honeymoon to last, so I suppose the honeymoon was bound to end eventually.

Electorally, the only thing Miller has going for him is that it is another three and a half years until the next municipal election, so all this does have the chance to blow over. But after what Miller has been through, I don’t see how re-election can be such a sure thing next time. I’d say Miller’s recovery rests on being able to dig Toronto out of its financial hole without imposing a crippling land transfer tax. If he can do that, he may regain his popularity. If not, we’re looking at a right-of-centre mayor elected in 2010. Or if we’re really lucky, a centrist mayor.

It is quite amazing how much Miller has fallen in a matter of months. People who voted for him in 2006 have said they will not vote for him again if the taxes (especially the land transfer tax) goes through. This is significant because of Miller’s electoral success in 2006. Miller had an informal NDP affiliation but at the same time won some of the most non-NDP parts of the city. His main opponent was Jane Pitfield. She was something of a centrist but in more recent times seemed to be shifting to the right. She claims to have never belonged to any political party. But if one were to assign a political affiliation to her, it would have to be Conservative because she is known to have campaigned for John Tory in his 2005 Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey by-election campaign. But for the most part she appears to be a right-of-centre politician without a formal party affiliation. She’s a great person on a personal level, but during her final years on council began to create a reputation of flip-flopping on major issues. David Miller highlighted with success these flip-flops during the mayoral campaign. In the end Pitfield’s campaign proved to be a largely unsuccessful affair. This is especially true in that Miller won every single city ward except for the two Don Valley West wards (one of which was Pitfield’s council ward). Miller’s win is what I think of as a 1984 Ronald Reagan style sweep (Reagan won every Electoral Vote jurisdiction except Minnesota and the District of Columbia, winning left-leaning, solidly Democratic states such as Rhode Island) only with reverse political ideology. In the same way that Reagan won liberal states like Rhode Island, Miller won municipally conservative areas of the city such as Ward 34, the southern part of Don Valley East (I know here it is Liberal federally and provincially, but municipally it is normally very conservative here and Ward 34 voted for John Tory in 2003), as well as normally municipally conservative Etobicoke. What’s more, Miller came within less than 1% of winning Don Valley West over Pitfield, who represented the area. For him to fall so much from this high in a few short months is for me astonishing.


I would also like to congratulate the British Labour Party for holding onto the two safe Labour seats of Sedgefield (until June 27th Tony Blair’s district) and Ealing Southall in two by-elections on Thursday. In Ealing Southall, the very loud buzz about a possible Liberal Democrat or Conservative steal came to nothing. Turnout in both by-elections was above 40%, not bad for a by-election. Granted the Labour vote fell in both by-elections, but for a governing party that almost ALWAYS happens. Also of note is that both by-elections were won easily by Labour but both had a Labour vote of less than half the total votes cast. However, this is also very common in by-elections. Due to the abnormal nature of by-elections (low turnout, protest voting, etc.), it is quite rare for the winning candidate in a by-election to get more than half the vote, especially in the UK. I am also glad to see that in both districts, the Tory vote remained very stagnant from the last General Election result, in both cases increasing only very slightly. In Sedgefield, the Liberal Democrats surged to second place and to almost 20%, an increase of almost 10% over the General Election result. In Ealing Southall, the Liberal Democrats retained second place and saw their vote percent increase a little bit. This marginal increase has to be a disappointment to Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell who faces discontent within his party and who’s party normally is a formidable force in by-elections and thus normally cruises to victory in by-elections in which the Lib Dems were also second place at the previous General Election. And this meager result for the Lib Dems comes in spite of a strong, aggressive campaign (the Lib Dem candidate may well have out-campaigned the Labour candidate). Most likely this failure for the Lib Dems occurred because new Prime Minister Gordon Brown is enjoying a honeymoon period that probably gave both Labour candidates a significant boost in the two by-election campaigns. I want to say I’m glad Labour held onto the two seats and I want to wish the two new MPs and the new Prime Minister well.

