I recently took a day-long trip to the CNE. There was a sign that listed all of this years Ex sponsors. I saw the symbol for Ontario there but I did not see a symbol for the government of Canada. Either I missed it or somehow the federal government is not sponsoring the CNE despite the fact that CNE stands for Canadian National Exhibition. The CNE grounds are in the Trinity—Spadina riding. I want to save time so I’ll call the riding TS. TS is home to some of the most exiting and famous attractions in Toronto. These include the CNE grounds, the CN Tower, the SkyDome (Rogers Centre) and the Air Canada Centre. All these things with the exception of the CNE grounds are in very short walking distance from the Union Subway station. To get the CNE grounds from the Union Subway station, you take a streetcar. The famous Eaton Centre is also in the federal TS riding, but not yet in the provincial version of TS. Federally TS is held by New Democrat Olivia Chow. Formerly it was held by Tony Ianno. Ianno is again the Liberal candidate for TS. His motto is “Send a strong voice back to Ottawa”. Ianno has run in every federal election since and including 1988. In 1988 Ianno came within 400 votes of winning, losing to New Democrat Dan Heap. In 1993 Heap retired and Ianno scored the largest electoral victory of his political career. In 1997 Ianno won in a tight race against Olivia Chow. In 2000, Ianno won by a 9 point margin over author Michael Valpy. In 2004, Ianno scored a 800 vote victory over Olivia Chow, surprising many. In this election Ianno made a very big deal about Chow’s refusal to resign her council seat (which she had recently been elected in) when running for federal office. In 2006, Chow responded to this by resigning her council seat and stating that win or lose the election she was going to move to Ottawa to be with her husband Jack Layton. As it happened the national Liberal loss allowed Chow to win the seat although still by a fairly narrow margin. It is for this reason that the Liberals have a shot to win this seat back. But as the 1988 election proved, this can only be done if the Liberals win government. So that is one of many reasons why the Liberals must get their act together and win government. One encouraging sign for the Liberals in TS is that municipally half the riding is no longer represented by a New Democrat. The western half of the riding is represented by 20+ year incumbent Joe Pantalone. Pantalone’s sister was an elementary school principal but last year precipitated a very embarrassing, bizarre, and illegal incident at her school that is too embarrassing even to discuss. This however did not affect Joe Pantalone because after this embarrassing incident Pantalone was easily re-elected. The encouraging part for the Liberals is in the eastern end of TS. Here independent/small-l liberal candidate Adam Vaughan won against semi-official NDP candidate Helen Kennedy by a large margin. So I wish Tony Ianno luck.
The provincial level is the level at which TS is the toughest for the Liberals. Not since the 1987-1990 period have the Liberals held the predecessor to TS (Fort York). In this 1987-1990 period the Liberals also held all the other ridings that make up the modern TS (Dovercourt, Parkdale, St. Andrew-St. Patrick). Since 1990 life has been tough here for the Liberals. Since 1990 the only component riding of TS the Liberals have ever been able to win is Parkdale (which only made up 5% of TS). The PCs were third in Fort York in 1987, 1990, 1995, and third in TS in 1999 and 2003. Even in 1987, life was not the best for the Liberals in Fort York considering that even then Liberal Bob Wong only won Fort York by about 100 votes over Joe Pantalone of the NDP. In 2003, some thought the Liberals could win the riding with then-Davenport trustee Nellie Pedro. But the Liberals did not come close. This time round again the Liberals hope that they can win the riding with Kate Holloway. Holloway was until recently an active member of the Green Party of Canada. She also ran for the Green Party in the 2004 Federal Election in Scarborough—Rouge River. When Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party, his environmental credentials caused Holloway to join the Liberals. The Liberals are hoping that an as an environmental candidate Holloway can pose a credible challenge to TS NDP incumbent Rosario Marchese. I certainly hope Holloway can win but I fear TS may be to strong an NDP riding at the provincial level for that to happen. A Holloway win would certainly bode well for Tony Ianno, however. I wish Kate luck.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
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.
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.
