I’m on the train on my way back to Ottawa for the return of
Parliament after spending the weekend in Toronto for the Ontario Liberal Party
Annual General Meeting. And before my train even left the station I needed to
come up with 10 new thoughts. Life moves pretty fast. Unlike my delayed train.
1. 1. No one won today. Not the Crombie loyalists. Not
the Nate-stans or New Leafers. Not the OLP rank and file. And not Ontarians
that want a credible alternative to Ford. Rebuilding will be on hold yet another
round of leadership drama. So maybe Doug Ford and Marit Stiles won.
2. 2. Crombie had no choice. The artificial bar set by
the New Leafers was silly. But realistically, she needed over 60%. Under that,
it would be challenging. Without a united caucus, it would be impossible.
Caucus wasn’t united. Credit to her for recognizing it fairly quickly. Her
position had become untenable. She’ll stay on until a new leader is picked.
John Fraser is sparred a third interim leadership.
3. 3. I heard a lot of talk this weekend about early
nominations. They are important. They’re not going to happen this cycle. Sure,
you could open things up during a leadership race. But how do you get serious
people to invest the time and the money in a run when they don’t know who their
leader is going to be?
4. 4. If this leadership isn’t going to be a wasted
year or more, we need the party executive to step up. We have a huge executive,
and they have not been as active as they could or should be for years. The workI’ve argued really needs to happen doesn’t need to wait for a leader. The
president and her team need to start now with rebuilding dormant riding associations,
building up local organizational and fundraising capacity, and recruiting and
training campaign workers and managers. And our two relatively new commissions –
Seniors, and Rural and Northern – have importantwork to do too. This work can’t wait. Rebuild
that big red machine so the new leader can hit the ground running. It’s not
easy, but they need to run a leadership and a rebuild at the same time.
5. 5. Lots of people will take credit for what happened
this weekend. In my last post, I posited Crombie had two opposition groups: the
Nate loyalists and the Liberals who believe governing is our manifest destiny.
I believe it’s the latter group that were the silent plurality of those that
voted Yes for a leadership review. They are frustrated with three straight
election losses. I share their frustration. But if they don’t step up to be
part of the rebuild, we’ll all be back here in the same place in four years.
6. 6. Let’s not overlook the good Crombie did. She increased
our vote. She raised a lot of money. She grew our caucus and got us back to official
party status. She rescued the party from near oblivion and left a strong
base for her successor to build on. We saw early fruits of that work with a
well-run convention this weekend.
7. 7. Let’s not overlook the bad of the Crombie era.
There’s lots. But I will highlight a few. Biggest of all, she had a weak core
team that were poor organizers, made bad decisions, and didn’t see an election
coming that everyone else in the province saw coming a mile away. There is no
excuse for how poorly prepared the party entered that election. And these were a lot of the same
people that have been in these roles since the McGuinty years. This party needs
a new generation of competent organizational leadership around the next leader.
8. 8. Can we get Brian Gallant to take up residency
here? His speech was great. It was a clear call for compassionate and
progressive Liberal values. He clearly has national ambitions. Carney needs to
bring him into the fold.
9. 9.The texts and WhatsApps are already burning up with
leadership speculation. Navdeep Bains. Jeff Lehman. Probably Nate. Probably a
surprise or two. If Bains runs, he will run away with it. If he doesn’t run, It’s
wide-open. But I know who I won’t be voting for.
10. 10. I
can’t end without a food review. The OLP hands-down beats the federal party
when it comes to feeding their convention attendees. Great spread for lunch on
Saturday. Two salads, pasta, haddock, chicken, two deserts, soup and bread. At federal
biennials, I don’t recall any free food outside the Laurier lounge.
I have been confirmed as a voting delegate from Ottawa Centre
for the upcoming Ontario Liberal Party annual meeting in Toronto, and I will be
voting against a leadership review. Not because I think Bonnie Crombie has done
an amazing job – in fact, I have a long list of issues– but because I think dumping
the leader again and again and expecting different results without doing any of
the hard rebuilding work needed is the definition of insanity, and would ensure
Doug Ford rule until he gets tired of pretending to be Premier.
Let’s start with Crombie. I ended up voting for her after my
initial pick dropped out, and she was the more electable of the candidates on
offer. The others left standing were worse choices. And the arguments for her
were compelling: Liberal credentials but an OLP outsider, a proven fundraiser,
and someone who could help win back the Blue Liberals that we need to win back in
areas like Peel and York regions.
Did she deliver? Some yes, lots of no.
