Campaign finance law needs to reign in labour unions
Canada's elections law essentially allow ganging-up by anyone willing to establish a third-party campaign.
It's no secret. The 2011 federal election was a splendid example of an attempt to do this, as dozens of far-left campaigns sprung up, eager to defeat the governing Conservative Party through the organization of strategic voting and, in some cases, outright lies.
So long as registered third-party campaigns are willing to stick the truth, they for the most part present no great dilemma for campaign finance law. At least not at the federal level.
At the provincial level, however, particularly in Ontario, it seems that there is a problem. A big one.
In Ontario, it seems that third-party campaigns face no spending limits, allowing some third-party campaigns to essentially gang up and bully the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, who are subject to spending limits and cannot effectively defend themselves.
The Working Families Coalition is the most publicly-known example. It claims to be independent of the Liberal Party, but was in fact directly organized by the Liberals. Another example that comes to mind is the "No Gun, No Funeral" campaign organized and operated out of then-Attorney General Michael Bryant's campaign offices.
In each case, Elections Ontario opted to ignore the undeniable connections between these organizations and the Ontario Liberal Party and treat them as an independent third-party. What had actually happened is that these groups allowed the Liberal Party of Ontario to breach campaign spending limits.
It's evidence that Elections Ontario is just as ill as Elections Canada, and needs the same overhaul of the people running the institution.
“The rule is too loose. We need the teeth of the federal rules if we’re to keep elections from being swayed,” remarked York University political science professor Robert MacDermid. He recently produced a report that demonstrates just how badly organizations like Labour Unions have abused the system in their bids to help out their partisan allies. (In the case of public service unions, this amounted to picking their own bosses.)
“The possibility of corruption is so much less,” MacDermid says of the federal campaign finance laws.
It's worth noting that the Coaliton for a Better Ontario came out on the side of the then-Mike Harris led Tories in 1999. Any connection between that organization and the Ontario Tories is unknown to this author, but just as troublesome if they existed.
MacDermid suggests the provincial Tories wouldn't complain if such a group were helping them, and he's likely right.
For Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's part, however, he's naturally pleased with the current status quo.
“We’ve got a great system here,” McGuinty remarked. “There are so many different avenues for people to give expression to their opinion. I believe in a strong collision of ideas.”
Unfortunately for McGuinty, that isn't what's happening right now, and he knows it full well. What is currently taking place is that his party has organized an environment in which they and the third-party campaigns they themselves organized can gang up on the PCs, whose own hands are tied.
Under the watch of the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, Ontario's lax rules on third-party campaigning have become a bully pulpit from which they can unfairly dominate their opponents. It needs to be stopped at the earliest opportunity.
Showing posts with label Dalton McGuinty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dalton McGuinty. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
What Time Do the Cows Come Home in Ontario?
Apparently, Nikki Holland will only deny smokes for votes until then
Ontario voters eager to hear the truth about the allegations that Liberal Party of Ontario Vice-President (Operations) bribing homeless people with cigarettes will only have to wait until the cows come home.
In reality, they're more than just "allegations". Audio recorded of Holland's comments have her admission in full.
"If anyone repeats this, I'll deny it until the cows come home," Holland remarked. "I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St Paul's with a carton of smokes and said 'I'll give them to you after you vote'. I have done that."
Once the recording came to light, Holland set about doing precisely what she said she would do: denying it. The recording has made that more than just a little awkward.
To account for that, Holland is claiming that what she said was "a joke". But there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe her.
She's also tried to spin the issue back on her political opponents by insisting that the NDP and Conservative Party do the same.
In the most amusing twist yet, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded not by doing what would have been expected of someone in his delicate position -- either collecting Holland's resignation or firing her from at least the campaign -- but has publicly accepted her apology.
"It was a bad joke in poor taste," McGuinty remarked. "She apologized for it."
It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
It's only the most recent incident in a gaffe-ridden election campaign for McGuinty's Liberals, one that featured a staged photo-op at a closed factory and a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by one of the very green energy companies McGuinty is championing as the future of the Ontario economy.
McGuinty's explanation for the staged photo-op didn't pass the laugh test, nor does his explanation for this scandal.
Especially damning is that Holland delivered these remarks at a training seminar for Liberal Party campaign workers. Even if Holland were joking -- and no one believes that she was -- if there are any Liberal campaign workers currently bribing homeless people with cigarettes, we know where they got the idea.
Nikki Holland cannot stay on as VP (Operations) of the Ontario Liberals, and if Dalton McGuinty continues to parrot her disingenuous explanation, he cannot stay on as leader of the party.
Both must go, before the cows come home.
Ontario voters eager to hear the truth about the allegations that Liberal Party of Ontario Vice-President (Operations) bribing homeless people with cigarettes will only have to wait until the cows come home.
In reality, they're more than just "allegations". Audio recorded of Holland's comments have her admission in full.
"If anyone repeats this, I'll deny it until the cows come home," Holland remarked. "I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St Paul's with a carton of smokes and said 'I'll give them to you after you vote'. I have done that."
Once the recording came to light, Holland set about doing precisely what she said she would do: denying it. The recording has made that more than just a little awkward.
To account for that, Holland is claiming that what she said was "a joke". But there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe her.
She's also tried to spin the issue back on her political opponents by insisting that the NDP and Conservative Party do the same.
In the most amusing twist yet, Premier Dalton McGuinty responded not by doing what would have been expected of someone in his delicate position -- either collecting Holland's resignation or firing her from at least the campaign -- but has publicly accepted her apology.
"It was a bad joke in poor taste," McGuinty remarked. "She apologized for it."
It simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
It's only the most recent incident in a gaffe-ridden election campaign for McGuinty's Liberals, one that featured a staged photo-op at a closed factory and a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by one of the very green energy companies McGuinty is championing as the future of the Ontario economy.
McGuinty's explanation for the staged photo-op didn't pass the laugh test, nor does his explanation for this scandal.
Especially damning is that Holland delivered these remarks at a training seminar for Liberal Party campaign workers. Even if Holland were joking -- and no one believes that she was -- if there are any Liberal campaign workers currently bribing homeless people with cigarettes, we know where they got the idea.
Nikki Holland cannot stay on as VP (Operations) of the Ontario Liberals, and if Dalton McGuinty continues to parrot her disingenuous explanation, he cannot stay on as leader of the party.
Both must go, before the cows come home.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A Horrible Idea Whose Time Should Not Come
Levac: Carbon tax "presently on the table"
In 2008, the federal Liberal party presented to Canadians a proposal that could have precipitated an economic disaster in Canada.
Pitched by Stephane Dion, cobbled together from an idea proposed by Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, they called it the Green Shift. It was essentially a carbon tax paired with income tax cuts.
Yet the income tax "cuts" wouldn't reduce the tax burden on the average Canadian family. Shifted to industry in the form of a carbon tax, those cuts would come back to haunt Canadians in the form of higher prices for absolutely everything. As private businesses are not charities, they would inevitably pass their higher costs along to the consumer.
The best-case scenario was that Canadians would be no better off for indulging the Liberal Party's foray into utopianism. A likelier scenario is that the tax would have scared off foreign and domestic investment in Canada, ultimately leading to an economic collapse.
Now, with the 2011 Ontario election on the line, Premier Dalton McGuinty is considering setting Ontario on this very disastrous path.
With the green energy companies that were to be the feathers in McGuinty's cap failing one by one -- in some cases, failing to do much of anything but provide McGuinty with photo ops -- McGuinty is turning to the last alternative policy that he can to pander to environmentalists.
In an online chat, Dave Levac, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, has indicated that the McGuinty Liberals are already considering a carbon tax.
"It's being reviewed, and some of my colleagues are more enthusiastic about it than others," Levac declared. "There is a possibility that a carbon tax is on the table to evaluate, because it already is."
Levac noted that a carbon tax is not presently in the Liberal election platform. This is something of a meaningless detail; many of the things that were in the last Liberal election platform were not done. Many of the things that were done -- including the HST -- were not in the election platform.
Regardless of how sympathetic McGuinty is to a carbon tax proposal, he owes it to the voters of Ontario to not spring it on them as a post-election surprise. The time to tell Ontario voters precisely what manner of a carbon tax is on the table.
If the Liberals had learned from the failure of Canadians to fall for the proposals of their federal counterparts, the answer would be "none at all". Yet as Dave Levac has it, this is not the case.
A carbon tax would drive up the cost of literally everything an Ontario family consumes: housing, energy, groceries, everything.
Dalton McGuinty owes Ontarians the opportunity to use the 2011 election as a referendum on such a prospect. Whether or not he'll be forthcoming with Ontario voters remains yet to be seen.
In 2008, the federal Liberal party presented to Canadians a proposal that could have precipitated an economic disaster in Canada.
Pitched by Stephane Dion, cobbled together from an idea proposed by Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, they called it the Green Shift. It was essentially a carbon tax paired with income tax cuts.
Yet the income tax "cuts" wouldn't reduce the tax burden on the average Canadian family. Shifted to industry in the form of a carbon tax, those cuts would come back to haunt Canadians in the form of higher prices for absolutely everything. As private businesses are not charities, they would inevitably pass their higher costs along to the consumer.
The best-case scenario was that Canadians would be no better off for indulging the Liberal Party's foray into utopianism. A likelier scenario is that the tax would have scared off foreign and domestic investment in Canada, ultimately leading to an economic collapse.
Now, with the 2011 Ontario election on the line, Premier Dalton McGuinty is considering setting Ontario on this very disastrous path.
With the green energy companies that were to be the feathers in McGuinty's cap failing one by one -- in some cases, failing to do much of anything but provide McGuinty with photo ops -- McGuinty is turning to the last alternative policy that he can to pander to environmentalists.
In an online chat, Dave Levac, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, has indicated that the McGuinty Liberals are already considering a carbon tax.
"It's being reviewed, and some of my colleagues are more enthusiastic about it than others," Levac declared. "There is a possibility that a carbon tax is on the table to evaluate, because it already is."
Levac noted that a carbon tax is not presently in the Liberal election platform. This is something of a meaningless detail; many of the things that were in the last Liberal election platform were not done. Many of the things that were done -- including the HST -- were not in the election platform.
Regardless of how sympathetic McGuinty is to a carbon tax proposal, he owes it to the voters of Ontario to not spring it on them as a post-election surprise. The time to tell Ontario voters precisely what manner of a carbon tax is on the table.
If the Liberals had learned from the failure of Canadians to fall for the proposals of their federal counterparts, the answer would be "none at all". Yet as Dave Levac has it, this is not the case.
A carbon tax would drive up the cost of literally everything an Ontario family consumes: housing, energy, groceries, everything.
Dalton McGuinty owes Ontarians the opportunity to use the 2011 election as a referendum on such a prospect. Whether or not he'll be forthcoming with Ontario voters remains yet to be seen.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Dalton McGuinty's Bizarre Message for Ontarians
In the most recent campaign ad released by the Ontario Liberal Party, Premier Dalton McGuinty seems to have a rather bizarre message for Ontarians:
Ontario has become Canada's Detroit. And it happened under the Liberals' watch.
As reported in the National Post, the ad bears a striking resemblence to a recent Chrysler ad, in which the ad insists that Detori will emerge triumphant from the troubles its been experiencing since the 1980s.
Among those troubles is a murder rate that remains perched atop US statistics.
In some of Ontario's neighbourhoods, things have indeed been troubled. The Boxing Day shooting of a teenager, hit in crossfire from a gang shooting in 2005, was a wake-up call for many in Toronto. But Toronto hasn't degenerated into the kind of Mad Max-esque desolation and violence that has seized Detroit.
And considering that Detroit came to be in the sorry state it's in because of utopian left-wing policies turned dystopic, the "progressive saviours of Ontario" message McGuinty wants to sell is rather comical.
