I am against the federal government proposal to change the formula of seat allocation for the House of Commons. Sadly the proposal short-changes Ontario. I feel it is better to stick to the current formula. Dalton McGuinty and federal Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan have had a surprisingly partisan exchange over this issue – along party lines. I think you can guess which one of the two I agree with – Dalton! If the choice is between further shortchanging Ontario with the seat plan or keeping the status quo’s shortcomings, I’d stick with the status quo. I am hoping the federal Liberals join with the provincial Liberals in fighting against this bill so that Ontario does not get shortchanged more than it already is. This particular bill should not be a matter of confidence because it was not mentioned in the Throne Speech.
I also think it has become clear that as long as the McGuinty government is in power and as long as the Harper government is in power, n’er the twain shall get along. This is also true of PST harmonization. Harmonizing Ontario’s PST to the federal GST would be detrimental to Ontario consumers. It is for this reason that McGuinty is only willing to harmonize the PST on his terms. Without numerous exemptions on various items in a harmonization agreement, McGuinty has said he is not interested. And those exemptions would make it so that it is not harmonization at all. It is for this reason that PST harmonization is unlikely to occur under McGuinty. Also, I know this was four years ago, but I recall that the Eves Tories also did not believe in PST harmonization.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
I understand
I get the point about Jeanne Krieber-Dion's name. However, taking both parents names musn't be mandatory in Quebec or much of the Quebec population would have double-barrelled name.
Baffling question from Wednesday
I have a quick question. Does anybody know why, on Wednesday, the Liberals abstained in the House of Commons on a Bloc Quebecois opposition motion concerning the forestry industry, thus allowing the motion to fail? The motion couldn’t have been a matter of confidence. If they were in favour of it why didn’t they vote for it and if they were against it why didn’t they vote against it?
Friday, November 9, 2007
Speaker of the Legislature
Something odd is occurring. Liberal MPPs are challenging Mike Brown to be Speaker of the Ontario Legislature. The two challenging are Steve Peters and David Zimmer. I find it odd that these two are challenging because both of them have a Parliamentary Assistant position that they would have to give up should they win. This would force a shuffle. I know cabinet ministers are not eligible to run for Speaker. Does this mean, however, that Parliamentary Assistants are allowed to run for Speaker?
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Statements In Brief
I want to make some brief statements:
I liked McGuinty’s new cabinet except I had concerns when he dropped Monte Kwinter and David Ramsay without giving them a PA job to land on.
The Liberals were right to twice abstain on voting to keep the Tories in power. There was an editorial in the Toronto Star on October 31 saying that the Liberals should have defeated the Tories over the mini-budget. I disagree. The Liberals agreed with all the tax cuts except the GST. There was no point in fighting an election over the GST. So twice the Liberals did the right thing.
Source:
Monday, October 22, 2007
PQ gone extremist
I am strongly opposed to a bill on immigration that the PQ has tabled in the Quebec legislature.
Here is what it is:
“Under the proposed law, immigrants who can't speak proper French after an appropriate apprenticeship in provincially funded language courses would be forbidden from running for election in provincial and municipal elections as well as those for school boards.”
If immigrants to Quebec want to run for office, they should obviously be able to speak French. But first they have to become Canadian citizens. That takes 3 years at the minimum. These courses would last 3 years. I do not think taking these courses should be mandatory for immigrants if they want to run for office. Immigrants can learn French on their own. Why should the state forbid immigrants to run for office who learn French on their own without taking the government-controlled courses? I expect the law would get a Charter challenge and be struck down. If a PQ majority government then wants to use the notwithstanding clause, that is their choice but I’d expect it to cause a significant backlash in the rest of Canada as it always does when a Quebec government uses the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. But a PQ majority government could only use the notwithstanding clause if the law were struck down on equality grounds. The court could, should and probably would do something much more powerful. The court could strike down the law (or at least a significant portion of it) using section 3 of the Charter. Section 3 of the Charter is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. Section 3 guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to qualify for membership in the House of Commons or in a legislative assembly. Prisoners don’t qualify even if they are citizens but I’d expect the court to uphold that under Section 1 of the Charter. Now, if a court struck down the proposed law under Section 3 of the Charter, it may only be able to void the restrictions on running for the National Assembly. Because school boards and municipal councils may not count as legislative assemblies, the court may have to leave the restrictions for running for school boards and municipal councils intact. But if the Supreme Court were to strike down the restrictions on running for the National Assembly under Section 3 of the Charter, it would be a significant blow for a PQ government and could not be overturned by the notwithstanding clause.