Pros: she raised a lot of money. I was a deputy campaign
manager in a swing riding where we came up just short; the centre provided a
lot of support in calling and IDs.The
size of caucus increased sharply, we regained official party status, and the
resources that comes with have allowed for more resources that will pay
dividends in the years ahead. Our caucus has always punched above its weight
and now, with more resources and strong new MPPs, it continually outshines the NDP’s
performative opposition. And we got a helluva lot more votes – it just wasn’t
as efficient as we would have liked.
Cons: She lost her own seat. Yes, Patrick Brown sent
in half of Brampton to campaign for his mother-in-law and against Crombie. But
a loss is a loss and this was embarrassing. On taking the leadership, she
brought in a lot of the same old people that have been running things back to
McGuinty. I voted for renewal and she delivered more of the same. The scramble
to find candidates for an election that it seemed obvious everyone knew was coming
was a major organizational failure. The central campaign lacked focus and
organization.
So, why not vote for a new leadership process? Because doing
so would not address any of the things that are wrong with out party. The
problem with the OLP isn’t Bonnie Crombie. It wasn’t Steven Del Duca either. I
voted for Michael Coteau and I couldn’t stand Del Duca’s vests, but I don’t think
Coteau would have done any better than he did.
The problem is that successive leaders have allowed the
party apparatus to atrophy. Riding associations have gone dormant. We got used
to being in government and being sent policy and organizers and messaging and campaign
managers from on high. We stopped grassroots organizing, we stopped building
the capacity at the riding and the regional level so that there were teams and
organization ready to go locally when the writ is dropped.
That’s the responsibility of the leader, yes. And the party
executive – they have largely escaped responsibility here. And the party
grassroots. There is no big red machine. It’s each of us committing to the
party’s renewal and revival. That is where the renewal needs to take place.
So I’m supporting Crombie, albeit reluctantly. Not because I
am convinced she has recognized the problem. But because it we dump the leader
(again) it guarantees that for two years we will be focused on leadership
shenanigans instead of what really ails the OLP.
Can she pull this out? Maybe. But I haven’t seen the things I
would want to see from her yet. Namely, a fulsome mea culpa on the 2025 campaign
and her shortcomings, a recognition of the deeper organizational issues with
the party, and a commitment to change.
I would put her opposition into two categories, and here is
where I will upset the other half of the party. Half are diehard Liberals who
view government as our manifest destiny and any election short of government as
a failure. I think she can win them over with the recognitions I have outlined –
a recognition of the problems and a plan to fix them, building on a stronger
base thanks to the 2025 results.
The other opposition group are the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
acolytes who never got over him not winning the leadership and have always
viewed Crombie, despite her long history in Liberal politics well pre-dating his,
as a Conservative plant. These folks will not be dissuaded from their position.
And for all the reasons I put him last on my ballot for OLP leader last time,
he is not the answer to anything this time.
So that’s where I land. I am voting for a slim hope for
renewal versus the guarantee of two years of no chance of real renewal because
another leadership race will not solve what’s really wrong.
Back when the federal party was deep in the woods, as a
leadership candidate, Justin Trudeau astutely made the point that the party
could not rely on his personal charisma or family name to rebuild the party – it
would take hope and hard work and collective effort by everyone. He did end up
being a bit of a messiah anyways but his point was bang on.
As Liberals, we have a habit of investing all the credit for
our successes and responsibility for our failures with the leader. And sometimes you get lucky,
whether its with the son of a popular former Prime Minister born on Christmas
Day, or a former central banker arriving on the scene when the US is declaring
economic war.
But other times, you have a nice guy from Vaughan with a penchant
for sweater vests or a lady from Mississauga trying her best. It’s not fair to
expect them to carry us. Yes, we need to hold our leaders accountable. But we
need to hold ourselves accountable as well.
My friend Nancy LeBlanc (you may also know her as Impolitical) is running for the Ontario Liberal nomination in Parkdale-High Park, and I think she's going to beat the NDP's Cheri DiNovo in the next election. Why? Because she'll work harder.
I haven't met many people -- particularly candidates -- that genuinely enjoy canvassing as much as Nancy does. Every election and byelection she's out at the doors, and now that she's running for a nomination herself, she's been going door to door for months, selling memberships and engaging with the residents of Parkdale-High Park.
Her campaign recently released this video, and it really captures Nancy. Her optimism, her enthusiasm, and her genuine desire to connect with people and listen, not just talk.
If you live in the riding, I hope you'll sign up to support Nancy. You can learn lots more about her campaign, which she's calling a campaign for representation, on her web site, Facebook and Twitter.
Here's an example of some pretty cynical political pandering from Ontario's NDP, as it decides to sidle up to Toronto's crack-smoking mayor Rob Ford in a misguided attempt to score political points.