Cetainly, the Chrysler ad the McGuinty Liberals are emulating is a worthy model: it's emotionally stirring and inspiring. Their ad is but a pale comparison, but it wouldn't matter much if the ad were a perfect facsimile.
This was a message that was ill-conceived from beginning to end.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 2
Yesterday, the Nexus' fact-checking series into the ShitHarperDid website explored the site's false claims about the Harper government's record on science.
Today, we examine a claim made about the G20 Summit in Toronto:
The clear intention is to blame Harper for the undeniable abuses perpetrated by police at the G20 Summit.
Yet as it turns out, it wasn't Prime Minister Harper who gave police the powers they abused at the G20 Summit. Rather, it was the Liberal provincial government of Dalton McGuinty.
The McGuinty government not only changed the Public Works Protection Act to arrest anyone in the vicinity of the G20 Security Zone, but they did it without even debating the matter in Queen's Park. In fact, they went to spectacular lengths to keep the changes secret.
The changes fortunately had a sunset clause built in -- they expired on June 28, 2010. The punchline is that they didn't publish the change in the Ontario Gazette until July 3, 2010.
Unbelievable.
It's actually rather remarkable: ShitHarperDid is campaigning against Stephen Harper on the basis of shit McGuinty did, all while promoting the Ontario Liberals' federal counterpart -- for whom McGuinty's brother David is a candidate -- as a "better option".
Just think about that.
Today, we examine a claim made about the G20 Summit in Toronto:
Yet as it turns out, it wasn't Prime Minister Harper who gave police the powers they abused at the G20 Summit. Rather, it was the Liberal provincial government of Dalton McGuinty.
The McGuinty government not only changed the Public Works Protection Act to arrest anyone in the vicinity of the G20 Security Zone, but they did it without even debating the matter in Queen's Park. In fact, they went to spectacular lengths to keep the changes secret.
The changes fortunately had a sunset clause built in -- they expired on June 28, 2010. The punchline is that they didn't publish the change in the Ontario Gazette until July 3, 2010.
Unbelievable.
It's actually rather remarkable: ShitHarperDid is campaigning against Stephen Harper on the basis of shit McGuinty did, all while promoting the Ontario Liberals' federal counterpart -- for whom McGuinty's brother David is a candidate -- as a "better option".
Just think about that.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Dalton McGuinty: Thoughtful Guy
Of all the things that can be said about Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, there's one thing that can't be denied: he's a thoughtful guy.
For example, the Ontario Liberal leader recently noted that he's "concerned" about what he believes to be a growing schism within the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
See? Thoughtful guy.
McGuinty's concern stems from veteran Tory MPP Norm Sterling losing his party's nomination in Carleton-Mississippi Mills to newcomer Jack MacLaren. Sterling has since indicated he may vote Liberal in the next provincial election.
“I’m concerned with the schism that might be developing within the party,” McGuinty remarked. “I think Ontarians have come to rely on a Progressive Conservative voice being there to give expression to that perspective. I’m concerned about where that might go.”
Underlying MacLaren oustering Sterling is clearly the issue of property rights: MacLaren, a longtime farmer, is also active in the Ontario Landowners Association.
The OLA was recently described as a "Tory Trojan Horse" in a recent column in the Toronto Star.
MacLaren's victory is an emerging sign that MPP Randy Hillier, former leadership candidate for the party and former President of the OLA, is growing his influence within the party. He's come a long way since being the leadership candidate excluded from Tim Hudak's shadow cabinet.
Certainly, the emergence of Hillier and the OLA could drive up some tensions within the PC caucus, as a strengthened libertarian wing of the party challenges the progressive wing of the party to strengthen its commitment to property rights.
Then again, to pass of property rights as a threat to progressive values is a suggestion that basic and fundamental freedoms pose some kind of threat to progressive ideas. There's no question that many self-identifying progressives share this particular idea, but that doesn't make them right.
McGuinty would certainly shed no tears if property rights became an issue salient enough to split the Tories apart. McGuinty himself has been rather aggressive toward property rights during his tenure as Premier.
McGuinty's Far North Act has proven to be particularly troublesome.
So maybe Dalton McGuinty isn't that thoughtful a guy after all; merely trying to provoke the progressive-leaning wing of the Progressive Conservative Party to mobilize against its growing libertarian wing.
It would spare McGuinty the problem of having to actually address the problems within his own policies.
Nope. Not nearly so thoughtful at all.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Dalton McGuinty: Yesterday's Man Renewed
Desperate, pathetic McGuinty cries 'hidden agenda'
The Toronto Star calls it "feisty". Anyone with a memory of what transpired in Canadian politics over the past 20 years will recognize it for precisely what it is: pathetic.
Of course, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty must expect that Ontarians have a short memory. How else to explain his desperate "hidden agenda" gambit?
Canadians are very familar with the "hidden agenda" gambit. It was a fear tactic, invoked by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, suggesting current Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a "hidden agenda".
How did the story end? The train wreck of corruption that was the Liberal Party became unigorable in the eyes of Canadians, Martin's government was rightly found wanting, his desperation recognized, and Martin was rightly sent packing, never to return.
Four years later, another embattled Liberal -- McGuinty -- has resorted to this pathetic and transparent gambit, just as his opposition seems poised to relegate him to the opposition benches.
This time it's Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, and it comes as Hudak points to the increasing burden McGuinty's government has become to the citizens of Ontario.
“After seven years it has become very clear Premier McGuinty believes in his heart that Ontario families have an infinite capacity to pay for every idea that your team dreams up,” Hudak announced. “They can’t keep up with your hydro bills, they can’t keep up with your HST increase, they can’t keep up with your eco taxes. Families need a break.”
For his own part, McGuinty predictably wanted to change the subject -- to health care.
“Ontario families better ask themselves what’s their secret agenda when it comes to health care," McGuinty announced. "What’s going to happen to their hospitals, their nurses and doctors?”
Of course, the switch to health care wasn't by any means a random change of topic. It was deliberate. Nothing so frightens Canadians as the prospect of deep cuts to health care -- even as health care becomes more and more unsustainable, as governments such as McGuinty's continue to allow it to slide.
“We have a broader, and I think more intelligent understanding of what Ontario families’ concerns are," McGuinty preened. "Yes they’re concerned about their expenses ... levels of taxation.”
“But we will not take our eye off the ball of those other concerns families have,” he continued.
Yet it seems that as support for the Progressive Conservative Party strengthens, and support for the Liberal Party erodes, more and more Ontarians are questioning the broadness or the intelligence of McGuinty's purported understanding of their concerns.
So the Ontario Liberal Party's option of choice is to rewind to yesterday -- regurgitate the "hidden agenda". Run against Mike Harris rather than against Tim Hudak.
It won't work any better for Dalton McGuinty than it did for Paul Martin.
While the Toronto Star may applaud it as "feisty", Ontarians will surely recognize it for what it really is: desperate and pathetic.
The Toronto Star calls it "feisty". Anyone with a memory of what transpired in Canadian politics over the past 20 years will recognize it for precisely what it is: pathetic.
Of course, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty must expect that Ontarians have a short memory. How else to explain his desperate "hidden agenda" gambit?
Canadians are very familar with the "hidden agenda" gambit. It was a fear tactic, invoked by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, suggesting current Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a "hidden agenda".
How did the story end? The train wreck of corruption that was the Liberal Party became unigorable in the eyes of Canadians, Martin's government was rightly found wanting, his desperation recognized, and Martin was rightly sent packing, never to return.
Four years later, another embattled Liberal -- McGuinty -- has resorted to this pathetic and transparent gambit, just as his opposition seems poised to relegate him to the opposition benches.
This time it's Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, and it comes as Hudak points to the increasing burden McGuinty's government has become to the citizens of Ontario.
“After seven years it has become very clear Premier McGuinty believes in his heart that Ontario families have an infinite capacity to pay for every idea that your team dreams up,” Hudak announced. “They can’t keep up with your hydro bills, they can’t keep up with your HST increase, they can’t keep up with your eco taxes. Families need a break.”
For his own part, McGuinty predictably wanted to change the subject -- to health care.
“Ontario families better ask themselves what’s their secret agenda when it comes to health care," McGuinty announced. "What’s going to happen to their hospitals, their nurses and doctors?”
Of course, the switch to health care wasn't by any means a random change of topic. It was deliberate. Nothing so frightens Canadians as the prospect of deep cuts to health care -- even as health care becomes more and more unsustainable, as governments such as McGuinty's continue to allow it to slide.
“We have a broader, and I think more intelligent understanding of what Ontario families’ concerns are," McGuinty preened. "Yes they’re concerned about their expenses ... levels of taxation.”
“But we will not take our eye off the ball of those other concerns families have,” he continued.
Yet it seems that as support for the Progressive Conservative Party strengthens, and support for the Liberal Party erodes, more and more Ontarians are questioning the broadness or the intelligence of McGuinty's purported understanding of their concerns.
So the Ontario Liberal Party's option of choice is to rewind to yesterday -- regurgitate the "hidden agenda". Run against Mike Harris rather than against Tim Hudak.
It won't work any better for Dalton McGuinty than it did for Paul Martin.
While the Toronto Star may applaud it as "feisty", Ontarians will surely recognize it for what it really is: desperate and pathetic.
Monday, February 01, 2010
What Bob Runciman's Appointment Really Means for Tim Hudak
Runciman appointment poses new HST-related trouble for Tory leader
After MPP Bob Runciman was appointed to the Senate, Tim Hudak issued a sparkling statement about Runciman's contributions to the Province of Ontario and to his party.
"Losing one of the most effective and tenacious MPPs in a generation, the Ontario Legislature will be a much quieter place without Bob Runciman," Hudak said. “As a Member of Provincial Parliament, senior cabinet minister and Interim Leader, Bob has been a consistent and determined champion for victims of crime, front-line police officers, the law enforcement community, and hard working Ontario families."
"While his commanding presence will be missed in the Legislature, his many accomplishments including 1,000 new front-line police officers and establishing a Survivor’s Tuition Fund for families of fallen police officers bode very well for advancing the federal government’s initiatives to fight crime and strengthen the young offenders system."
One couldn't expect anything but such a sparkling statement from Runciman's party leader.
But as Hudak continues to face off with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty over the recently-passed HST, he will likely face continuing difficulties over the issue, as his former deputy leader will likely vote to support it in the Senate.
“I’m particularly keen to have a fellow proponent of the HST up on Parliament Hill," noted Premier Dalton McGuinty. "Bob’s been a longtime backer, so it will be great to have him in a position of influence up there."
Although Runciman had previously voiced his support -- in principle -- for the HST, he also criticized the lack of public consulation over the controversial matter.
Runciman isn't the only federal politician to differ with close provincial colleagues over the matter. Christine Elliott and federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are husband and wife, although it hasn't affected their home life.
If Runciman does vote in favour of Harmonizing the GST and Ontario's PST, it will almost certainly take some of the fire out of Hudak's attack on the matter in Queen's Park. This is rather unfortunate, as there are as many reasons to oppose the HST as there are to back it.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Dalton McGuinty Tightening the Screws on Government
HST would eliminate options for an incoming governmentA frequent criticism of Stephen Harper's government in Ottawa has been accusations that they're "tightening the screws" on government.
These were actually
the words of Tom Flanagan, who argued that the Conservative Party's tax cuts would limit the ability of future governments to start new programs.
Now, with Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government about to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the federal Goods and Services Tax -- with the help of Harper's federal government -- the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, led by Tim Hudak, is opposing the move.
McGuinty seems to have found what he thinks will be his answer to the matter: challenge the Hudak Conservatives to commit to overturning the Harmonized Sales Tax should they form the government after Ontario's next election.
"I think Ontarians would be interested in knowing why it is that the leader of the Official Opposition is not prepared to repeal the HST," McGuinty recently told Queen's Park.