In short, as I have demonstrated, the bill in question introduced in the National Assembly is unconstitutional.
Also, under this unconstitutional law, would immigrants who already know French upon arriving in Quebec also be forced to take those courses? The article did not say whether the Quebec government or the ADQ supports this bill. I’ve since found out the government does not support this bill. I still don’t know whether the ADQ supports this bill. Because it is a minority government, the bill could conceivably pass without the government’s consent. In a case like this, the premier might have to order the Lieutenant Governor not to give the bill Royal Assent if he opposes it strongly enough.
Also take a look at this quote from the article:
”Among the measures proposed by the PQ are the creation of a Quebec constitution and a certificate of citizenship, the reinforcement of the province's language laws and the revision of the provincial charter of rights.”
What is this “certificate of citizenship”? Is this some kind of Quebec citizenship? If so, I am very strongly opposed to this proposal. Quebec is part of Canada and has no authorization to implement its own citizenship. Any attempt to do so would likely be unconstitutional. This is just one more reason why I don’t want the PQ back in power.
Source:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071019/immigrants_french_071019/20071019?hub=Politics
Here is what it is:
“Under the proposed law, immigrants who can't speak proper French after an appropriate apprenticeship in provincially funded language courses would be forbidden from running for election in provincial and municipal elections as well as those for school boards.”
If immigrants to Quebec want to run for office, they should obviously be able to speak French. But first they have to become Canadian citizens. That takes 3 years at the minimum. These courses would last 3 years. I do not think taking these courses should be mandatory for immigrants if they want to run for office. Immigrants can learn French on their own. Why should the state forbid immigrants to run for office who learn French on their own without taking the government-controlled courses? I expect the law would get a Charter challenge and be struck down. If a PQ majority government then wants to use the notwithstanding clause, that is their choice but I’d expect it to cause a significant backlash in the rest of Canada as it always does when a Quebec government uses the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. But a PQ majority government could only use the notwithstanding clause if the law were struck down on equality grounds. The court could, should and probably would do something much more powerful. The court could strike down the law (or at least a significant portion of it) using section 3 of the Charter. Section 3 of the Charter is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. Section 3 guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to qualify for membership in the House of Commons or in a legislative assembly. Prisoners don’t qualify even if they are citizens but I’d expect the court to uphold that under Section 1 of the Charter. Now, if a court struck down the proposed law under Section 3 of the Charter, it may only be able to void the restrictions on running for the National Assembly. Because school boards and municipal councils may not count as legislative assemblies, the court may have to leave the restrictions for running for school boards and municipal councils intact. But if the Supreme Court were to strike down the restrictions on running for the National Assembly under Section 3 of the Charter, it would be a significant blow for a PQ government and could not be overturned by the notwithstanding clause.
In short, as I have demonstrated, the bill in question introduced in the National Assembly is unconstitutional.
Also, under this unconstitutional law, would immigrants who already know French upon arriving in Quebec also be forced to take those courses? The article did not say whether the Quebec government or the ADQ supports this bill. I’ve since found out the government does not support this bill. I still don’t know whether the ADQ supports this bill. Because it is a minority government, the bill could conceivably pass without the government’s consent. In a case like this, the premier might have to order the Lieutenant Governor not to give the bill Royal Assent if he opposes it strongly enough.
Also take a look at this quote from the article:
”Among the measures proposed by the PQ are the creation of a Quebec constitution and a certificate of citizenship, the reinforcement of the province's language laws and the revision of the provincial charter of rights.”
What is this “certificate of citizenship”? Is this some kind of Quebec citizenship? If so, I am very strongly opposed to this proposal. Quebec is part of Canada and has no authorization to implement its own citizenship. Any attempt to do so would likely be unconstitutional. This is just one more reason why I don’t want the PQ back in power.