Back in November, when there was discussion about whether the province should intervene in the drama surrounding Ford and Toronto's city council, Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath rightly said it should be up to the council to decide how it wanted to proceed.
"At this point, I think it's really important to maintain a position of respect for that council. They were elected by their local community, the mayor and city councillors. This is something that they have responsibility for, and I respect their role," she said.
And council acted, deciding to strip Ford of the bulk of his powers and hand the running of the city over to deputy mayor Norm Kelly, leaving Ford with just ceremonial duties and interviews with U.S. sports radio stations.
Fast-forward to this week. Ford wants a meeting with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to discuss provincial help for the city dealing with the aftermath of the holiday ice storm. Wynne says, in accordance with the wishes of Toronto's city council, she'll meet with Kelly, but not Ford.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said that even if city council has stripped Ford of many of his mayoral powers, the polite thing to do would be to take the meeting.
“I was raised in a family that common courtesy was an important value and so I think the common courtesy of a response to a mayor’s request for a meeting is something that’s pretty easy to fulfil,” she said.
I disagree with Horwath here. Toronto city council has been clear -- Norm Kelly is running the city, because Ford has become a distracting embarrassment. Kelly is the person Wynne should deal with.
Hmm, how should I put it?
"I think it's really important to maintain a position of respect for that council. They were elected by their local community, the mayor and city councillors. This is something that they have responsibility for, and I respect their role."
Exactly, Ms. Horwath from two months ago. Exactly.
Its patently obvious that Rob Ford is out to score political points by either getting a meeting with the Premier to show he's still running things, despite the clearly expressed wishes of council, or playing the victim if she respects the wishes of council. This is about his re-election campaign.
Ford has enough enablers. Horwath shouldn't be one of them. Yet she is, just to take a shot at Premier Wynne.
After about two hours
sleep, I made the trek downtown from Scarborough bright and early
Saturday morning to see if I had a shot at being promoted from
alternate to voting delegate, and would have the opportunity to casta vote for Gerard Kennedy in the Ontario Liberal leadership race.
Alas, I wasn't on the list, so I could only watch, cheer, persuade, and hope for the best.
Paths to victory
Going in, Kennedy was a
long-shot, but there was a path to victory for him. It had to happen
early, though.
The first ballot results were pretty well set based on
the results of delegate selection. In my mind, we would know in the
20 minutes between the announcement of those first-ballot results and
the deadline to drop off 2nd ballot voluntarily if he was
going to have a shot at winning. If he – or Charles Sousa or
Harinder Takhar for that matter – were going to have a shot at
winning, one of them had to go to the other before that ballot was
set. If Kennedy picked up someone's support it would have shown
momentum and moved him within reasonable striking-distance of the two
frontrunners, Kathleen Wynne and Sandra Pupatello, making him a
legitimate choice for delegates not sold on either of the top two.
But if he didn't pick up that support early, in that 20 minutes, the
victory of one of the top two would be inevitable, and delegates
would make their choice between the two.
Rumours abounded on the
hospitality circuit that Takhar would drop to go to Kennedy, and
early, perhaps delivering an endorsement during his speech. It seemed
likely Eric Hoskins would go to Wynne, possibly delivering an
endorsement during his speech, so Kennedy needed Takhar to have a
path to victory on Saturday.
So maybe speeches do
matter
Once the program got
underway, the focus of the morning was the demonstration and
speeches, with each leadership candidate having 30 minutes to make
their final pitch to the delegates.
I hadn't been following
the leadership race too closely, having been somewhat preoccupiedwith the federal affair, so I was interested in learning more about
the candidates. Of course I knew Kennedy, and had formed impressions
of Pupatello, Wynne and Hoskins, but knew little about Sousa and
Takhar.
Takhar had a strong
speech, with some good policy but a very compelling personal
narrative. His story about his immigration to Canada, and the
compromises he had to make to his religious and cultural identity in
order to find employment, was powerful. It reminded us of how far we
have come, that he could now be on this stage as a leadership
contender, but also reminded us of how far we still have to go. For
those hoping for an early move to Kennedy though, the speech ended
with no announcement.
Kennedy was up next,
and his team's blue day two swag (tied to a Kennedy wave message) was
a visible presence in the arena. Someone on Twitter remarked he
delivered an address that reminded his supporters why they supported
him, but may not have swayed other delegates. I think that was
probably fair. I know his message resonated with me. It hit the
issues I care about, from party reform to education, and made me
proud to have supported him. But as much as I like the message, it
seemed to lack a certain energy, a certain call to movement.
