No Proportional Representation

I will vote for the status quo on the electoral reform referendum. Firstly, I, as do many, dislike the idea of having list MPPs that parties can select in an elite manner. MPPs in danger of defeat who are high-profile could simply be added to the top of the list to prevent their defeat. We could also experience the phenomenon whereby MPPs can run both locally and on a list, so that when defeated locally they are still elected on a list. This happens all the time in New Zealand and I don’t agree with it. The second problem is that proportional representation would result in perpetual minority governments. Proponents of proportional representation counter that these minority governments would be stable coalition governments. But I don’t like the idea of the Liberals having to make a semi-permanent coalition with the NDP. As it is, the Ontario NDP is fiercely anti-Liberal in nature. How we could ever make any kind of alliance with them I’m not sure. The NDP never has anything good to say about the Liberals. I don’t see how that could change in the context of minority governments.


As far as the coming election is concerned, based on my experience at the federal level, I fear that a minority Liberal win would be almost as bad as losing outright. Once again, people say the Liberals would need the NDP to stay in power in this situation. But the NDP dislike the Liberals so much I don’t see how any kind of alliance could be formed. I expect that the minority government would be unstable. I can just see now both opposition parties announcing they cannot support the 2008 budget, causing the government to fall in 2008. I foresee a Liberal minority as a disaster. But sometimes I wonder whether the talk of minority government is only being used to sell more newspapers. A 5, 6, or 7 point lead could just as easily translate into a majority government.


The Ontario Liberal Party has nominated all its candidates and exceeded its goal of nominating females in half of ridings not held by the Liberal Party. And overall the party has one third of its candidates women. This is excellent. This includes Helena Jaczek in Oak Ridges—Markham, the riding neighbouring mine.

I am impressed by the candidate running for the Liberals in Hamilton Centre. His name is Steve Ruddick. He is a CH (Hamilton’s local television station) weatherman and is a media personality who is also a news reporter and journalist. The Liberals pulled out of their hat a candidate much stronger than I expected (I feared the Liberal candidate would be much lesser known after Judy Marsales announced she wasn’t going to run again). I wish Steve Ruddick the absolute best of luck.

Prorogue????

Harper prorogued parliament. When I think about it I'm not surprised. He wants to start his government fresh and is willing to risk an election that he thinks he'd win anyway by having a new Throne Speech. I'm not sure how much emphasis on the environment this throne speech will have. The government says its Clean Air Act won’t be one of the killed pieces of legislation to be resurrected. However, the numerous justice bills that reached the Senate shortly before summer and thus could not be passed will be resurrected at the stage at which they were previously. I don’t know how this works. I can only assume that they have to renumber the bills the match the new parliamentary session. Apparently private members bills don’t die when parliament is prorogued. I was under the impression that ALL bills died, including private members bills. It must be different somehow at the federal level. Recently, I saw some articles referring to a private member’s bill to implement the Kyoto Protocol. These articles said that this was a private member’s bill and thus it would not die when parliament is prorogued. But that bill has already received Royal Assent, so not only does the bill not die, it is already law! I’m not sure where the misconception that this bill had not yet received Royal Assent came from. One of the articles I read said that there is a group (I forget what it was called) that is thrilled parliament was prorogued because doing so temporarily kills the age of consent bill. This group opposes this bill. One argument they make is that teenagers under the age of consent are less likely to speak out and seek health information regarding sexual relationships. Maybe that is true in many U.S. States, with their mishmash of age of consent laws. However, I’m hoping it would be different in Canada because 14 year olds under the new law are not prohibited from having sex. Having sex with someone as much as four years older than them is still legal. So as long as their sexual partner is of the right age there should be no disincentive to seek health information. If however, the partner is more than 4 years older than the 14 year old, then there may be a case of not seeking information in hopes of not being caught. This leads to the group’s other argument against the bill, it limits sexual freedom for young teenagers. Now this is true to a certain extent. The maximum limit of 4 years may have been too few. Any attempts by the Senate to change this, however, will be swiftly rejected by the government as the government is want to do. At least if this Bill is resurrected, it can also receive a fair examination in the Senate before being passed.

I have a bit of political humour. The NDP candidate in my riding of Markham—Unionville for the upcoming provincial election is Andy Arifin. But currently on the NDP website, I can get information on him only in French! Clearly that part of their site is a work in progress. Here is the humourous translation of Arifin’s blurb into English using the Google translator:

Andy Arifin is enthusiastic with the idea to insufflate a new energy with the Ontarian policy. Inspired by the optimistic vision of Howard Hampton of the future of Ontario, it is happy to represent the district of Markham-Unionville in the name of the team of the New democratic Party.Andy always lived in Markham. While it finishes a baccalaureat specialized in political sciences at the York University, it finds time to militate actively.As a student, Andy saw closely how the badly advised policies of Dalton McGuinty as regards education postsecondaire push a number growing of students to be involved in debt always more. Following the deregulation of the expenses of the professional training schemes, a measurement of the McGuinty government, certain students cannot consider higher education any more or to continue their program of studies.Andy impatiently waits the moment to represent the families of workers as new deputy of the district of Markham Unionville in Queen' S Park.