Gordon Brown and Paul Martin
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is speculated to be considering calling a snap election for October. I say don’t do it. Having an election this early is always risky because the public reacts badly to unnecessary early elections – just ask David Peterson. In this case it would be even worse – an election after only two years. The public could definitely react negatively to such an early and unnecessary election. The general rule is that the possible earliest that one can voluntarily dissolve Parliament and be re-elected with a majority is 3 years and a few months into the mandate, as judged by the Canadian Liberals majority wins in 1997 and 2000 which were both 3 years and a few months into the mandate. 3 years exactly is not enough as proven by David Peterson. Imagine, thus, the disaster that could occur for Labour with an election only 2 years into the mandate. By my theory, Brown needs to wait until the fall of 2008 at the earliest for an election. Yet despite my warning there is serious talk of there being an election in the spring of 2008. But as I said, exactly 3 years into a mandate is not enough time – new Prime Minister or not. I’ve even heard of there being an election on the 1 year anniversary of Brown taking power. I assume they meant an election at this time, not a dissolution at this time. A dissolution at this time would result in an election in July or August which I think would be considered unacceptable. Election Day being held at the first anniversary of Brown taking power would also be a bad idea for a reason other than it being only 3 years into the mandate. Having an election at such a time would mean holding the election in late June. There is strong evidence that holding the 2004 Canadian election in late June reduced voter turnout. There is reason to believe the same would happen in the United Kingdom with a late June election. Lower voter turnout is bad for democracy and will not necessarily favour the incumbent government. Strangely, the UK Conservatives say that Brown should have called an election immediately after becoming Prime Minister. This is impractical for several reasons. Firstly, it would have resulted in a summer election. Secondly, it would have left no time for Brown to establish himself and his policies. Thirdly, it would have left no time for Labour to refill it’s empty electoral coffers, giving the Tories an unfair advantage. Fourthly, it would not have left time for Labour even to have an election manifesto (a terse platform). Fifthly, it would have left no time for Labour to develop an election platform. Sixthly, it would have ended MPs term in office too early. I could go on. The fact is as much as the Tories don’t like it, Gordon Brown has the exact same authority to govern as did Tony Blair – it is the way the system works. An October election is also a bad idea because it would deny the two newly elected MPs in the recent by-elections a chance to settle into their jobs. It would barely give them time to receive their first paycheck. Besides, Labour’s 10 point lead might be smaller or nonexistent by October. That’s why Brown has to stay in character and be his usual cautious self.
I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.
Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.
On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.
I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.
Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.
On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.
Friday, August 17, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Cabinet shuffle
Stephen Harper’s cabinet shuffle was mostly about selling the mission in Afghanistan and nothing more. Harper also moved the moderate Jim Prentice from Indian Affairs to Industry and put the more conservative Chuck Strahl into Indian Affairs. This change in Indian Affairs minister has frustrated Caledonia First Nations protestors (http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=81574). Yet I find it strange that by contrast it seems to have pleased Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay. Look at thus quote from the article I just cited:
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.
Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.
"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.
Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.
My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.
There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.
Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.
"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.
Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.
My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.
There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Pauline Marois
PQ leader Pauline Marois will run in a Quebec provincial by-election in Charlevoix. While the Liberals have already said they will not run a candidate against her, the ADQ is considering running a candidate against her. One reason she probably chose this seat is due to the Quebec political tradition of other major parties not opposing party leaders in by-elections. Otherwise it would not make sense because Charlevoix is not a safe PQ seat. The resigning PQ member won by only 6.88%. The ADQ had about 30% of the vote. A race with Marois against an ADQ candidate with no Liberal candidate would be strange. It could give the ADQ candidate a chance to win. This could in turn force Marois to resgin as leader and could bring Gilles Duceppe to Quebec City after all. I don’t know how a straight PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate would look like. If all the federalist vote were to unite behind the ADQ, the ADQ could easily beat Marois. If it is more of a left-right thing, then Marois would stand a good chance if the centre/left vote united behind her. I think if the ADQ insists on running a candidate, the Liberals would be doing Marois a favour to run a candidate as well. The Liberals want to let Marois into the legislature. A PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate has the significant danger of Marois being defeated and therefore in this circumstance running a Liberal candidate may be the right thing to do. Maybe ADQ leader Mario Dumont will in the end choose not run a candidate. If they do run a candidate they will receive a lot of criticism for such cruelty and it could cost them the by-election race. I say either both other parties run candidates or neither party runs candidates. The Liberals bowing out if the ADQ won’t does not exactly make sense.
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
Monday, August 13, 2007
A website on gay rights
Gay rights issues have been swirling in my head again. Personally I am glad that I am pro-gay marriage. I couldn’t live with myself if I were anti-gay marriage. I have come across a site created and maintained by Bill Myers from Ohio. It is called GAY RIGHTS INFO. Bill cares passionately about gay rights believes strongly in the expansion of gay rights. So he has compiled voting records of politicians in the US and around the world on gay rights issues. He also gives the status of gay rights in all US states and various other countries including Canada. Bill’s site includes a page that gives a table of voting records for all MPs in the current Canadian House of Commons, those from the 38th House of Commons, and most of those who were in the 37th House of Commons. The reason I say “most” is because the table does not include MPs like Brian Tobin who resigned mid-way through the 37th House of Commons and whose ridings were filled in a by-election. It DOES, however, include MPs such as Jean Chrétien who resigned near the end of the 37th House of Commons and whose seats were vacant at dissolution. Here is a link to the table: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canhoc.html
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)