Wynne spoke third, but
it was undoubtedly the climatic moment of the morning. There are some
pundits that say speeches don't matter at these things. These people
are full of crap. This was a delegated convention, her audience was
all in that room, and their second choice votes were up for grabs.
And with the two frontrunners in a dead heat, the speeches could make
a real diference. And her's did. While the dancing was high-risk, it
played to the fun and high-energy nature of her presentation. She was
throwing a party, and you wanted to join. Her speech offered vision,
and it offered unity. It was aspirational. And it was bold, taking
head-on the “Ontario isn't ready for a gay premier” bullshit and
swatting it away. It dared us to be better. I was leaning that away
before, but she solidified my second choice support in those 30
minutes.
A lot of my organizer
friends were involved on Team Sousa, and they had a presence at the
convention that belied their delegate count. Their #CS521 (Charles
Sousa 5th to 1st) slogan bespoke their plucky
underdog spirit. His speech was well delivered and offered some
interesting and important policy prescriptions. But after the
emotional high of Wynne's address, he had a tough act to follow.
Pupatello's
presentation didn't really connect for me. It was well crafted and
delivered, it was professional, but it was just missing something for
me. She was a bit more blunt, a bit less conciliatory, and the tone
seemed a bit more suited to a post-vote victory address than an
appeal for support from people that may not have you as their first
choice. Contrasted to the tone of her brief concession remarks after
the final ballot – energetic, magnanimous, fun and spot on – the
tone just seemed off to me.
Rounding out the
program was Dr. Hoskins, who had the unfortunate slot of being
between the delegates, the media, and lunch (I had Chipotle, it was
excellent). Many were also expecting an endorsement from the stage,
with the rumour being a move to Pupatello, who, according to several
reports, had sent delegates to don Hoskins shirts to bolster his
floor demonstration. So between their desire to get to lunch and watch for an endorsement, many missed the content of a strong address from
a very accomplished man. Hoskins is one of those people we always say
we should have more of in politics, with as impressive a personal
biography as you'll ever see. Sadly, with the lowest delegate count
his first-ballot exit was inevitable. His speech ended with no
endorsement, and lunch could be procured (chicken burrito, no beans).
Ballot One
First, though, we would
get the results of the first ballot. This was less important than
what would happen immediately after: while the last place candidate
would be automatically dropped, the other candidates would have 20
minutes if they wanted to withdraw voluntarily from the next ballot.
And it was in this 20 minutes that the course of this race would be
decided.
On ballot one, it was:
Pupatello 599 votes
28.7%
Wynne: 597 votes 28.6%
Kennedy: 281 votes
13.5%
Takhar: 235 votes 11.3%
Sousa: 222 votes 10.7%
Hoskins 150 votes 7.2%
For my preferred
candidate, Gerard Kennedy, the next 20 minutes would determine if he
had a shot or not. The problem was that he was in the middle – far
enough back of the top two to be out of the pack, not far enough
ahead of the others to separate himself from them. He needed to pick
up Takhar, Sousa or Hoskins to vault himself into consideration.
Basically, if one of the 3rd-5th candidates going to win,
one of the others had to fall on their swords and make an early move to one of the others. Otherwise, either Wynne
or Pupatello would win, and each ballot they remained would only
prolong the inevitable.
Hoskins quickly made
his way to the Wynne camp, as most expected. It was an early momentum
boost for Team Wynne, who seemed to me to have greater growth
potential than Pupatello. When no further dropoffs were announced, I
began to wade through the crowds of people lining up to vote on ballot
two and head for the street, and my burrito. With Takhar staying on
the second ballot and no move to Kennedy, it wasn't looking good for
Gerard but it wasn't completely over yet. And then I made it to Carlton
Street, and it was.
Overhearing two
Pupatello delegates discussing Takhar's move to Sandra's camp, I
immediately turned to my BlackBerry and Twitter to confirm. Bad
rumours of moves to Pupatello had abounded all morning, but sadly,
CP24 confirmed this one has true. While he was still on the second
ballot, he had moved to endorse Pupatello. For her, it was a much
needed move to counter the momentum of Hoskins to Wynne. And for
Kennedy, it was the closure of his last path to victory. While it
seemed like a deal had been done the night before, it's never done
until it's done. Harinder decided to go another way, and the die was
cast: it would be Wynne or Pupatello, and Ontario would soon have its
first female premier.
Ballot Two
Coming back to the hall
from lunch buoyed by Chipotle goodness but saddened by the inevitable
defeat of my preferred candidate, many were already looking ahead to
second choices. The tide, to me, definitely seemed to be with Wynne.