Of course, what McGuinty isn't giving the HST issue credit for is that, if implemented, it represents a negotiated tax agreement between the federal and provincial government. Each government receives a share.
Because the tax represents an agreement between the two government, it hampers the ability of either government to make reductions in that tax.
So, in its own sense, the passage of the HST -- whether it's a sound econcomic policy or not -- represents a tightening of the screws on government, committing the provincee to a particular taxation regime.
There's a very good reason why Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives can't commit to abolishing the HST -- it's because the collaborative nature of the tax limits the options to do so.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The New Game That's All the Rage in Ontario
Dalton McGuinty plays "dodge the accountability"
Poor Dalton McGuinty must be an awfully exhausted fella lately.
He's been busy doing all kinds of things. Like misleading Provincial Parliament. And impeding Access to Information requests. And not investigating the eHealth scandal.
After today, one can add "shrugging off a contract tendering scandal" to the list.
McGuinty has announced that his government will not get involved in a case where the Vice President of a London hospital awarded $3 million in untendered contracts to a former colleague.
“That is the responsibility of the board of directors there to ensure they are enforcing the rules they have on the books and I would encourage them to do that as quickly as they can,” McGuinty insisted. “The hospital has a board of directors, who have a lot of authority and accountability.”
Of course, anyone familiar with the story would know differently. The Vice President in question didn't actually have the authority to award the contract, and nothing was ever done about it.
It's actually a matter of hospital administrators exceeding their authority and Boards of Directors failing to hold them accountable.
Anyone who's paid attention to the growing list of scandals besetting the McGuinty government would know that the avoidance of responsibility has become thematic of his government. When $3 million in taxpayer dollars are handed exhorbitantly over to a hospital administrator, the government has a responsibility to get involved.
The scandal in London hospitals would be much less troubling if it hadn't become so bloody thematic in McGuinty's government. But unfortunately the McGuinty government has produced so many scandals -- with Health Minister David Caplan squarely at the centre of many of them -- that some people may be beginning to lose count.
Even if McGuinty himself won't answer for the matter, David Caplan must -- even if both of them share responsibility for this matter.
"[Caplan]'s showing a lack accountability at the top. I don't think he has control of his ministry. And, if he's not able to demonstrate that, then yes, he should go," said Christine Elliott, the Progressive Conservative Health Critic. "It starts at the top with the arrogance of the Premier and the Minister of Health in leading the way with $16 million in untendered contracts to eHealth. It sort of shows people that it doesn't really matter, that proper rules don't need to be followed, and it encourages similar sorts of practices."
To date, the closest that either the Liberal government or the hospital in question have come to taking accountability for the error is cancelling the contract.
But considering the rampant corruption running through Ontario's health care department, an independent investigation and a full systemic audit must occur.
To date, McGuinty has refused to do either, and has instead passed the buck to the hospital board in question which will, unless there is a serious change in the state of affairs, also refuse to do so.
It's almost like "dodge the accountability" is a game -- and Dalton McGuinty is in it to win it.
Poor Dalton McGuinty must be an awfully exhausted fella lately.
He's been busy doing all kinds of things. Like misleading Provincial Parliament. And impeding Access to Information requests. And not investigating the eHealth scandal.
After today, one can add "shrugging off a contract tendering scandal" to the list.
McGuinty has announced that his government will not get involved in a case where the Vice President of a London hospital awarded $3 million in untendered contracts to a former colleague.
“That is the responsibility of the board of directors there to ensure they are enforcing the rules they have on the books and I would encourage them to do that as quickly as they can,” McGuinty insisted. “The hospital has a board of directors, who have a lot of authority and accountability.”
Of course, anyone familiar with the story would know differently. The Vice President in question didn't actually have the authority to award the contract, and nothing was ever done about it.
It's actually a matter of hospital administrators exceeding their authority and Boards of Directors failing to hold them accountable.
Anyone who's paid attention to the growing list of scandals besetting the McGuinty government would know that the avoidance of responsibility has become thematic of his government. When $3 million in taxpayer dollars are handed exhorbitantly over to a hospital administrator, the government has a responsibility to get involved.
The scandal in London hospitals would be much less troubling if it hadn't become so bloody thematic in McGuinty's government. But unfortunately the McGuinty government has produced so many scandals -- with Health Minister David Caplan squarely at the centre of many of them -- that some people may be beginning to lose count.
Even if McGuinty himself won't answer for the matter, David Caplan must -- even if both of them share responsibility for this matter.
"[Caplan]'s showing a lack accountability at the top. I don't think he has control of his ministry. And, if he's not able to demonstrate that, then yes, he should go," said Christine Elliott, the Progressive Conservative Health Critic. "It starts at the top with the arrogance of the Premier and the Minister of Health in leading the way with $16 million in untendered contracts to eHealth. It sort of shows people that it doesn't really matter, that proper rules don't need to be followed, and it encourages similar sorts of practices."
To date, the closest that either the Liberal government or the hospital in question have come to taking accountability for the error is cancelling the contract.
But considering the rampant corruption running through Ontario's health care department, an independent investigation and a full systemic audit must occur.
To date, McGuinty has refused to do either, and has instead passed the buck to the hospital board in question which will, unless there is a serious change in the state of affairs, also refuse to do so.
It's almost like "dodge the accountability" is a game -- and Dalton McGuinty is in it to win it.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The HST: The Great Divider
Political tensions over HST have intriguing implications
One benefit Canada's recently-averted election holds for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the freedom to flip-flop on his own rhetoric without any serious consequences.
Take, for example, a recent Ignatieff flip-flop on the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax.
For those not in the know, a Harmonized Sales Tax is a fusion of Provincial Sales Taxes (PST) the federal government's Goods and Services Tax (GST). The argument being raised in favour of these taxes is that they're good for business, making it easier and less costly for business to remit these taxes to the government.
The argument against these taxes -- and a very persuasive argument at that -- is that these taxes are bad for consumers, and would apply sales taxes to transactions to which they hadn't previously applied, such as grocery and housing bills.
Needless to say, the matter has been very controversial in provinces that are planning to implement the HST -- chiefly British Columbia and Ontario. There's been an intriguing federal-provincial political dynamic at play in the affair, in which both major provincial and federal parties seem to be at odds with one another over the issue.
The Stephen Harper government in Ottawa has been instrumental in decisions to implement the HST, offering billions of dollars in short-term help to provinces that decide to implement the tax.
Ignatieff has publicly derided the HST, referring to it as the "Harper Sales Tax".
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty admits that the HST would be bad for Canadians in the short term, but it insists it would be good for the country in the long run.
"It's good longterm economic policy for the people of Canada," Flaherty insisted, noting that this is a provincial matter. "The decision to harmonize is always up to the individual province whether they choose to do it or not."
When pressed on whether or not he was "picking a fight" with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (or BC Premier Gordon Campbell for that matter, also a Liberal), Ignatieff seemed to shift his position away from using it to score cheap political points and closer to the position being taken by the government.
"Our position from the beginning has been that this is a matter between the Harper government and the provincial governments concerned. Period," Ignatieff insisted. "I'm the leader of the Opposition. I've got no position to clarify. It's between those two governments. And when I become Prime Minister I'll have other decisions to take."
Ignatieff has apparently moved to reassure McGuinty that his party's federal cousins wouldn't kill the HST deal just to maintain their own rhetoric.
"I assured him that the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of government," Ignatieff said. "We don't rip up agreements that have been duly negotiated by previous administrations, and I made that clear to him and I think we're on the same page on this issue."
That's an obvious shot across Harper's bow in regards to various issues such as the Kelowna Accord and the national daycare program. (Unfortuantely for Ignatieff, the Canadian public at least seems to be largely comfortable with these particular decisions.)
However, Ignatieff and McGuinty aren't the only ones to be at odds over the HST.
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has been vocal in his opposition to the HST, paying little mind to the governing federal party's effective sponsorship of the tax. Although Hudak has a different name for it than Ignatieff's -- he calls it the Dalton Sales Tax.
"[Toronto Dominion] Economics shows the 'Dalton Sales Tax' is just that - a permanent tax grab that will result in higher prices on the things we buy with no immediate benefit to consumers despite the premier's promises," Hudak publicly fumed. "[Premier] Dalton McGuinty has taken the idea of reducing red tape for business and turned it into a massive tax grab on Ontario's families in the midst of a recession."
Any direct tensions between Hudak and Stephen Harper on the matter must certainly be minimal -- Harper has had very little to say about the HST, and simply allowed his Finance Minister to carry that particular football.
But Hudak's deputy leader, Christine Elliott, is married to Jim Flaherty. Whatever political tensions subsist between the two over the matter are likely being contested -- perhaps silently -- over the dinner table.
"As Christine said to me on the weekend ... we'll remain married of course, and the children are very happy with that, but we're non-harmonized," Flaherty recently joked.
So if the Flaherty-Elliott marriage isn't at risk over the issue, the Liberal party faces a much more serious dilemma.
One way or another the HST is an issue that may harm the Liberal party significantly. Liberal MPs are worried that they'll be the ones to suffer the political consequences for the HST should they have to face a federal election before the Campbell Liberals face a provincial vote.
That particular dilemma for the Liberals could be as immediate as Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe decide it should be.
However this federal-provincial political dynamic plays out -- with the actions of provincial parties harming the prospects of federal parties, and vice versa -- the HST could be a largely-peripheral issue that could interest Canadian political scholars for years.
One benefit Canada's recently-averted election holds for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the freedom to flip-flop on his own rhetoric without any serious consequences.
Take, for example, a recent Ignatieff flip-flop on the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax.
For those not in the know, a Harmonized Sales Tax is a fusion of Provincial Sales Taxes (PST) the federal government's Goods and Services Tax (GST). The argument being raised in favour of these taxes is that they're good for business, making it easier and less costly for business to remit these taxes to the government.
The argument against these taxes -- and a very persuasive argument at that -- is that these taxes are bad for consumers, and would apply sales taxes to transactions to which they hadn't previously applied, such as grocery and housing bills.
Needless to say, the matter has been very controversial in provinces that are planning to implement the HST -- chiefly British Columbia and Ontario. There's been an intriguing federal-provincial political dynamic at play in the affair, in which both major provincial and federal parties seem to be at odds with one another over the issue.
The Stephen Harper government in Ottawa has been instrumental in decisions to implement the HST, offering billions of dollars in short-term help to provinces that decide to implement the tax.
Ignatieff has publicly derided the HST, referring to it as the "Harper Sales Tax".
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty admits that the HST would be bad for Canadians in the short term, but it insists it would be good for the country in the long run.
"It's good longterm economic policy for the people of Canada," Flaherty insisted, noting that this is a provincial matter. "The decision to harmonize is always up to the individual province whether they choose to do it or not."
When pressed on whether or not he was "picking a fight" with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (or BC Premier Gordon Campbell for that matter, also a Liberal), Ignatieff seemed to shift his position away from using it to score cheap political points and closer to the position being taken by the government.
"Our position from the beginning has been that this is a matter between the Harper government and the provincial governments concerned. Period," Ignatieff insisted. "I'm the leader of the Opposition. I've got no position to clarify. It's between those two governments. And when I become Prime Minister I'll have other decisions to take."
Ignatieff has apparently moved to reassure McGuinty that his party's federal cousins wouldn't kill the HST deal just to maintain their own rhetoric.
"I assured him that the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of government," Ignatieff said. "We don't rip up agreements that have been duly negotiated by previous administrations, and I made that clear to him and I think we're on the same page on this issue."
That's an obvious shot across Harper's bow in regards to various issues such as the Kelowna Accord and the national daycare program. (Unfortuantely for Ignatieff, the Canadian public at least seems to be largely comfortable with these particular decisions.)
However, Ignatieff and McGuinty aren't the only ones to be at odds over the HST.
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has been vocal in his opposition to the HST, paying little mind to the governing federal party's effective sponsorship of the tax. Although Hudak has a different name for it than Ignatieff's -- he calls it the Dalton Sales Tax.