Source:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071019/immigrants_french_071019/20071019?hub=Politics
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Ontario Election results
I am ecstatic, elated, and overjoyed. The Liberals did it! They got a second large majority government. And I was right to repeatedly say that the media was always premature in predicting a minority government. Indeed, as I thought before and during the campaign, the Liberal vote is a lot more efficient than the media gave it credit for! The biggest dark spot for me is that Mario Racco lost in Thornhill. Darn it! This makes the seat threatened for the Liberals at the federal level. And I liked Mario Racco. The Liberals easily won Oak Ridges—Markham. But because the Tories won Thornhill, the provincial Liberals for a second time in a row have been denied a clean sweep of the whole of the Town of Markham. That being said, I am quite certain the Town of Markham itself voted over 50% Liberal. But the Tory win in Thornhill doesn’t make it look like Markham was a clean sweep. I am the most disappointed about the Thornhill result.
I don’t know whether Helena Jaczek can actually make it to cabinet now. This is because York Region already has two cabinet ministers in Michael Chan and Greg Sorbara. I certainly hope neither one of those two is demoted to make way for Helena. But if Dalton has a cabinet spot for Helena, that’s great. If not, she can be given an important parliamentary secretary position. I think I understand why the sprawling Oak Ridges—Markham riding is consistently more Liberal that it appears it should be. I think it is because although the majority of land in Oak Ridges—Markham is rural, the majority of voters in Oak Ridges—Markham are suburban. This allows for a more Liberal-friendly voting base. With the win in Oak Ridges—Markham and Richmond Hill, all of the old Oak Ridges, won by Frank Klees in 2003, is now represented by a Liberal both federally and provincially. I’m starting to think that Klees’ win in 2003 was due to personal popularity and that a new Tory candidate in 2003 would have lost in Oak Ridges. Sadly, Klees won narrowly in Newmarket—Aurora. Once again it has to have been personal popularity. I think with a generic Tory candidate, Newmarket—Aurora would have gone Liberal.
Also of note is that this election marks the fourth federal/provincial election in a row that the Liberals have won every single riding in Brampton and Mississauga. It happened previously in 2003, 2004, and 2006. While twice (once federally and once provincially) a member in Brampton/Mississauga crossed the floor to the Tories, it happened in both cases some time after the election. Speaking of which, Tim Peterson running as a Tory was swept from office by a large margin by Liberal Charles Sousa. What this means is that Tim Peterson’s decision to cross the floor cost him his seat. I expect Peterson would have easily won as a Liberal. So if it weren’t for crossing the floor, I think Peterson would still be an MPP.
Another interesting fact – the Liberal, Leeanna Pendergast, unexpectedly won in Kitchener—Conastoga over PC candidate Michael Harris. Michael Harris used to go by Mike Harris, but for the election wanted to distinguish himself from the former Premier. The interesting fact is that now both Liberal Kitchener seats are represented by one family. Pendergast’s sister is married to re-elected Kitchener Centre Liberal MPP John Milloy. In Kitchener—Waterloo, Elizabeth Witmer won for the PCs. But had she not run, I expect the riding would have gone Liberal. Cambridge re-elected PC MPP Gerry Martiniuk by 7% just like in the 2003 election.
A real shocker was that Liberal cabinet minister Caroline Di Cocco lost her seat in Sarnia—Lambton by a fairly wide margin to a Conservative candidate. The NDP candidate shockingly got almost 27%, denying any chance of victory for Di Cocco. Di Cocco was the only cabinet minister defeated. Although Sarnia—Lambton remains a bellwether riding federally, it is not provincially. The Sarnia riding went PC in 1987. And in 1999, Di Cocco won Sarnia—Lambton for the Liberals while Mike Harris formed a majority government. And now Sarnia—Lambton has elected yet another opposition member to Queen’s Park. What this means is that both federally and provincially, Sarnia—Lambton is trending Conservative. The Liberals managed to retain the neighbouring Lambton—Kent—Middlesex by 6.9% with Liberal incumbent Maria Van Bommel. It is quite odd that this rural riding should end up with a lower PC percentage than in the mixed urban/rural riding of Sarnia—Lambton.
John Tory claims to want to stay on as party leader. But how can he do this without a seat? Does he plan to make one of the freshly-elected PC members in a safe seat resign so he can run in a by-election? Surely he can’t expect to lead his party from the gallery for the next four years.
I would like to note with interest that in both ridings where a federal MP was elected as a Liberal but then crossed the floor to the Conservatives (Thunder Bay—Superior North and Mississauga—Streetsville), the provincial Conservatives did very poorly. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if there is retribution happening for the floor-crossing. It didn’t work the other way in Halton. The Liberals almost won Halton against the Tory incumbent. If there had been retribution for Garth Turner crossing to the Liberals, I don’t think there would have been such a strong Liberal showing in Halton.