I made arrangements to procure a Wynne scarf, which unlike much
convention swag is actually high quality and very warm, and shall be
my daily scarf through the rest of the winter. While some of my Kennedy
friends tried gamely to create scenarios, for most there was a sense
of resignation, and a strong feeling for Wynne as the next best
choice. Team Sousa seemed less willing to consider what would come
next, even as hopes for a CS521 faded. Team Wynne was energetic, Team
Pupatello, the frontrunners going in, seemed nervous.
The second ballot
results solidified the die that had been cast earlier in those
crucial 20 minutes:
Pupatello: 817 votes,
39.4%
Wynne: 750 votes, 36.2%
Kennedy: 285 votes,
13.7%
Sousa: 203 votes, 9.8%
Takhar: 18 votes, 0.9%
Kennedy only gained a
handful of votes; his path to victory was already closed. He could
stay on for further ballots, but it would only delay the inevitable.
Sousa had gained another ballot with Takhar not getting off the 2nd
ballot in time, but he too had no path to victory.
While Pupatello had
actually gained ground on Wynne from the first ballot, I actually
still liked Wynne's chances better. The gap wasn't wide enough, and her
growth potential was greater. At this point, the thinking was Kennedy
to Wynne, and Pupatello to Sousa. I saw Kennedy delivering most of
his support (which ideologically would be unlikely to go Pupatello)
with Sousa's likely splitting, creating a narrow Wynne victory.
Again, we had 20
minutes to see who, besides Takhar, might drop from the ballot and
move to another camp.
It happened quickly,
it happened dramatically, and it happened unexpectedly. Sousa was
the first to make a move, leaving his section of the arena stands
(which was beside Pupatello) and moving across the arena, toward
Wynne's. It was an unexpected move, and as I strained to follow from
the rafters, I wondered if he'd pull a fake-out and loop back around
the media risers to Pupatello's box. Then the cameras found him in
Wynne's literal and figurative embrace, a scarf draped around his
neck, and it was done. While there was much talk going in of Kennedy
as the queen maker, it was Sousa that sealed the deal, and likely the
finance minister's post in next week's cabinet shuffle. Kennedy's
move to Wynne shortly thereafter seemed inevitable, and wrapped a bow
around the likely outcome.
With the third ballot
cast, I headed out to the Holiday Inn to enjoy an adult beverage with
some Liberal friends without convention passes. What did give me
pause on my way out though was a large gaggle of Sousa delegates at
the coat check, clearly heading home without having voted. This thing wasn't decided yet – either candidate could come out on
top.
Third and final
ballot
As I enjoyed a glass of
wine next door at the hotel bar, I noted a good number of bar goers
wearing Wynne swag, but couldn't spot one wearing the gear of the
other front runner. I decided this could mean one of two things:
either Team Pupatello was working the vote too hard to take a break,
or they were in no mood for adult beverages. While I pondered this, I
learned that some sort of flood in the voting room had delayed
things, and so I ordered another glass of wine.
I finally did make my
way back into the arena – this time the protestors had cleared,
leaving behind only discarded protest signs and littered Tim Hortons
cups – and set back up in the rafters to await the result. And
after several false ten-minute warnings, it came:
Wynne: 1,150
Pupatello: 866
With both Sousa and Kennedy moving to Wynne, the result wasn't as close as it seemed it
may be earlier – it was a clear victory for Wynne. Pupatello was
magnanimous and genuine in defeat, and Wynne conciliatory and
inclusionary in victory. She promised a quick return to work with a
speedy recall of the legislature, and wasted to time reaching out
across party lines to the NDP and the Conservatives, the latter of
which wasted no time launching an attack ad.
It will be interesting
times ahead. Some pundits wasted no time saying a gay woman from
Toronto (actually, Richmond Hill, to be accurate) would never sell
outside the GTA. I have to say, I'd hate to be someone that has such
a low opinion of his fellow citizens. The people are often much more
progressive than their representatives or, to be more accurate, more
concerned with pocketbook issues than so-called values attacks.
Whenever the next election is, whether it be sooner or hopefully
later, everyone would do well to remember that.
I was proud to have
supported Gerard Kennedy. I don't know what the future holds for him,
but I hope we'll see him back in the legislature, as his talents are
needed. And I was proud to support Kathleen Wynne, and to have been there when such inspiring change came to Ontario. I heard one
astounding number later that night – 85 per cent of Canadians will
now have a female Premier. Maybe we're almost to the point where it
will no longer be noteworthy.
If you’re an Ontario Liberal voting in leadership election meetings this weekend, I hope you’ll consider supporting Gerard Kennedy and
your local Kennedy delegates. And if you’re voting in Scarborough-Centre, I’ll
be running as a Kennedy delegate and I’d greatly appreciate your support.