"[Toronto Dominion] Economics shows the 'Dalton Sales Tax' is just that - a permanent tax grab that will result in higher prices on the things we buy with no immediate benefit to consumers despite the premier's promises," Hudak publicly fumed. "[Premier] Dalton McGuinty has taken the idea of reducing red tape for business and turned it into a massive tax grab on Ontario's families in the midst of a recession."
Any direct tensions between Hudak and Stephen Harper on the matter must certainly be minimal -- Harper has had very little to say about the HST, and simply allowed his Finance Minister to carry that particular football.
But Hudak's deputy leader, Christine Elliott, is married to Jim Flaherty. Whatever political tensions subsist between the two over the matter are likely being contested -- perhaps silently -- over the dinner table.
"As Christine said to me on the weekend ... we'll remain married of course, and the children are very happy with that, but we're non-harmonized," Flaherty recently joked.
So if the Flaherty-Elliott marriage isn't at risk over the issue, the Liberal party faces a much more serious dilemma.
One way or another the HST is an issue that may harm the Liberal party significantly. Liberal MPs are worried that they'll be the ones to suffer the political consequences for the HST should they have to face a federal election before the Campbell Liberals face a provincial vote.
That particular dilemma for the Liberals could be as immediate as Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe decide it should be.
However this federal-provincial political dynamic plays out -- with the actions of provincial parties harming the prospects of federal parties, and vice versa -- the HST could be a largely-peripheral issue that could interest Canadian political scholars for years.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Maybe That's What the Problem Is
Ontarians may just not object to McGuinty's culture of entitlement
Reporting on the aftermath of the Ontario Liberal party's recent by-election victory in St Paul's, Toronto Star columnist Royson James has phrased the matter rather succinctly.
"Either the St Paul's riding is incurably Liberal, as defeated Conservative Sue-Ann Levy says, or voters are content with life in Ontari-ari-ari-o," he muses.
And therein could lay the problem -- that Ontario voters have simply become accustomed to scandal to the point where they don't even blink when a seemingly unending flood of it bursts forth.
And indeed these scandals do seem unending.
Yet another contract tendering scandal has emerged, this time in London hospitals. According to accounts, up to $3 million in contracts were awarded untendered, at a cost to taxpayers of $1500 per day. According to these accounts, these contracts were issued to a single consultant.
To make matters worse, the contract was signed by a hospital administrator who lacked the authority to make the deal. The consultant in question was a former employee of the hospital.
"Giving an un-tendered contract to a former colleague — at first glance, it doesn't look very good," said Progressive Conservative party deputy leader Christine Elliott. "We need a full investigation."
"“We have had this culture fostered over six years by the [Dalton] McGuinty liberals. It’s ok not to tender a contract. It’s ok — nod, nod, wink, wink — to give contracts to your insider friends,” said provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath.
Horwath echoed the words of Tory leader Tim Hudak in predicting yet more scandals to come.
“It’s really the tip of the iceberg,” she insisted. “There are all sorts of insider sweetheart deals. We haven’t even scratched the surface.”
"It’s outrageous. It’s just another example of the lack of oversight ... and insiders getting sweetheart deals," Horwath added.
Observers of Ontarian politics know by now that this episode isn't an isolated incident. It follows scandals at eHealth, the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, as well as complaints that Dalton McGuinty misled Queen's Park when he announced that he had paid a retainer to an investigating firm when no such retainer had been paid.
To date, Hudak and Horwath's prediction has unfolded as foretold. There's little reason to think it's going to stop any time soon.
So, if Royson James' assessment rings true, and Ontarian voters remain perfectly comfortable with Dalton McGuinty's government, it's pretty clear that there are very deep problems in Ontario.
As some Canadians may recall, the Liberal party vote in the 2004 federal election remained strong in Ontario despite widespread knowledge of the sponsorship scandal. While the specific scope of the scandal was not yet known to voters -- but would be in 2006 -- the nuts and bolts of the scandal itself were widely known.
Yet Ontario returned 75 Liberals to Ottawa. In 2006, even in the wake of full public knowledge of the scandal -- knowledge that was obtained over the objections of the Liberal party -- Ontario elected 54 Liberals, a majority of the seats in that province.
It may not be unfair to theorize that Ontarian voters are unusually tolerant of scandal. It seems that the politics of self-service -- the ugly handmaiden of what Barry Cooper would describe as the politics of public virtue -- may have taken root deeply in Ontario.
To make matters more disturbing yet, the politics of public virtue may have become deeply distorted in Ontario. One would expect that the politics of public virtue would have room within its enclave for honest, accountable, and responsible government -- government that doesn't allow its various agencies to run wild spending public monies, and doesn't mislead the legislature and cancel independent investigations.
Yet even amidst all of these shenanigans in Ontario, the Liberals were able to walk away with what many considered to be a key by-election in Toronto. If voters in St Paul's had taken a thoughtful appraisal of their government, one would have at least expected a closer race.
It's possible that this assessment may not be entirely fair. Dr Eric Hoskins may well have won the riding based on the strength of his own candidacy. But based on evaluations of the matter by Chris Selley, that doesn't seem entirely likely.
Perhaps voters in "Ontari-ari-ari-o" are simply very comfortable with millions of taxpayers dollars being handed out by people with no authority to do so without so much as a contract tendering.
Perhaps this is more exclusive to voters in St Paul's.
One way or the other, the matter bodes very poorly for Ontarian politics. Then again, perhaps Ontarians will surprise their fellow Canadians by throwing the derelict McGuinty government out in 2011.
Reporting on the aftermath of the Ontario Liberal party's recent by-election victory in St Paul's, Toronto Star columnist Royson James has phrased the matter rather succinctly.
"Either the St Paul's riding is incurably Liberal, as defeated Conservative Sue-Ann Levy says, or voters are content with life in Ontari-ari-ari-o," he muses.
And therein could lay the problem -- that Ontario voters have simply become accustomed to scandal to the point where they don't even blink when a seemingly unending flood of it bursts forth.
And indeed these scandals do seem unending.
Yet another contract tendering scandal has emerged, this time in London hospitals. According to accounts, up to $3 million in contracts were awarded untendered, at a cost to taxpayers of $1500 per day. According to these accounts, these contracts were issued to a single consultant.
To make matters worse, the contract was signed by a hospital administrator who lacked the authority to make the deal. The consultant in question was a former employee of the hospital.
"Giving an un-tendered contract to a former colleague — at first glance, it doesn't look very good," said Progressive Conservative party deputy leader Christine Elliott. "We need a full investigation."
"“We have had this culture fostered over six years by the [Dalton] McGuinty liberals. It’s ok not to tender a contract. It’s ok — nod, nod, wink, wink — to give contracts to your insider friends,” said provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath.
Horwath echoed the words of Tory leader Tim Hudak in predicting yet more scandals to come.
“It’s really the tip of the iceberg,” she insisted. “There are all sorts of insider sweetheart deals. We haven’t even scratched the surface.”
"It’s outrageous. It’s just another example of the lack of oversight ... and insiders getting sweetheart deals," Horwath added.
Observers of Ontarian politics know by now that this episode isn't an isolated incident. It follows scandals at eHealth, the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, as well as complaints that Dalton McGuinty misled Queen's Park when he announced that he had paid a retainer to an investigating firm when no such retainer had been paid.
To date, Hudak and Horwath's prediction has unfolded as foretold. There's little reason to think it's going to stop any time soon.
So, if Royson James' assessment rings true, and Ontarian voters remain perfectly comfortable with Dalton McGuinty's government, it's pretty clear that there are very deep problems in Ontario.
As some Canadians may recall, the Liberal party vote in the 2004 federal election remained strong in Ontario despite widespread knowledge of the sponsorship scandal. While the specific scope of the scandal was not yet known to voters -- but would be in 2006 -- the nuts and bolts of the scandal itself were widely known.
Yet Ontario returned 75 Liberals to Ottawa. In 2006, even in the wake of full public knowledge of the scandal -- knowledge that was obtained over the objections of the Liberal party -- Ontario elected 54 Liberals, a majority of the seats in that province.
It may not be unfair to theorize that Ontarian voters are unusually tolerant of scandal. It seems that the politics of self-service -- the ugly handmaiden of what Barry Cooper would describe as the politics of public virtue -- may have taken root deeply in Ontario.
To make matters more disturbing yet, the politics of public virtue may have become deeply distorted in Ontario. One would expect that the politics of public virtue would have room within its enclave for honest, accountable, and responsible government -- government that doesn't allow its various agencies to run wild spending public monies, and doesn't mislead the legislature and cancel independent investigations.
Yet even amidst all of these shenanigans in Ontario, the Liberals were able to walk away with what many considered to be a key by-election in Toronto. If voters in St Paul's had taken a thoughtful appraisal of their government, one would have at least expected a closer race.
It's possible that this assessment may not be entirely fair. Dr Eric Hoskins may well have won the riding based on the strength of his own candidacy. But based on evaluations of the matter by Chris Selley, that doesn't seem entirely likely.
Perhaps voters in "Ontari-ari-ari-o" are simply very comfortable with millions of taxpayers dollars being handed out by people with no authority to do so without so much as a contract tendering.
Perhaps this is more exclusive to voters in St Paul's.
One way or the other, the matter bodes very poorly for Ontarian politics. Then again, perhaps Ontarians will surprise their fellow Canadians by throwing the derelict McGuinty government out in 2011.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Great MisLeader?
McGuinty accused of misleading Queen's park, impeding access to informationOntario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak and NDP leader Andrea Horwath have gone after the throat of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty by filing a complaint with the Office of the Speaker of the House accusing McGuinty of misleading both the public and Queen's Park.
At the heart of the matter is the Premier's claim that PriceWaterhouseCoopers had been hired to conduct an independent investigation of the spending scandals at eHealth. Instead, McGuinty cancelled the probe.
“Not only did Dalton McGuinty do nothing to stop the spending abuses at eHealth, he misled Ontarians when he said he had any interest in getting to the bottom of the scandal. It is clear that Ontarians cannot trust him to fix the culture of entitlement that he himself created,” said Hudak.“He misled Ontarians,” he added. “It is clear that Ontarians cannot trust him to fix the culture of entitlement that he himself created.”
If this weren't bad enough, today the NDP claimed that McGuinty's office was impeding Access to Information requests.
According to the NDP, McGuinty's office staff delayed the release of thousands of pages of Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation financial records dealing with expense claims.
"This appears to be political interference of the highest order, with direct connection right back to the premier's office," Horwath said. "Clearly, [McGuinty] and his office were desperately, desperately trying to manage their way out of yet another expense scandal."
The source of the most recent accusation practically comes out of the mouth of Kelly McDougald, the fired CEO of the OLGC, who is claiming she was scapegoated and has launched a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government of Ontario.
"The Minister [Finance Minister Dwight Duncan] advised ...that the government could not delay the release of the records any further," McDougald alleged in her statement of claim.
"It certainly paints a very disturbing picture about the role of the finance minister and the deputy chief of staff to the premier in intervening in the FOI process," said Hudak.
The problem, according to Horwath, is that this is very much becoming the modus operandi of McGuinty's government. "It's quite clear from the documents from Ms McDougald ... that the premiers' office and the minister's office made every effort possible to hold back the information," she announced. "It's really obvious that although the premier talks about transparency and accountability, what comes out of his actions is exactly the opposite."Horwath couldn't have said it any better -- if the events themselves hadn't already spoken loud and clear.
McGuinty promises an independent investigation into the eHealth scandal, and even claims his government has paid a retainer to a high-profile investigating agency -- then cancels the investigation. McGuinty's staff, knowing full well that the opposition is examining government documents for signs of further scandal, impede access to information.