“New deputy” means new MPP. If Arifin wants to be the new MPP for Markham—Unionville, he has his work cut out for him. After all, I think that if the NDP were to win 106/107 seats in the province, Markham—Unionville would be the one seat that didn’t go NDP.

Provinical poll form Ipsos Reid

There is a provincial poll released August 28 from Ipsos Reid showing the Liberals at 42%, the Conservatives at 35%, the NDP at 16%, and the Greens at 6%. This is a drop for the Greens and a significant drop for the NDP. It is also an increase for the Liberals and a drop for the Tories. This poll also provides strong evidence to me that regional breakdowns for polls within the province, especially for Northern Ontario, are unreliable. This poll shows for Northern Ontario the Liberals at 51%, the Tories at 20%, and the NDP at 18%. The previous Ipsos Reid poll (released August 21) showed the Tories at 41% in Northern Ontario, and the Liberals at 34%. The current poll has the Tories dropping 21 points in Northern Ontario. Such a large fluctuation is not realistic in my opinion. I’d also expect the NDP to be higher than 20% in Northern Ontario. I thus suspect that the Northern Ontario results are not accurate possibly due to small sample size within that region. I’m also wondering if it is the same thing in the 416 and 905. Even though the Liberal lead expanded in this poll overall, it somehow shrunk substantially in the 905. The Liberal lead in the 416 also shrank to just 3 points. Is it possible that the results for both the 416 and 905 may be inaccurate due to small sample size within those regions? I’m inclined to believe that regional results within Ontario tend to be inaccurate due to sample size and thus to get the real picture it is best to look at the province-wide poll results. In my opinion, a 7 point lead would be hard pressed not to produce a majority government.

Cheri Di Novo, Alan Tonks, John McKay, Mike Wallace

In a previous blog, I mentioned NDP MPP Cheri Di Novo’s liberal views on homosexuality. The riding’s federal MP Peggy Nash is also in favour of same-sex marriage. For the record, the only MP to oppose same-sex marriage in the City of Toronto excluding Etobicoke and Scarborough was York South—Weston Liberal MP Alan Tonks. Tonks says he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage. The first problem with civil unions is that many experts believe they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal government would have to rely on individual provinces to decide whether they want to enact civil unions. I’m no expert, but I imagine the Alberta government, for one, might have serious trouble passing a civil union law. The next problem with civil unions is there is a glaring equality problem as illustrated in the UK’s civil union legislation. In the UK, same sex couples can enter into a civil union. But they do not have equality because a church minister cannot preside over any legally binding civil union ceremony. By contrast, church ministers can and always have presided over legally binding opposite-sex marriage ceremonies. I consider this discrepancy discriminatory. We could have had the same problem in Canada. Some have argued that the government getting out of the marriage business is a solution. The idea is that only those willing to have a religious ceremony can get married (including same-sex couples). This is discriminatory against non-religious people not willing to have a religious ceremony. It relegates non-religious couples to have a civil union instead of a marriage. This is just as discriminatory as denying marriage to same-sex couples. Yet this is the position of Burlington Conservative MP Mike Wallace (http://www.marriagevote.ca/articles/wallace.html):

"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."

I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:

"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."

McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

Bad news about Bob Rae, plus some provincial Liberal candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Men more likely to oppose gay marriage

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

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

Sault Ste. Marie

For some reason, Milton Chan from www.electionprediction.com has changed his prediction in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie from Liberal to Too Close for the upcoming provincial election. I’m not sure why he did this. He seemed confident of a Liberal win before and I do not know what made him change it. The incumbent Liberal candidate is by far the highest profile candidate. Neither the Tories nor the NDP have chosen candidates with high name recognition. To boot, Sault Ste. Marie has a popular Liberal incumbent in David Orazietti. Orazietti defeated popular 13 year NDP incumbent Tony Martin by 8000 votes in the 2003 election. He won 57% to Martin’s 32%. In an election where the percentages for the NDP went up in most ridings, this was quite a downturn in NDP support. This was an impressive victory. Tony Martin went on to win the federal Sault Ste. Marie by 700 votes. In the 2006 election when most narrowly elected NDP incumbents won by larger margins, Martin increased his margin to only 2000 votes with the Liberals an impressive second. In 2004, I heard that the Liberals actually won the City of Sault Ste. Marie and that it was the newly added rural portion that put Martin over the top. So even at the federal level Sault Ste. Marie is only a marginal NDP seat. It is for this reason that I think for Sault. Ste. Marie to go NDP provincially, it would take a signficant Liberal meltdown. Thus I don’t understand why Milton Chan suddenly changed the riding to Too Close.