We have a lot of great candidates running for OLP that bring
a diversity of experience and perspective to the table. While it’s hard to find
fault with any of them, I feel that Gerard stands out from the pack for a
number of reasons.
One, he balances experience with fresh perspective. As the
minister of education from the first McGuinty government, he has governing and
cabinet experience. And having left for federal politics in 2006, he has some
distance from some of the issues that developed in the later years.
It’s going to be a tricky balancing act – we can’t run away
from our record, we need to recognize that tough decisions had to be and were
made in good faith, that some mistakes were unfortunately made, and that changes do need to be
made. I feel Gerard is best positioned to strike that balance. His experience
on the education file also offers the opportunity for a reset on what has
become a fractured relationship with the province's teachers, which I think
would be welcomed by all sides.
Second, I like Gerard’s policy positions. (Yes, I’m one of
the rare breed that thinks policy matters in a leadership race).
Third, with experience in both the federal and provincial
Liberal parties, he has first-hand perspective on what’s right and what’s wrong
internally, perspective that has informed his positions on much-needed party reform. And his point about shaking off “governmentitis” is bang-on.
Finally, for me picking a leader is about the intangibles. It’s
about judgment, temperament, and leadership style. I don’t expect to agree with
a leader on every issue. But I want to know that I can trust their
decision-making. While I may disagree with where they end up, I want to know
they will listen to all perspectives, weigh them carefully, and make the
decision they feel is best for the people.
I think his career, from running a food bank in Edmonton to
the Ontario cabinet to the federal Liberal caucus, shows that Gerard Kennedy is
in public service for the right reasons, is inclusive in his decision-making, and
will make the right calls for the right reasons.
That’s why he has my support this weekend, and I hope he’ll
have yours too.
* As always, my blogs are my own and don't necessarily reflect the opinion of any other organizations I may be involved with.
I've found myself too busy with work and what not lately to be blogging as much as I should be, so here's some short random thoughts on recent events until I can write something longer. Which I promise to do soon. Ish.
* Montreal's crumbling Champlain Bridge was in the news today; it was a topic in question period and apparently Conservative transport minister Denis Lebel is about to visit the city to announce another study on its replacement. This tweaked my memory, as I recall the Conservatives, during the 2008 by-election in St. Lambert (cancelled by the 2008 general election) were doling out pork and promised to replace the bridge. Three years and two election after Lawrence Cannon said "We are starting to plan for the construction of a new bridge" they're going to launch another study?
* Peter Julian won't be running for the NDP leadership. As much as I would have enjoyed a battle of the roomates (he shares an Ottawa apartment with fellow BC MP Nathan Cullen) and the fun that could have ensued (Peter doesn't wash the dishes! Nathan drinks the last of my fair trade coffee!) it's probably for the best. I spent some of the 2008 election in the Burnaby area (Peter represents a Burnaby-area riding) and he struck me as a rather abrasive fellow. Maybe it was just seeing him in contrast to fellow Burnaby NDPer Bill Siksay, a very warm and personable guy. Anyway, when his name was floated I just couldn't picture Julian as a unifying bridge-builder.
* On the other hand, I'm really happy to see Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership. I spent the 2004 federal election in Prince Rupert working on the Liberal campaign of Miles Richardson, who, along with Nathan, was seeking to unseat Conservative incumbent Andy Burton in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. I got to see a fair bit of Nathan on the campaign trail and he's a great guy, very friendly, kind and in touch with the communities of the riding. I disagree with him on a few issues (his support of the gun registry, for example, although that is definitely reflective of his riding) but he has proven himself a very hard-working MP. He'll make this a better race, for sure.
* Speaking of the NDP leadership race (which also includes party insider Brian Topp, another great guy in Paul Dewar, the unknown but possibly impressive Romeo Saganash and the just plain unknown Martin Singh ... Tom Mulcair may deign to run at some point) it occurs to me I'm having a hard time picturing one of this group as a Prime Minister. Because, for the first time in their history, the NDP aren't just choosing a leader. They're choosing the next Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and a leader who, in three years, will go to the polls and ask for the trust of Canadians to be their Prime Minister. They've asked for that before but this time, people won't be snickering. It's a whole new field they're playing on, and the rules of the game have changed. It will be interesting to see how, and if, they can adjust.
* Of course, things haven't changed too much yet. Love may be better but politics is politics, and rival leadership camps are already sparing. But you know it's an NDP leadership race when you get smears of opponents like this one:
Mr. Brahmi added that Mr. Topp, who has the endorsement of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, “is the candidate of the apparatchik.”