If the "summer of scandal" (as Hudak has cleverly dubbed it) is making McGuinty's government look more and more like Paul Martin's disgraced government, that isn't coincidental.
Those who have followed recent writings by Barry Cooper may recognize a similarity between McGuinty's obstruction of Access to Iformation and a senior government bureaucrat's attempts to prevent the release of the minutes from a Liberal cabinet meeting in which "strengthening the Liberal party in Quebec" should be a priority of the federal government.
This is characteristic of the kind of scandal that emerges in a government where the culture of self-service and its close friend, the culture of entitlement, have begun to run rampant.
Dalton McGuinty has some serious questions to answer. He needs to start by firing his Health Minister, David Caplan, and his Finance Minister. Then he needs to seriously consider resigning as Premier.
From the archives:
September 1, 2009 - "It's the Regime, Dalton"
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
The Nadir of Dalton McGuinty
Yet another scandal emerges for Ontario grits
If Dalton McGuinty thought that things couldn't possibly get any worse for his government, he should have thought again.
Hot on the heels of the eHealth scandal, a spending scandal swirling around the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation and the arrest of McGuinty's former Attorney General, Michael Bryant, comes revelations that the Municipal Property Assessment Corproation has broken its own spending rules.
According to MPAC rules, it isn't allowed to extend existing contracts for more than double their original value. MPAC has been extending contracts for five to fourteen times their original value.
Holy shit.
In fact, the McGuinty government is so out-to-lunch in regards to some of these scandals that Finance Minister Dwight Duncan's office claimed this hadn't reached his attention by the time it reached the Globe and Mail's.
Oops.
It gets worse when one realizes that the report in question actually deals with MPAC's procurement practices between 2005 and 2006.
"Quite frankly, it's not a reflection of our current practices at all," said MPAC Vice President (corporate and human resources) Gerry Stuart, who said that the report was out of date. "In 2005, we did not have the same policies and diligence and oversight that we have today."
This is, frankly, the kind of situation that makes one wonder just what, precisely, goes on in Dalton McGuinty's government. When coupled with the fact that David Caplan was actually promoted to Health Minister after the OLGC went so badly awry under his tenure and that he would go on to let the eHealth scandal slip his radar, it seems that accountability is quickly becoming an issue for McGuinty for his government.
Even Michael Bryant's recent legal troubles may be (somewhat) undeservedly troublesome for McGuinty. Although Bryant's reported actions have little or nothing to do with the Ontario Liberals, save casting further doubt on McGuinty's judgement.
Conservative party leader Tim Hudak had recently speculated that the eHealth scandal and OLGC scandals were "just the tip of the iceberg".
It's quickly becoming obvious that the Liberal party not only has no ability to manage the various crown corporations under its control, but has no ability to hold cabinet ministers accountable for their actions.
Before long Dalton McGuinty may have no choice but to call an election so the citizens of Ontario can judge his government and, if need be, replace it.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Brian Gardiner - "Dalton's Culture of Corruption"
If Dalton McGuinty thought that things couldn't possibly get any worse for his government, he should have thought again.
Hot on the heels of the eHealth scandal, a spending scandal swirling around the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation and the arrest of McGuinty's former Attorney General, Michael Bryant, comes revelations that the Municipal Property Assessment Corproation has broken its own spending rules.
According to MPAC rules, it isn't allowed to extend existing contracts for more than double their original value. MPAC has been extending contracts for five to fourteen times their original value.
Holy shit.
In fact, the McGuinty government is so out-to-lunch in regards to some of these scandals that Finance Minister Dwight Duncan's office claimed this hadn't reached his attention by the time it reached the Globe and Mail's.
Oops.
It gets worse when one realizes that the report in question actually deals with MPAC's procurement practices between 2005 and 2006.
"Quite frankly, it's not a reflection of our current practices at all," said MPAC Vice President (corporate and human resources) Gerry Stuart, who said that the report was out of date. "In 2005, we did not have the same policies and diligence and oversight that we have today."
This is, frankly, the kind of situation that makes one wonder just what, precisely, goes on in Dalton McGuinty's government. When coupled with the fact that David Caplan was actually promoted to Health Minister after the OLGC went so badly awry under his tenure and that he would go on to let the eHealth scandal slip his radar, it seems that accountability is quickly becoming an issue for McGuinty for his government.
Even Michael Bryant's recent legal troubles may be (somewhat) undeservedly troublesome for McGuinty. Although Bryant's reported actions have little or nothing to do with the Ontario Liberals, save casting further doubt on McGuinty's judgement.
Conservative party leader Tim Hudak had recently speculated that the eHealth scandal and OLGC scandals were "just the tip of the iceberg".
It's quickly becoming obvious that the Liberal party not only has no ability to manage the various crown corporations under its control, but has no ability to hold cabinet ministers accountable for their actions.
Before long Dalton McGuinty may have no choice but to call an election so the citizens of Ontario can judge his government and, if need be, replace it.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Brian Gardiner - "Dalton's Culture of Corruption"
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
It's the Regime, Dalton
Regime change overdue in Ontario
If Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty were beginning to look an awful lot like former Prime Minister Paul Martin, it isn't simply because each is at the head of a seemingly well-entrenched Liberal government.
When it comes to the undeniable ability of each man's government to rack up considerable political standard, one could easily be forgiven for having trouble telling the two apart.
The emerging story of the Dalton McGuinty government appears to be rather similar to the story of the fall of the Paul Martin government. Like the latter, the former is unlikely to have an entirely happy ending.
Meanwhile, if Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak is beginning to look an awful lot like former Opposition Leader Stephen Harper (who, it becomes more and more apparent month by month, was actually a very different entity than Prime Minister Stephen Harper), it isn't simply because each has been offered a delectable meal of political scandal by the governments they oppose. It isn't only because each man clearly intends to feast.
Hudak, as some may recall, has been described by some as a potential conservative saviour. Harper came to the leadership of the Conservative party amidst similar sentiments.
Each man, however, seems to be encountering a government entrenched within a political regime that has become prone to scandal. Accordingly, the challenge each man faces -- one that Harper has begun to meet, and that Hudak must yet face -- is nothing less than changing the institutional political culture of their respective (in Harper's case) and prospective (in Hudak's case) state.
In It's the Regime, Stupid! Barry Cooper theorizes that the political regime of any country -- which he defines as the common notions of who is entitled to govern, to what ends, and by what means -- tends to centre around the economic centre of any particular state.
Cooper's argument, as it pertains to the federal government, is that the economic power of the west has drawn Canada's political regime into the influence of western values.
In the book, he surmises that the ultimate significance of Stephen Harper's tenure of Prime Minister is his slow diversion of Canadian governance from the politics of public virtue and toward more pragmatic ends and means.
In Cooper's account, this was as much out of necessity as out of any yearning by Canadians for a different style of governance. He notes that the sponsorship scandal represented the nadir of the politics of public virtue -- as he argues was actually ironically introduced to Canadian government by John Diefenbaker.
Cooper muses that the sponsorship scandal represented in utmost clarity the extent to which the politics of self service had dribbled into the politics of public virtue. Among the other sponsorship scandal-related episodes he focuses on is a particularly telling episode in which a high-ranking public servant -- an employee of the state -- attempted to withhold the minutes of a cabinet meeting from the Gomery Commission in which those present had suggested that strengthening the Liberal party in Quebec should be a primary goal of the federal government in its fight against Quebec separatism.
The infection of the politics of public virtue by the politics of self service had allowed the government of the day to dress up their petty partisan interests as the interests of the state itself.
Cooper further surmises that this infection -- which he suggests is nearly inevitable -- allows partisan-minded civil servants to come to view themselves as entitled to raid the state for their own benefit. They begin to view themselves as entitled to their entitlements.
This "culture of entitlement", Cooper argues, is very much the political culture of the politics of self service.
Those who paid attention to the events of 2004-2006 in Canadian politics are well aware of what transpired during that period of time. Rumblings about the corrupt nature of the sponsorship program first began in 2000, when it was first discovered that Alfonso Gagliano had been awarding sponsorship contracts to companies that subcontracted printing to his son's company. It was a tiny -- and seemingly trivial -- taste of things to come.
In 2002, the ugly truth slowly began to emerge. By 2004, Canadians had a disturbing picture of what was transpiring within that program. An election fought in that year returned Paul Martin's Liberal government not with the overwhelming majority Martin had expected to win, but a minority government.
By 2005, Justice John Gomery finally decided that Canadians were entitled to the full picture, and lifted the media blackout on his Commission's proceedings. Canadians finally got the full picture, and it was decidedly not a pretty one.
The sponsorship scandal should have been destructive enough to Martin's Liberal government. But it took an RCMP investigation into leaks regarding Income Trust taxation policy to turn the tide.
Many particularly partisan Liberals continue to complain that the RCMP was blatantly interfering in the election taking place at that time. But they forget that Martin's Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, declined to investigate the leaks in question, and thus made the RCMP's involvement necessary.
If one thing can be said about Dalton McGuinty, he is doing a much better job of addressing the political sins of his government.
McGuinty's Finance Minister Dwight Duncan recently fired Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation CEO Kelly McDougald amidst the resignations of its entire board of directors. At issue were findings that OLGC board members had used OLG expense accounts for their own personal benefit, including for golf club fees and bar tabs.
This is only the most recent scandal involving the OLGC. In past concerns have been voiced about how the OLGC investigates fraudulent winnings, and the reported use of subliminal messaging in slot machines in Provincially-operated Casinos.
The Ontario government had previously fired Duncan Brown for the clearly inept discharge of his duties.
However, it now seems that the problems at the OLGC have certainly gone deeper than its CEO, and possibly even deeper than its Board of Directors.
Like Martin, McGuinty's latest troubles come hot on the heels of the eHealth scandal, one that involved some of McGuinty's aides. At the centre of the scandal was hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts issued untendered and without sufficient documentation.
Although McGuinty promptly issued new directives for the management of public contracts, his government shut down an independent investigation of the matter.
When one looks into the past troubles with the OLGC, however, one finds the same individual as at the heart of the eHealth Scandal: then-Minister responsible for the OLGC and current Health Minister David Caplan.
The political regime in Ontario has become so bereft of accountability that a Minister who has proven to be utterly inept at overseeing the OLGC not only did not face any consequences for that failure, but actually received a considerable promotion.
This is the challenge that Tim Hudak must face. If scandals continue to emerge, and continue to be addressed as the eHealth scandal has, defeating Dalton McGunity in the next provincial election will not be Hudak's greatest challenge.
Hudak's greatest challenge will be in turning Ontario away from the evidently polluted politics of public virtue that has led to these scandals, and back toward Cooper's described politics of pragmatic ends and means.
Tim Hudak's challenge will be to change the Ontarian regime. With no newly emerging centre of the Ontarian economy, Hudak's work will be cut out for him. Then again, Dalton McGuinty may have enough bullets left in his gun to shoot himself in the foot until his government bleeds to death.
If Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty were beginning to look an awful lot like former Prime Minister Paul Martin, it isn't simply because each is at the head of a seemingly well-entrenched Liberal government.
When it comes to the undeniable ability of each man's government to rack up considerable political standard, one could easily be forgiven for having trouble telling the two apart.
The emerging story of the Dalton McGuinty government appears to be rather similar to the story of the fall of the Paul Martin government. Like the latter, the former is unlikely to have an entirely happy ending.
Meanwhile, if Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak is beginning to look an awful lot like former Opposition Leader Stephen Harper (who, it becomes more and more apparent month by month, was actually a very different entity than Prime Minister Stephen Harper), it isn't simply because each has been offered a delectable meal of political scandal by the governments they oppose. It isn't only because each man clearly intends to feast.
Hudak, as some may recall, has been described by some as a potential conservative saviour. Harper came to the leadership of the Conservative party amidst similar sentiments.