All about Ontario politics

It is frustrating how many by-elections the Ontario Liberals lost in the past term. The Liberals fielded candidates in all 10 by-elections this past term but lost every single by-election except two. The Liberals retained two suburban ridings in by-elections: Scarborough—Rouge River and Markham. The Liberals failed to gain from the Tories the suburban ridings of Nepean-Carleton, Whitby-Ajax, or Burlington. The Liberals failed to gain from the Tories the rural riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. The Liberals failed to pick up from the NDP the urban riding of Toronto-Danforth. When the urban Liberal-held ridings of Hamilton East, Parkdale—High Park, and York South—Weston were vacated, the Liberals lost all three to the NDP. That’s a bad record considering all the opportunities there were to win in York South—Weston, Parkdale—High Park, Hamilton East, and even Whitby-Ajax. The Liberals put their best effort in the 3 March 2006 by-elections but ended up coming up short in all 3. In Whitby-Ajax the Liberals came within 3.8% of winning but it was close but no cigar. The 2006 Parkdale-High Park by-election the Liberals blundered big time by acting vulnerable on the issue of education, running a disorganized campaign, and attacking the NDP candidate with a controversial personal attack campaign that backfired badly. Instead the Liberals should have only talked about welfare, health care and education. In the 2007 by-elections, the Liberals tried their best in Burlington but Burlington proved too Conservative a riding, although they still managed a good 40%+ showing. In York South-Weston, the Liberals dropped over 20 points to just above 40%, just behind the NDP candidate. The Liberals lost out because of the unresolved and polarizing issue of a $10 minimum wage. This was an issue that the NDP ran on and won on in the poor riding of York South—Weston. I fully agree with the government’s plan to slowly raise the minimum wage past $10 per hour. I agree with those who argue that an immediate increase to $10 per hour would have a negative effect on the economy. In Markham, the Liberals managed to win a by-election for a change. Unfortunately, Markham’s result was the exception, not the norm.

However, I calculated and found that the Liberals easily won the popular vote if you add up the results of the 3 2007 by-elections with about 42% or by about 10 points. This is an improvement to the 2006 popular vote by-election results which the Tories narrowly won. And the truth is, for all the talk of there being dissatisfaction in the McGuinty government, in February at least there was enough satisfaction to give the Liberals above 40% in all 3 by-elections. There may be more satisfaction with the McGuinty government out there then people are giving credit for. I would attribute the recent close polls mostly to the controversies surrounding the OLG and grants to immigrant groups. I also think that there is a correlation between poll results at the federal and provincial level. My theory is that when Stephen Harper’s popularity goes up, McGuinty’s popularity goes down. Conversely, when Stephen Harper’s popularity goes down, McGuinty’s popularity goes up. And there is evidence that John Tory suffers from Stephen Harper. A recent Ian Urquhart article describes the fact that Mr. Urquhart recently went canvassing alongside both Education Minister Kathleen Wynne and Tory leader John Tory in the riding of Don Valley West. When Tory was canvassing, this sometimes happened: “But – and this is a potential problem for Tory province-wide – several residents questioned him about stands taken by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He pointed out to them that Harper represents a different level of government and, indeed, a different party.” That just proves my point about the fact that people associate John Tory with Stephen Harper and thus Tory’s popularity waxes and wanes along with Harper’s. If Tory came to my door, I’d make the Stephen Harper connection. When Tory points out about the different level of government and different parties, I make connections between the two Tory parties. After all, it is obviously John Tory that Harper endorses to be Premier.

Speaking of John Tory, Tory is proposing to provide funding to private religious schools. Firstly, out of curiosity, I wonder whether this funding would be extended to private Catholic schools when there is already a publicly funded Catholic school system. Secondly, this is a divisive can of worms. If Tory is to come up with millions of new dollars to give money to private schools, I think that money would be better spent improving the existing publicly funded school system. Unfortunately this proposal takes away potential money from the existing system and blurs the distinctions between public and private schools. Personally I find it is duplicative to have a public and publicly funded Catholic system, but I do not favor the sweeping change and constitutional amendments required to merge the two systems. I looked at the comments on the article about this on the Globe and Mail website and found mostly comments against Tory’s proposal. I prefer we better fund the existing system and not divide the province any more on religious grounds than we already are doing.