* Meanwhile, there's a provincial election going on in Ontario. I confess, I've been unable to muster-up too much enthusiasm and interest. But I do know it's getting nasty, and I'm pretty sure it's not going too well for Tim Hudak's (not overly) Progressive (but very) Conservative Party. The polls are all over the map, from a strong Liberal lead to too close to call. We'll see who gets their vote out Thursday. What all of them show though is an undeniable trend over the past year of Conservative decline and Liberal rise. And it's clear who is panicking. Watching TV the last few nights, I've seen a steady diet of harshly negative Conservative ads and extremely positive Liberal ads. That's telling as we go down to the wire. But hey, Tim can still draw a crowd.
* But as mentioned, I haven't been following the race that closely. I observed early on though that McGuinty's Liberals are, quite wisely, running the same campaign Stephen Harper's federal Cs (they redacted their own P) ran this spring. No extravagant promises, the steady hand on the tiller with the experience to make the tough decisions, it's no time for rookies and risky schemes. McGuinty ('s comms staff) has even been tweeting "Only a strong, stable #olp government will create jobs in tough economic times." Harper's line repeated Ad nauseam was "strong, stable, Coservative majority government."
* John Baird drew some attention with his gold-embossed business cards. We're all attracted to shiny things so this drew much mockery, though not enough Austin Powers references. Baird was able to laugh it off though because the criticisms ignored the real story: he also redacted Canada from his business cards. Yes, he ordered the Canada wordmark, including the Canadian flag, removed from his cards. And it's not like he's the minister responsible for FedNor, he's the frickin' Foreign Affairs Minister! Of Canada! Yes, on the one hand they want to protect the flag, and on the other they want it off their business cards. And you're focusing on the extra couple hundred dollars it cost to emboss the coat of arms? Forest for the trees; it's the flag, stupid!
The Alberta government is spending $25-million to spruce up the province's image for tourists, immigrant workers and environmental critics. As for the environment part of the message, Alberta should save the money. Alberta's climate change policy will soon be dead. It will be dead in the United States. It is already dead with the Harper government, even if the Harperites don't want publicly to administer last rites. It's dead with some of the smart people in the oil industry.
Oh, you were referring to the difference of opinion in the Liberal camp, with Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty supposedly being at odds with Stephane Dion’s in-progress carbon shift proposal? OK, we can talk about that one too:
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is at odds with his Ottawa cousins over a key plan to tax carbon emissions, saying he'd prefer a cap-and-trade system for the country's most populous province over a carbon tax.
The tax, which is expected to be a central plank in the federal Liberal election platform, is one way to put a price on carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but his "first choice" for Ontario is a cap-and-trade system, McGuinty said Tuesday.
Let’s look at what Dalton is actually saying, and what he didn’t say. He didn't say he's against a carbon shift. He said is “first choice” would be cap and trade. And his brother, surely a trusted source (sure David is a federal Liberal MP, but what would Mom say if he misrepresented Dalton’s views?) backs that up:
David McGuinty downplayed concerns that the carbon tax plan could drive a wedge between the Ontario and federal Liberals.
He said he had a "general discussion" with his brother about the merits of one system over another, but the premier didn't express an opinion about carbon taxes.
"It was more of an exchange of ideas around the two possibilities, the two primary market mechanisms that can be harnessed to achieve the same end, which is a price on carbon," McGuinty said.
In fact, a federal carbon tax could complement a provincial cap-and-trade system, he said.
"I think what the premier's said is, 'Look, given the here and now of the specificity of the Ontario economy, and how we would like to go forward in pricing carbon, we would rather go with a cap-and-trade system first,"' he said.
"But I doubt very much the premier's ruling out the notion of a carbon tax shift."
So, there you go. Dalton isn’t against a carbon shift, he just feels that for Ontario, and the provincial level, cap and trade would be best. It’s Dalton’s job to advocate what’s best for Ontario. And it’s Stephane Dion’s to advocate what’s best for Canada. I’m confident the two positions are far from mutually exclusive.
Indeed, as David (and lots of experts, and much of Europe) has said cap and trade and a carbon shift would (and overseas, do) compliment each other nicely, so any talk of a rift here is just media over dramatization. Nothing in the story, no direct quotes, supports the headline.
And as I mentioned the other, one benefit of the way the Liberal Party is developing this policy, and the fact that it hasn’t been finalized yet, is that the concerns of Premier McGuinty and Ontario can be heard, considered, and factored into the final policy.
