RIP Diane Marleau

RIP to Diane Marleau.

Diane Marleau, the former MP for Sudbury and the former Minister of Health in Jean Chretien’s government, passed away suddenly on Wednesday at the age of 69 of cancer. She had been diagnosed with cancer a year ago but the passing came very suddenly. Not many of her former colleagues in Ottawa knew she had cancer so her passing came as a shock to many of them. She was born Diane LeBel on June 21, 1943. A Franco-Ontarian, she married her husband Paul Marleau at the age of 19 in February 1963. After serving on Sudbury City Council in the 1980s, she was elected to the House of Commons for the Sudbury riding in the November 21, 1988 federal election. She served in opposition for 5 years and despite her somewhat soft spoken nature was not afraid to go after Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in the House of Commons. She served alongside then-Nickel Belt NDP MP John Rodriguez. The two MPs often shared plane rides between Ottawa and Sudbury. Rodriguez has positive memories of Marleau. For example, he remembers when the two of them went on a trip to Washington DC and met legendary Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. Greenspan berated Marleau for Canada’s “outdated” banking system. Marleau gave a passionate defence of Canada’s banking system and held her own against Greenspan. Marleau turned out to have been right given how well Canada’s banks fared compared to the American banks in the 2008 financial meltdown. Marleau is best remembered for her passionate defence of universal healthcare. In the 1990s, she criticized her own government for not adhering sufficiently to federal universality standards during the 1990s neo-liberal period when the federal government was relaxing on enforcing federal standards and provincial governments across the country were making health care cutbacks, due both to federal cutbacks and efforts to balance their own provincial books. After Marleau was dropped from cabinet in 1999 she became a prominent supporter of Paul Martin’s bid to lead the federal Liberal Party. Upon Martin becoming Prime Minister in 2003, Marleau was not re-appointed to cabinet but was instead given a parliamentary secretary position. She was one of many MPs who faced pressure by same-sex marriage opponents for her pro-same-sex marriage stance. One at least one occasion, there was a protest outside her constituency office. But she stuck to her guns on this important issue. In the 2006 election, she faced the closest election thus far in her parliamentary career, winning by about 9 percentage points over the NDP candidate. Marleau was unexpectedly beaten by the NDP candidate in the 2008 federal election by about 5 percentage points. After this defeat Marleau retired to private life. She was enjoying a vacation in Mexico a year ago when she suddenly fell ill, cutting short her vacation enjoyment. She returned to Canada and was diagnosed with cancer in its late stages.
Also of note was that Marleau was a fierce advocate of women’s rights and served for a time as chair of the Liberal Women’s caucus. Fittingly, just four days before her death, Kathleen Wynne was selected by the Ontario Liberal Party to be Ontario’s first female Premier.
I will do a post on Kathleen Wynne soon.
Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, who served with Marleau for a few months in the House of Commons in 2008, recently gave a great tribute to Marleau in the House of Commons. RIP Diane Marleau. She was my favourite Sudbury politician.