Each man, however, seems to be encountering a government entrenched within a political regime that has become prone to scandal. Accordingly, the challenge each man faces -- one that Harper has begun to meet, and that Hudak must yet face -- is nothing less than changing the institutional political culture of their respective (in Harper's case) and prospective (in Hudak's case) state.
In It's the Regime, Stupid! Barry Cooper theorizes that the political regime of any country -- which he defines as the common notions of who is entitled to govern, to what ends, and by what means -- tends to centre around the economic centre of any particular state.
Cooper's argument, as it pertains to the federal government, is that the economic power of the west has drawn Canada's political regime into the influence of western values.
In the book, he surmises that the ultimate significance of Stephen Harper's tenure of Prime Minister is his slow diversion of Canadian governance from the politics of public virtue and toward more pragmatic ends and means.
In Cooper's account, this was as much out of necessity as out of any yearning by Canadians for a different style of governance. He notes that the sponsorship scandal represented the nadir of the politics of public virtue -- as he argues was actually ironically introduced to Canadian government by John Diefenbaker.
Cooper muses that the sponsorship scandal represented in utmost clarity the extent to which the politics of self service had dribbled into the politics of public virtue. Among the other sponsorship scandal-related episodes he focuses on is a particularly telling episode in which a high-ranking public servant -- an employee of the state -- attempted to withhold the minutes of a cabinet meeting from the Gomery Commission in which those present had suggested that strengthening the Liberal party in Quebec should be a primary goal of the federal government in its fight against Quebec separatism.
The infection of the politics of public virtue by the politics of self service had allowed the government of the day to dress up their petty partisan interests as the interests of the state itself.
Cooper further surmises that this infection -- which he suggests is nearly inevitable -- allows partisan-minded civil servants to come to view themselves as entitled to raid the state for their own benefit. They begin to view themselves as entitled to their entitlements.
This "culture of entitlement", Cooper argues, is very much the political culture of the politics of self service.
Those who paid attention to the events of 2004-2006 in Canadian politics are well aware of what transpired during that period of time. Rumblings about the corrupt nature of the sponsorship program first began in 2000, when it was first discovered that Alfonso Gagliano had been awarding sponsorship contracts to companies that subcontracted printing to his son's company. It was a tiny -- and seemingly trivial -- taste of things to come.
In 2002, the ugly truth slowly began to emerge. By 2004, Canadians had a disturbing picture of what was transpiring within that program. An election fought in that year returned Paul Martin's Liberal government not with the overwhelming majority Martin had expected to win, but a minority government.
By 2005, Justice John Gomery finally decided that Canadians were entitled to the full picture, and lifted the media blackout on his Commission's proceedings. Canadians finally got the full picture, and it was decidedly not a pretty one.
The sponsorship scandal should have been destructive enough to Martin's Liberal government. But it took an RCMP investigation into leaks regarding Income Trust taxation policy to turn the tide.
Many particularly partisan Liberals continue to complain that the RCMP was blatantly interfering in the election taking place at that time. But they forget that Martin's Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, declined to investigate the leaks in question, and thus made the RCMP's involvement necessary.
If one thing can be said about Dalton McGuinty, he is doing a much better job of addressing the political sins of his government.
McGuinty's Finance Minister Dwight Duncan recently fired Ontario Lottery Gaming Corporation CEO Kelly McDougald amidst the resignations of its entire board of directors. At issue were findings that OLGC board members had used OLG expense accounts for their own personal benefit, including for golf club fees and bar tabs.
This is only the most recent scandal involving the OLGC. In past concerns have been voiced about how the OLGC investigates fraudulent winnings, and the reported use of subliminal messaging in slot machines in Provincially-operated Casinos.
The Ontario government had previously fired Duncan Brown for the clearly inept discharge of his duties.
However, it now seems that the problems at the OLGC have certainly gone deeper than its CEO, and possibly even deeper than its Board of Directors.
Like Martin, McGuinty's latest troubles come hot on the heels of the eHealth scandal, one that involved some of McGuinty's aides. At the centre of the scandal was hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts issued untendered and without sufficient documentation.
Although McGuinty promptly issued new directives for the management of public contracts, his government shut down an independent investigation of the matter.
When one looks into the past troubles with the OLGC, however, one finds the same individual as at the heart of the eHealth Scandal: then-Minister responsible for the OLGC and current Health Minister David Caplan.
The political regime in Ontario has become so bereft of accountability that a Minister who has proven to be utterly inept at overseeing the OLGC not only did not face any consequences for that failure, but actually received a considerable promotion.
This is the challenge that Tim Hudak must face. If scandals continue to emerge, and continue to be addressed as the eHealth scandal has, defeating Dalton McGunity in the next provincial election will not be Hudak's greatest challenge.
Hudak's greatest challenge will be in turning Ontario away from the evidently polluted politics of public virtue that has led to these scandals, and back toward Cooper's described politics of pragmatic ends and means.
Tim Hudak's challenge will be to change the Ontarian regime. With no newly emerging centre of the Ontarian economy, Hudak's work will be cut out for him. Then again, Dalton McGuinty may have enough bullets left in his gun to shoot himself in the foot until his government bleeds to death.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Could Sue-Ann Levy Curb Liberal Election Plans?
A Tory win would signal trouble in Toronto for Liberals
To say that Toronto has been a Conservative party wasteland for the last 10 years would be an understatement.
Since Mike Harris merged the various municipalities surrounding Toronto into the modern "megacity" of Toronto, the Conservative party has never elected a single candidate in the city -- neither provincially nor federally.
The nomination of Sue-Ann Levy -- a "married lesbian" and frequent critic of Toronto mayor David Miller -- seems to have given the Ontario Progressive Conservative party a very real opportunity to break the long shut out suffered by Conservatives in the city.
Even as federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff insists his party hasn't yet decided whether or not to defeat Stephen Harper's government in September, the implications of a Levy victory in the September 17 by-election would likely force Ignatieff to blink.
Recent calls for Premier Dalton McGunity to delay the by-election have led many to speculate that the provincial Liberals are worried they may lose the contest.
Coming from the Toronto Sun, one would be tempted to discard that kind of speculation. But when it appears in the Toronto Star, it quickly becomes apparent that the hype may well be real.
Levy has a variety of issues she can attack the McGuinty government on. Before one even looks at the eHealth scandal, there are the matters of a slew of new municipal taxes for which Levy blames the provincial government.
There also seems to be a lack of faith in Liberal candidate Dr Eric Hoskins' will to match Levy blow-for-blow.
"It's a smart candidate for Hudak," admitted a Liberal insider. "She'll be a puncher and will Hoskins be a counterpuncher? I don't know."
There is also the matter of Dr Hoskins' defeat in his 2008 bid to become the Member of Parliament for Haldmand-Norfolk, a contest he lost to Diane Finley. There are also questions about whether or not Dr Hoskins' previous work -- he's a co-founder and the current President of War Child Canada -- will be of use in Queen's Park.
If Levy manages to emerge victorious from the September 17 vote Canadians can expect Michael Ignatieff to think twice about making a play for a fall election. But at least he'll be better off than Dalton McGuinty. For the current Ontario Premier, that could prove to be the beginning of the end.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
MJ Murphy - "The Downside of Sue-Ann Levy"
Dr Roy Eappen - "Sue-Ann Levy"
To say that Toronto has been a Conservative party wasteland for the last 10 years would be an understatement.
Since Mike Harris merged the various municipalities surrounding Toronto into the modern "megacity" of Toronto, the Conservative party has never elected a single candidate in the city -- neither provincially nor federally.
The nomination of Sue-Ann Levy -- a "married lesbian" and frequent critic of Toronto mayor David Miller -- seems to have given the Ontario Progressive Conservative party a very real opportunity to break the long shut out suffered by Conservatives in the city.
Even as federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff insists his party hasn't yet decided whether or not to defeat Stephen Harper's government in September, the implications of a Levy victory in the September 17 by-election would likely force Ignatieff to blink.
Recent calls for Premier Dalton McGunity to delay the by-election have led many to speculate that the provincial Liberals are worried they may lose the contest.
Coming from the Toronto Sun, one would be tempted to discard that kind of speculation. But when it appears in the Toronto Star, it quickly becomes apparent that the hype may well be real.
Levy has a variety of issues she can attack the McGuinty government on. Before one even looks at the eHealth scandal, there are the matters of a slew of new municipal taxes for which Levy blames the provincial government.
There also seems to be a lack of faith in Liberal candidate Dr Eric Hoskins' will to match Levy blow-for-blow.
"It's a smart candidate for Hudak," admitted a Liberal insider. "She'll be a puncher and will Hoskins be a counterpuncher? I don't know."
There is also the matter of Dr Hoskins' defeat in his 2008 bid to become the Member of Parliament for Haldmand-Norfolk, a contest he lost to Diane Finley. There are also questions about whether or not Dr Hoskins' previous work -- he's a co-founder and the current President of War Child Canada -- will be of use in Queen's Park.If Levy manages to emerge victorious from the September 17 vote Canadians can expect Michael Ignatieff to think twice about making a play for a fall election. But at least he'll be better off than Dalton McGuinty. For the current Ontario Premier, that could prove to be the beginning of the end.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
MJ Murphy - "The Downside of Sue-Ann Levy"
Dr Roy Eappen - "Sue-Ann Levy"
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Canadian Conservatism Needs to Save Itself
Adam Daifallah annoints Tim Hudak as conservative saviour
Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah all but annoints Tim Hudak as the saviour of conservatism not only in Ontario, but perhaps in all of Canada:
That being said, it's unreasonable to overlook the fact that, as leaders, Tory and Eves had to work with what Harris had left behind him when he resigned as leader. It wasn't a pretty sight.
Mike Harris left behind him an extremely unpopular incumbent party, which had failed to deliver on its espoused fiscally conservative principles, had made controversial moves in relation to education and relations with municipal governments, and had often stirred up a wasp's nest of public protest against it.
To saddle Tory and Eves firmly with the failure of the Ontario Tories to retain power -- or win it back from Dalton McGuinty in the years since -- is partially unfair. While one cannot overlook their own failures as leaders, one also has to remember the position Harris had left them in.
Yet Daifallah seems to believe that only a leader practically hand-picked by Harris can deliver the Ontario Tories from the ignominous position they currently find themselves in.
Hudak used that policy as a method to determine those who were, allegedly, true conservatives from those who were simply "Liberal lite" -- a label he applied to both Elliott and Klees.
Distancing himself from Harris will be a difficult act for someone who enjoyed such fervent support from Harris to do. And, really, one may wonder what reason Hudak would have to want to distance himself from who has proven to be his most valuable supporter.
Yet Daifallah already seems to have Hudak pegged as a successor to Stephen Harper's leadership of Canadian conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism:
That is, when Liberal governments reign in Ottawa, Conservatives tend to win power in Provincial elections. When Conservative governments are in power in Ottawa, Liberals and the NDP tend to win in the provinces.
While the Saskatchewan party claimed victory in the first post-Harper election in the Land of Living Skies and Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives won in Newfoundland, it's worth noting that Rodney MacDonald's Conservatives were defeated by the NDP, Gordon Campbell's Liberals retained power in British Columbia and Gary Doer's NDP won the 2007 vote in Manitoba.
To expect that Hudak alone will be enough to buck this trend in Ontario and deliver salvation to the federal Tories is, in and of itself, a bit of a pipe dream. Hudak has to be up to the task, and we have yet to see if he actually is.
Lloyd Mackey provides a reasonable list of the differing philosophical strains on conservatism. He classifies them as following:
1. Fiscal conservatism - This is the strain of conservatism that prefers controls on government taxation and spending. This is also the very strain of conservatism that Daifallah seems to appeal to most in this article.
2. Social conservatism - Social conservatives prefer family-friendly policies and government regulation -- if not outright prohibition -- of abortion. This particular strain of conservatism has found itself at odds with Human Rights Commissions as many of its most vociferous proponents find themselves paraded before them on an ongoing basis.