I am also disappointed that Nerene Virgin didn’t win in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
But the Liberals were not wiped out in Hamilton and retained Hamilton Mountain.
I am happy overall and wish Dalton luck over the next four years.
I don’t know whether Helena Jaczek can actually make it to cabinet now. This is because York Region already has two cabinet ministers in Michael Chan and Greg Sorbara. I certainly hope neither one of those two is demoted to make way for Helena. But if Dalton has a cabinet spot for Helena, that’s great. If not, she can be given an important parliamentary secretary position. I think I understand why the sprawling Oak Ridges—Markham riding is consistently more Liberal that it appears it should be. I think it is because although the majority of land in Oak Ridges—Markham is rural, the majority of voters in Oak Ridges—Markham are suburban. This allows for a more Liberal-friendly voting base. With the win in Oak Ridges—Markham and Richmond Hill, all of the old Oak Ridges, won by Frank Klees in 2003, is now represented by a Liberal both federally and provincially. I’m starting to think that Klees’ win in 2003 was due to personal popularity and that a new Tory candidate in 2003 would have lost in Oak Ridges. Sadly, Klees won narrowly in Newmarket—Aurora. Once again it has to have been personal popularity. I think with a generic Tory candidate, Newmarket—Aurora would have gone Liberal.
Also of note is that this election marks the fourth federal/provincial election in a row that the Liberals have won every single riding in Brampton and Mississauga. It happened previously in 2003, 2004, and 2006. While twice (once federally and once provincially) a member in Brampton/Mississauga crossed the floor to the Tories, it happened in both cases some time after the election. Speaking of which, Tim Peterson running as a Tory was swept from office by a large margin by Liberal Charles Sousa. What this means is that Tim Peterson’s decision to cross the floor cost him his seat. I expect Peterson would have easily won as a Liberal. So if it weren’t for crossing the floor, I think Peterson would still be an MPP.
Another interesting fact – the Liberal, Leeanna Pendergast, unexpectedly won in Kitchener—Conastoga over PC candidate Michael Harris. Michael Harris used to go by Mike Harris, but for the election wanted to distinguish himself from the former Premier. The interesting fact is that now both Liberal Kitchener seats are represented by one family. Pendergast’s sister is married to re-elected Kitchener Centre Liberal MPP John Milloy. In Kitchener—Waterloo, Elizabeth Witmer won for the PCs. But had she not run, I expect the riding would have gone Liberal. Cambridge re-elected PC MPP Gerry Martiniuk by 7% just like in the 2003 election.
A real shocker was that Liberal cabinet minister Caroline Di Cocco lost her seat in Sarnia—Lambton by a fairly wide margin to a Conservative candidate. The NDP candidate shockingly got almost 27%, denying any chance of victory for Di Cocco. Di Cocco was the only cabinet minister defeated. Although Sarnia—Lambton remains a bellwether riding federally, it is not provincially. The Sarnia riding went PC in 1987. And in 1999, Di Cocco won Sarnia—Lambton for the Liberals while Mike Harris formed a majority government. And now Sarnia—Lambton has elected yet another opposition member to Queen’s Park. What this means is that both federally and provincially, Sarnia—Lambton is trending Conservative. The Liberals managed to retain the neighbouring Lambton—Kent—Middlesex by 6.9% with Liberal incumbent Maria Van Bommel. It is quite odd that this rural riding should end up with a lower PC percentage than in the mixed urban/rural riding of Sarnia—Lambton.
John Tory claims to want to stay on as party leader. But how can he do this without a seat? Does he plan to make one of the freshly-elected PC members in a safe seat resign so he can run in a by-election? Surely he can’t expect to lead his party from the gallery for the next four years.
I would like to note with interest that in both ridings where a federal MP was elected as a Liberal but then crossed the floor to the Conservatives (Thunder Bay—Superior North and Mississauga—Streetsville), the provincial Conservatives did very poorly. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if there is retribution happening for the floor-crossing. It didn’t work the other way in Halton. The Liberals almost won Halton against the Tory incumbent. If there had been retribution for Garth Turner crossing to the Liberals, I don’t think there would have been such a strong Liberal showing in Halton.
I am also disappointed that Nerene Virgin didn’t win in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
But the Liberals were not wiped out in Hamilton and retained Hamilton Mountain.
I am happy overall and wish Dalton luck over the next four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)