Congratulations Obama

Congratulations to Barack Obama on winning a second term. Conservative pundits thought that was utterly impossible. Obama won 26 states and the District of Columbia. Only two states switched parties, with North Carolina and Indiana going back to the Republicans. Once again no President has won the election without also winning a majority of states since Jimmy Carter achieved this in 1976. I find that winning the election while winning only a minority of states is quite possible, but the way that votes nationwide swing from election to election makes this particular scenario unlikely. Obama again won all the Kerry states, all the Gore states, 9 out of 10 Dukakis states, and most 1992 and 1996 Clinton states outside the South. Obama is the first Democratic President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win a majority of the popular vote in two elections. FDR won four terms, and won a majority of the popular vote in all four. Since then until this year Democratic Presidents have either been assassinated in their first term (John F. Kennedy), declined to run for a second full term (Lyndon Johnson), been defeated at their run for a second term (Jimmy Carter), or failed to win a majority of the popular vote for their second term or their first term for that matter (Bill Clinton). Presidents have been term limited since the 1940s to two terms when a constitutional amendment was passed limiting the number of Presidential terms. Many felt that FDR’s four terms went against the precedent set by George Washington when he declined to run for a third term and all other Presidents followed suit at the end of their second term until FDR ran for a third term in 1940. FDR ran for a fourth term as well in 1944 in the middle of World War II and won the narrowest popular vote victory of his Presidential career but still an Electoral College landslide. Sadly FDR only completed less than four months of his fourth term before dying suddenly. This paved the way for Vice President Harry Truman to preside over the end of World War II. This in turn paved the way for the famous Dewey defeats Truman headline when a newspaper in the 1948 Presidential election famously called the election incorrectly when in reality Truman had defeated Republican nominee Thomas Dewey. Truman’s victory was not anticipated because Dewey previously had a large lead because the Democrats had been suffering from an uneven economy despite the post-war economic boom. The Presidential term limit was brought in to enshrine what many saw as a sort of constitutional convention that had lasted for over a century. Because of the term limit Obama can’t run for a third term. I’m not sure what impact this has on the chances of the Democrats retaining the White House in 2016. The Democrats will need a new candidate who can take Obama’s appeal and get-out-the-vote machine with them. Romney’s campaign now admits that their internal polls were skewed Republican because that is what they thought the electorate would look like. I personally knew all along that the public polls had the composition of the electorate right. Republicans hoped that Romney would be like Reagan and defeat a Democratic President (Jimmy Carter in the case of Reagan) who was struggling with a poor economy. Of course this dream of Republicans didn’t work for two reasons. Firstly, the electorate is much more Democratic-leaning then it was in 1980. This fact is reflected in the strong support for Obama in the Northeast, Midwest, and west coast that was conspicuously absent in 1980 for Carter. Some have called Obama the Democratic Reagan. This is an interesting concept. It is true in the sense that both inherited a bad economy, both were unpopular during a large part of their first term because of the bad economy, both suffered mid-term election losses for their party in their respective first terms but both also managed to hold onto the Senate in the two respective midterm elections, and both then went on the win re-election to a second term. It can also be argued that ideologically Reagan and Obama complement each other, Reagan with strong conservative convictions on certain issues and Obama with strong liberal convictions on certain issues. So congratulations to Obama, now the hard work for Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans begins.

élection présidentielle française

Je tiens à dire que j’ai soutenu Sarkozy pour l’élection présidentielle française d’aujourd’hui. C’est à cause de son soutien du fédéralisme canadienne et parce que Hollande est trop socialiste pour moi.

Conservative crime bill

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

Shark fin ban

Recently the City of Toronto voted to ban the sale, possession or consumption of shark fins. It sounds like the right thing to do but not surprisingly Mayor Rob Ford voted against the ban. Ford’s vote against the ban was one of only four such votes against the motion. The other three votes were from Ford loyalists Doug Holyday, Giorgio Mammoliti, and David Shiner. Lots of other Ford loyalists voted for the ban. Does this mean Ford has lost control of City Council? I’d say he never had it to begin with. Ford attempts to run City Council like a Parliament, up to and including whipping votes. Thankfully a number of Ford’s allies sometimes ignore the whip. But Toronto City Council is not meant to work that way, it is meant to work with the collaboration of everyone and it is unfortunate that Rob Ford doesn’t run council this traditional way.

Here is the above post in French

Récemment, la Ville de Toronto ont voté pour interdire la vente, la possession ou la consommation d'ailerons de requins. Il sonne comme la bonne chose à faire, mais il n'est pas surprenant que le maire Rob Ford ont voté contre l'interdiction. Le vote de Ford contre l'interdiction a été seulement un des quatre ces votes contre la motion. Les trois autres votes ont été des loyalistes Ford : Doug Holyday, Giorgio Mammoliti, et David Shiner. Beaucoup autre loyalistes Ford ont voté pour l'interdiction. Est-ce que cela signifie que Ford a perdu le contrôle du conseil municipal? Je dis que Rob Ford n'a jamais eu le contrôle du conseil. Ford tente d'exécuter le Conseil municipal comme un Parlement, jusqu'à et y compris les votes à fouetter. Heureusement, un nombre d'alliés de Ford ignorent parfois le fouet. Mais le conseil municipal de Toronto n'est pas destiné à travailler de cette façon, il est destiné à travailler avec la collaboration de tous et il est regrettable que Rob Ford ne court pas le conseil de cette façon traditionnelle.

Column by Robert Fisher en français

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

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

Column by Robert Fisher

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