3. Democratic populism - Democratic populism insists that the spirit of democracy is found in the will of the people. It favours the "common sense of common people", and has been most strongly represented nationally by Preston Manning.
4. Progressive Conservatism - Progressive conservatism, as embodied by leaders such as Joe Clark, John Diefenbaker and the late Robert Stanfield, advocates using conservatism to moderate political and social change.
5. British Toryism - Proponents of British Toryism favour the preservation of existing institutions, including current parliamentary structures and offices such as Canada's various vice-regal offices such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.
6. Libertarianism - Libertarians prefer that government stay out of the lives of its citizens as much as possible. Libertarians favour as much freedom as possible for citizens, and tend to be the strongest voices in favour of small government.
Of Mackey's six strains of Canadian conservatism, only one -- British Toryism -- arguably sets the table to favour the salvation of Canadian conservatism by a single leader.
Where the other strains of conservatism -- notably libertarianism and democratic populism -- weigh in on this topic, they weigh in against such an option.
Where Daifallah would argue that Tim Hudak is the one man who can save conservatism in Canada, democratic populists would rebel against the notion of any single leader leading Canadian conservatism without a strong consensus to back his direction. That was the act that Preston Manning accomplished so masterfully as leader of the Reform party.
Libertarians would point out the sheer scope of the power, influence and authority conservatives would have to grant such an individual upon being annointed as a conservative "messiah". Libertarians would reject such a notion outright.
Small-p, small-c progressive conservatives would find the urge to reject Hudak as a conservative saviour almost irresistable. To such individuals, Hudak represents the kind of ideologically-isolated neoconservatism that is utterly offensive to their particular values, even as fiscal and social conservatives would likely react favourably to Hudak in such a role.
Contrary to whatever Adam Daifallah may like to believe about Tim Hudak, no one man can save conservatism. Not in Ontario, and not in the rest of Canada. Rather, conservatives must save conservatism together by maintaining the common bonds between its varying -- although often over-simplified, by Lloyd Mackey's own admission -- strains.
Conservatism must save itself.
Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah all but annoints Tim Hudak as the saviour of conservatism not only in Ontario, but perhaps in all of Canada:
"Tim Hudak's ascension to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is an important development in the Canadian conservative movement for several reasons. Most importantly, it represents a clean break from the rudderless and inept leadership that has guided the party for more than five years. Let's not mince words: Ernie Eves and John Tory were unmitigated disasters as leaders. Hudak represents a clear return to the conviction-based politics that vaulted the Tories to power -- and kept them there -- in the 1990s."It would be unreasonable to suggest that Tory and Eves, as leaders, could not have done more.
That being said, it's unreasonable to overlook the fact that, as leaders, Tory and Eves had to work with what Harris had left behind him when he resigned as leader. It wasn't a pretty sight.
Mike Harris left behind him an extremely unpopular incumbent party, which had failed to deliver on its espoused fiscally conservative principles, had made controversial moves in relation to education and relations with municipal governments, and had often stirred up a wasp's nest of public protest against it.
To saddle Tory and Eves firmly with the failure of the Ontario Tories to retain power -- or win it back from Dalton McGuinty in the years since -- is partially unfair. While one cannot overlook their own failures as leaders, one also has to remember the position Harris had left them in.
Yet Daifallah seems to believe that only a leader practically hand-picked by Harris can deliver the Ontario Tories from the ignominous position they currently find themselves in.
"For the first time in recent memory, during the course of the leadership race no candidate ran on an explicitly centre-left platform. Hudak, runner-up Frank Klees and maverick Randy Hillier all staked out clear conservative ground. Christine Elliott ran a formidable campaign and was essentially forced into positioning herself as the centrist candidate due to crowding on the right. (Frequent cheerleading from the Toronto Star also helped burnish her image in that regard.)"Daifallah seems to do everything but label Elliott Liberal-lite.
"Elliott miscalculated in making the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- a cause championed by Hudak and Hiller -- a wedge issue. This didn't sit well with Hudak's and Hillier's supporters, whose second-choice votes she needed to gain in the preferential ballot voting system. Her announcement that she would implement a flat tax if elected -- effectively outflanking Hudak on the right -- sent an electroshock through the other camps. In the end, Elliott proved to be a master of the air war, but lacked the ground game necessary to mount a serious challenge."But Daifallah would be foolish to insist that the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not, in and of itself, designed to be a wedge issue.
Hudak used that policy as a method to determine those who were, allegedly, true conservatives from those who were simply "Liberal lite" -- a label he applied to both Elliott and Klees.
"The significance of the Hudak victory should not be downplayed. The Ontario Tories now have a leader who, unlike his predecessor, won't shy away from drawing clear distinctions between himself and the McGuinty Liberals. Hudak believes in ideas -- he won't be afraid of making bold proposals going forward. His mandate of presenting policies that respect conservative principles yet recognize the current difficult economic context will neutralize Liberal attempts to paint him as a reincarnation of Mike Harris."And yet Hudak's branding of himself as a "common sense conservative" has already done so much to accomplish this very act.
Distancing himself from Harris will be a difficult act for someone who enjoyed such fervent support from Harris to do. And, really, one may wonder what reason Hudak would have to want to distance himself from who has proven to be his most valuable supporter.
"The McGuinty government is vulnerable on almost every important issue: Ontario's economy is in shambles, taxes are up, spending has soared with no correlative improvement in service quality, unemployment is skyrocketing and the deficit and debt have ballooned. Admittedly, not all of these problems are Dalton McGuinty's own fault, but in politics, the party in power wears the good news and the bad, regardless of its cause.Hudak has yet to accomplish anything during his (to date short) audition to be Premier of Ontario.
The next provincial election is still more than two years away. Anything can happen in that time, and it is still unknown whether McGuinty will run for a third term. But if he does, he will be ripe for defeat as an out-of-touch, tired leader who bungled the economy. In the meantime, the way Hudak conducts himself as opposition leader will have important ramifications far beyond Ontario politics."
Yet Daifallah already seems to have Hudak pegged as a successor to Stephen Harper's leadership of Canadian conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism:
"Small-c conservatives across the country are disheartened by the Harper government's numerous capitulations on a whole host of red-meat issues. They are desperately looking for a new champion for the conservative cause. If Hudak can make conservative policies stick and bring the Ontario Tories up in the polls -- and, in the unlikely event that the 2011 election occurs before the next federal campaign, win a government -- it will give great comfort to principled conservatives to know that their ideas still have traction. It would also discredit the Harper government's calculation that the public is only interested in statist solutions to the current economic situation."Yet Daifallah seems to be overlooking what the historical trend in Canadian politics has tended to be.
That is, when Liberal governments reign in Ottawa, Conservatives tend to win power in Provincial elections. When Conservative governments are in power in Ottawa, Liberals and the NDP tend to win in the provinces.
While the Saskatchewan party claimed victory in the first post-Harper election in the Land of Living Skies and Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives won in Newfoundland, it's worth noting that Rodney MacDonald's Conservatives were defeated by the NDP, Gordon Campbell's Liberals retained power in British Columbia and Gary Doer's NDP won the 2007 vote in Manitoba.
To expect that Hudak alone will be enough to buck this trend in Ontario and deliver salvation to the federal Tories is, in and of itself, a bit of a pipe dream. Hudak has to be up to the task, and we have yet to see if he actually is.
"Tim Hudak as Canadian conservatism's saviour? Someone needs to assume the role, and I know he would relish it."Not only does Daifallah's analysis of Hudak's emerging role within Canadian conservatism seem overly Wagnerian, it's also deftly out of touch with the roots of the conservative movement in Canada.
Lloyd Mackey provides a reasonable list of the differing philosophical strains on conservatism. He classifies them as following:
1. Fiscal conservatism - This is the strain of conservatism that prefers controls on government taxation and spending. This is also the very strain of conservatism that Daifallah seems to appeal to most in this article.
2. Social conservatism - Social conservatives prefer family-friendly policies and government regulation -- if not outright prohibition -- of abortion. This particular strain of conservatism has found itself at odds with Human Rights Commissions as many of its most vociferous proponents find themselves paraded before them on an ongoing basis.
3. Democratic populism - Democratic populism insists that the spirit of democracy is found in the will of the people. It favours the "common sense of common people", and has been most strongly represented nationally by Preston Manning.
4. Progressive Conservatism - Progressive conservatism, as embodied by leaders such as Joe Clark, John Diefenbaker and the late Robert Stanfield, advocates using conservatism to moderate political and social change.
5. British Toryism - Proponents of British Toryism favour the preservation of existing institutions, including current parliamentary structures and offices such as Canada's various vice-regal offices such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.
6. Libertarianism - Libertarians prefer that government stay out of the lives of its citizens as much as possible. Libertarians favour as much freedom as possible for citizens, and tend to be the strongest voices in favour of small government.
Of Mackey's six strains of Canadian conservatism, only one -- British Toryism -- arguably sets the table to favour the salvation of Canadian conservatism by a single leader.
Where the other strains of conservatism -- notably libertarianism and democratic populism -- weigh in on this topic, they weigh in against such an option.
Where Daifallah would argue that Tim Hudak is the one man who can save conservatism in Canada, democratic populists would rebel against the notion of any single leader leading Canadian conservatism without a strong consensus to back his direction. That was the act that Preston Manning accomplished so masterfully as leader of the Reform party.
Libertarians would point out the sheer scope of the power, influence and authority conservatives would have to grant such an individual upon being annointed as a conservative "messiah". Libertarians would reject such a notion outright.
Small-p, small-c progressive conservatives would find the urge to reject Hudak as a conservative saviour almost irresistable. To such individuals, Hudak represents the kind of ideologically-isolated neoconservatism that is utterly offensive to their particular values, even as fiscal and social conservatives would likely react favourably to Hudak in such a role.
Contrary to whatever Adam Daifallah may like to believe about Tim Hudak, no one man can save conservatism. Not in Ontario, and not in the rest of Canada. Rather, conservatives must save conservatism together by maintaining the common bonds between its varying -- although often over-simplified, by Lloyd Mackey's own admission -- strains.
Conservatism must save itself.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Ontario Working Families Coalition Not a Legitimate Third Party Advertiser
Difference between legitimate third parties and front groups
According to the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, the Working Families Coalition is merely a front group for the Ontario Liberal party, and they want Elections Ontario to designate it as such.
The group, established and funded by education and trades unions in 2002, was established (in the words of Gary O’Neil) “to give a voice to working men, women and their families throughout Ontario.”
According to Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove, the groups purpose is very different. It was established “to make sure the Tories don’t get elected here.”
O’Neil himself is the president of Operating Engineers local 793, a union that has donated more than $65,000 to the Ontario Liberals since 2002.
In a video on the coalition’s website, O’Neil even regurgitates some typical Liberal-style talking points. “With an Ontario election on October 10th, we need to ensure we don’t return to policies of fear and division,” he insists.
The Working Families Coalition is very partisan, indeed. Does that in and of itself make them a “front group?”
Not necessarily.
Does the involvement of Don Guy, Dalton McGuinty’s reelection campaign director make them a front group?
Absolutely.
The involvement of those individuals at the very least undermines McGuinty’s claims that “They're an independent organization and they're going to do whatever they want to do.”
Yet, one can rest assured that so long as Guy and senior Liberal strategist Marcel Weider are involved with the coalition, “whatever they want to do” will probably involve continuing partisan attacks against John Tory and the Conservative party.
That’s far from being independent.
Of course, to regulate every individual interest group as part of a party’s campaign every time they released a partisan statement would actually be setting a very risky precedent.
The right of individual lobby groups to support parties and candidates that support their cause is part and parcel of democratic freedom, and the right to be involved in the democratic process. This is one of the reasons why putting spending limits on third-party campaign advertising is fundamentally wrong.
Gary O’Neil and the Operating Engineers union have every right to donate money to any political party of their choosing. They have the right to support any party they wish, and they have the right to do so as a third party if they so choose, or to do so by becoming directly involved in their party of choice’s campaign.
These two acts, however, are inherently different from one another, and both must be regarded differently by elections law.
To this end, Canada clearly needs new rules regarding who actually qualifies as a third party, and who doesn’t.
The Canadian Auto Workers Union, along with most of the groups backing the WFC (although some may find it difficult to explain how white-collar engineers such as O’Neil qualify as “working families”), qualify as legitimate third parties, holding only indirect links to the Liberal party and New Democrats.
The Working Families Coalition, considering its brazenly partisan foundation, doesn’t. Through Guy and Wieder, the WFC holds some direct links to the Ontario Liberals and their campaign. No Gun, No Funeral doesn’t either. It can be traced directly to Michael Bryant, and as such, both organizations should be counted toward the Ontario Liberal party’s campaign spending.
Colby Cosh is right about one thing: the government can’t regulate partisanship, nor should it try. It can, however, investigate who is involved in interest groups and determine precisely who is pulling the strings. When that turns out to be political candidates and their campaign staffers, it’s pretty fair to conclude that these organizations are being used to tip toe around election spending limits and stage shadow campaigns against their political opponents.
A shadow campaign is still a campaign, and should still count toward election expenses, at least when the candidates are directly involved.
According to the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, the Working Families Coalition is merely a front group for the Ontario Liberal party, and they want Elections Ontario to designate it as such.
The group, established and funded by education and trades unions in 2002, was established (in the words of Gary O’Neil) “to give a voice to working men, women and their families throughout Ontario.”
According to Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove, the groups purpose is very different. It was established “to make sure the Tories don’t get elected here.”
O’Neil himself is the president of Operating Engineers local 793, a union that has donated more than $65,000 to the Ontario Liberals since 2002.
In a video on the coalition’s website, O’Neil even regurgitates some typical Liberal-style talking points. “With an Ontario election on October 10th, we need to ensure we don’t return to policies of fear and division,” he insists.
The Working Families Coalition is very partisan, indeed. Does that in and of itself make them a “front group?”
Not necessarily.
Does the involvement of Don Guy, Dalton McGuinty’s reelection campaign director make them a front group?
Absolutely.
The involvement of those individuals at the very least undermines McGuinty’s claims that “They're an independent organization and they're going to do whatever they want to do.”
Yet, one can rest assured that so long as Guy and senior Liberal strategist Marcel Weider are involved with the coalition, “whatever they want to do” will probably involve continuing partisan attacks against John Tory and the Conservative party.
That’s far from being independent.
Of course, to regulate every individual interest group as part of a party’s campaign every time they released a partisan statement would actually be setting a very risky precedent.
The right of individual lobby groups to support parties and candidates that support their cause is part and parcel of democratic freedom, and the right to be involved in the democratic process. This is one of the reasons why putting spending limits on third-party campaign advertising is fundamentally wrong.
Gary O’Neil and the Operating Engineers union have every right to donate money to any political party of their choosing. They have the right to support any party they wish, and they have the right to do so as a third party if they so choose, or to do so by becoming directly involved in their party of choice’s campaign.
These two acts, however, are inherently different from one another, and both must be regarded differently by elections law.
To this end, Canada clearly needs new rules regarding who actually qualifies as a third party, and who doesn’t.
The Canadian Auto Workers Union, along with most of the groups backing the WFC (although some may find it difficult to explain how white-collar engineers such as O’Neil qualify as “working families”), qualify as legitimate third parties, holding only indirect links to the Liberal party and New Democrats.
The Working Families Coalition, considering its brazenly partisan foundation, doesn’t. Through Guy and Wieder, the WFC holds some direct links to the Ontario Liberals and their campaign. No Gun, No Funeral doesn’t either. It can be traced directly to Michael Bryant, and as such, both organizations should be counted toward the Ontario Liberal party’s campaign spending.
Colby Cosh is right about one thing: the government can’t regulate partisanship, nor should it try. It can, however, investigate who is involved in interest groups and determine precisely who is pulling the strings. When that turns out to be political candidates and their campaign staffers, it’s pretty fair to conclude that these organizations are being used to tip toe around election spending limits and stage shadow campaigns against their political opponents.
A shadow campaign is still a campaign, and should still count toward election expenses, at least when the candidates are directly involved.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Highway of Heroes Long Overdue
Dalton McGuinty promises to consider online petition
For decades, the Vimy Ridge memorial has been more to Canadians than merely a pair of concrete spires built on French land ceded to Canada after World War I.
It's become a part of Canadian culture.
Today, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty took a step toward making a similar emerging part of Canadian culture official: renaming Ontario's Highway 401 the "Highway of Heroes".
In recent years, thousands of Canadians have flocked to Highway 401 to honour many of Canada's fallen soldiers as they return from Afghanistan.
Joe Warmington, a columnist with the Toronto Sun was among those who coined the name for the now 60-year-old highway, completed shortly after the Second World War. "It is the Highway of Heroes because the history of Highway 401, particularly from Trenton to Toronto, has changed. And it's changed because dozens of Canadians have been carried home in flag-draped caskets from a war zone far away."
The highway indeed has changed. Just as Vimy Ridge has changed from a patch of French countryside into a symbol of sacrifice, Highway 401 has been changed from a mere stretch of freeway into a symbol of courage.
In the end, while McGuinty's promise may be encouraging, perhaps it matters very little.
"Thousands of people have come out to pay tribute along the routes, so this highway will always be the Highway of Heroes whether you put the sign up or you don't," Warmington announced.
Perhaps it's fitting. Vimy Ridge would have always been Vimy Ridge, regardless of whether or not it was recognized as an official memorial. And so it is with Highway 401, Canada's Highway of Heroes. Sometimes sacrifice doesn't need a plaque or a sign, it only needs respect in the hearts and minds of the people that sacrifice was made for.
That being said, Highway 401 already is, and will always be, the Highway of Heroes.
It's time to make that official.
For decades, the Vimy Ridge memorial has been more to Canadians than merely a pair of concrete spires built on French land ceded to Canada after World War I.
It's become a part of Canadian culture.
Today, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty took a step toward making a similar emerging part of Canadian culture official: renaming Ontario's Highway 401 the "Highway of Heroes".
In recent years, thousands of Canadians have flocked to Highway 401 to honour many of Canada's fallen soldiers as they return from Afghanistan.
Joe Warmington, a columnist with the Toronto Sun was among those who coined the name for the now 60-year-old highway, completed shortly after the Second World War. "It is the Highway of Heroes because the history of Highway 401, particularly from Trenton to Toronto, has changed. And it's changed because dozens of Canadians have been carried home in flag-draped caskets from a war zone far away."
The highway indeed has changed. Just as Vimy Ridge has changed from a patch of French countryside into a symbol of sacrifice, Highway 401 has been changed from a mere stretch of freeway into a symbol of courage.
In the end, while McGuinty's promise may be encouraging, perhaps it matters very little.
"Thousands of people have come out to pay tribute along the routes, so this highway will always be the Highway of Heroes whether you put the sign up or you don't," Warmington announced.
Perhaps it's fitting. Vimy Ridge would have always been Vimy Ridge, regardless of whether or not it was recognized as an official memorial. And so it is with Highway 401, Canada's Highway of Heroes. Sometimes sacrifice doesn't need a plaque or a sign, it only needs respect in the hearts and minds of the people that sacrifice was made for.
That being said, Highway 401 already is, and will always be, the Highway of Heroes.
It's time to make that official.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
No Appeal Court Victory Lane for Street Racer
Drag-racing Edmontonian hits red light in his race for an appeal
When The Fast and the Furious was released in 2001, it had an immediate affect on pop culture.
One of them was to convince lead-foot-wannabes that a Honda Civic is actually a really cool car (it isn't). Another was the popularization of street racing.
Street racing has begun to take a toll on our city streets, claiming lives across Canada, as street racers fan out in search of their thrill of choice.
Fortunately, a line has recently been drawn in the sand, as the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear the appeal of Edmonton's Rick Richardson, who was convicted of dangerous driving causing death when his Corvette mowed down Irene Nicholson (she was on the sidewalk when she was hit).
Witnesses report that Richardson pulled his Corvette up beside another Corvette at a traffic light, then raced him from the green light. He lost control of his car during the acceleration and wiped out Nicholson, who was a mere two blocks from her home.
Richardson has insisted that the computer chip that governs his car's traction management system malfunctioned.
Of course, those of us with any sense in our heads know different: it was Richardson's brain that malfunctioned.
Regardless of whatever malfunctions may have occurred in Richardson's car (and he would have to prove this), his car didn't choose the rate of acceleration for him -- he did. Richardson's car didn't choose to race -- he did.
Richardson's appeal simply would have been a waste of time.
Cases such as this, however, merely underscore the need to legislate against street racing so that it can be dealt with directly in criminal courts, not merely as cases tried under other statutes. All of Canada's provinces would do well to emulate the Dalton McGuinty Ontario government's approach. A $10,000 fine will probably smarten up most of the 2 Fast 2 Furious crowd.
And smartening is something they could definitely use.
The federal government also attempted to address street racing would impose stronger punishments on convicted street racers.Yet, according to the Library of Parliament Bill C-65 hasn't yet passed its third reading, despite having been before parliament for a year.
The courts have made an uncharacteristic stand in this particular case, and it's time for the federal government to do the same, stop dragging its feed on bill C-65, and get the job done.
As far as movies concerned, Universal Studios would be doing the public a tremendous favour by simply letting this film series die a merciful death. It wouldn't only be striking a blow against the popularity of street racing, it would also be striking a blow against lousy movies.
Besides: Paul Walker's career is over anyway.
When The Fast and the Furious was released in 2001, it had an immediate affect on pop culture.
One of them was to convince lead-foot-wannabes that a Honda Civic is actually a really cool car (it isn't). Another was the popularization of street racing.
Street racing has begun to take a toll on our city streets, claiming lives across Canada, as street racers fan out in search of their thrill of choice.
Fortunately, a line has recently been drawn in the sand, as the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear the appeal of Edmonton's Rick Richardson, who was convicted of dangerous driving causing death when his Corvette mowed down Irene Nicholson (she was on the sidewalk when she was hit).
Witnesses report that Richardson pulled his Corvette up beside another Corvette at a traffic light, then raced him from the green light. He lost control of his car during the acceleration and wiped out Nicholson, who was a mere two blocks from her home.
Richardson has insisted that the computer chip that governs his car's traction management system malfunctioned.
Of course, those of us with any sense in our heads know different: it was Richardson's brain that malfunctioned.
Regardless of whatever malfunctions may have occurred in Richardson's car (and he would have to prove this), his car didn't choose the rate of acceleration for him -- he did. Richardson's car didn't choose to race -- he did.
Richardson's appeal simply would have been a waste of time.
Cases such as this, however, merely underscore the need to legislate against street racing so that it can be dealt with directly in criminal courts, not merely as cases tried under other statutes. All of Canada's provinces would do well to emulate the Dalton McGuinty Ontario government's approach. A $10,000 fine will probably smarten up most of the 2 Fast 2 Furious crowd.
And smartening is something they could definitely use.
The federal government also attempted to address street racing would impose stronger punishments on convicted street racers.Yet, according to the Library of Parliament Bill C-65 hasn't yet passed its third reading, despite having been before parliament for a year.
The courts have made an uncharacteristic stand in this particular case, and it's time for the federal government to do the same, stop dragging its feed on bill C-65, and get the job done.
As far as movies concerned, Universal Studios would be doing the public a tremendous favour by simply letting this film series die a merciful death. It wouldn't only be striking a blow against the popularity of street racing, it would also be striking a blow against lousy movies.
Besides: Paul Walker's career is over anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)