I hope, and I trust, that we’re consulting right now with our provincial cousins, or in David’s case with his brother, to ensure the input of Ontario, and all the provinces, is factored into the final carbon tax shift policy before it is unveiled so that we can develop a proposal for federal environmental policy that works in harmony with, and compliments, the important work being done by many provinces.
I think that, in the end, Dalton’s input will only lead to a stronger, more effective and widely accepted policy. That would be a win win for Ontario, and for Canada.
I'm really pleased to read about this move from the McGuinty Liberal government. This is going beyond saying you support the troops, this is actually doing it. Hopefully this will spur similar legislation across the country. Kudos too to the opposition parties for giving unanimous consent.
Ontario extends health care for military families The Canadian Press December 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM EST
Toronto — Ontario is poised to become the first province to ensure that out-of-town military families get immediate access to free health care.
Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced the legislation today, earning unanimous consent from the opposition parties.
The bill also legislates job security for reservists when they're called to duty. (more)
I'm off to Las Vegas on Sunday until Thursday for a work-related conference, so I'll be out of town for provincial election day. Actually, Wednesday I'll be poolside at the Mandalay Bay for the conference closing party and a concert by, of all people, Hootie and the Blowfish. Yes, apparently they are still touring. Who knew.
So, since I'll be away for the election I voted in the advance polls. Unsurprisingly I voted for my Ontario Liberal incumbent in Scarborough-Centre, Brad Duguid. The second ballot of course was for the referendum, and after a lot of thought I decided to reluctantly vote no on MMP. I thought I'd share why.
I’ve been back and forth on this thing from the start. I favour electoral reform, but I’m not a big fan of MMP. I was leaning towards reluctantly supporting it, agreeing with the pro-MMP supporters that the parties would ensure the list candidates are democratically chosen. And I’m sure they would be. I’m not concerned about the stability issue, I think the parties would be forced to work together, and they’d find a way to work it out. I don’t think small parties would wield undue or radical influence. There’s a lot of positives with the system that outweigh most of the negatives.
I began to change my mind however during a discussion in this thread on the issue of List MPPs that leave caucus, voluntarily or involuntarily. It was the speculation of MMP advocates that those seats would belong to the party, not the member, and therefore the member would likely be required to resign with the seat filled by the next person on the list.
I said speculate because that’s all it is, speculation. No one knows exactly what would happen because that hasn’t been decided yet. It would be legislated later. On the concept of the seat being ‘owned’ by the party I have to say I’m fundamentally opposed, it gives far too much power to the party, discourages independent thought and dissent (all to rare already) and is directly opposed to the spirit of our parliamentary system, which is the member is answerable to his constituents. It would also create two classes of MPPs, and I’m not keen on that idea.
It’s all still ‘to be determined’ though, and that was a major factor in my decision. I’m being asked to cast a vote of faith, without answers to what I’d consider some pretty fundamental questions about just how this whole thing would work. I’m just not willing to do that. If these issues were all spelled-out satisfactorily I might have been willing to overlook the faults of MMP and cast a vote for change. But there is just too much left TBD.
Given that the polls show most Ontarians aren’t willing to do so either, will this be the end of the quest for electoral reform? I don’t know, only time will tell. Hopefully not, as I would like to see change. But I don’t think MMP is the way to go. The STV system proposed in B.C. (and will be voted on again in 2009) seems more promising. If we do try again in Ontario though, I hope a more complete system will be presented to the people.
The new polling numbers on the Ontario provincial election released over the weekend by Ipsos Reid surely have to be giving Conservatives pause, and causing John Tory to ask what ‘matters’ more: leadership, or polling numbers.
Because these polling numbers aren’t good. Unless you’re a Liberal, that is. Looks like Dalton is the debate winner after all. The latest numbers show the Liberals (43) opening-up a 10 point lead over the Conservatives (33), with the NDP treading-water at 17 and the Greens continually unchanged at 6.
For all the Conservative bluster, the numbers show the Liberals down just three points from the 46 they achieved in Election 2003, while if the vote were held today John Tory would have done two points WORSE than Ernie Eves, who had all that Mike Harris baggage to deal with. Ouch.
Here’s the chart:
Ipsos indicates the landscape is hardening, with people becoming more firmly decided in their voting choice. Interesting also though is the motivation of voters to get out and vote, always key for electoral success. Conservative voters are the most motivated at 74 per cent, followed by NDPers at 70 per cent and Liberals at 68 per cent.
Even factoring in those figured though, Ipsos still projects a potential Liberal majority, with Libs 42 per cent to Cons 35 and NDP 17. So, get out the vote will be essential if the Liberals want to get a majority.
On the issues front, the number one issue dogging Tory, according to Ipsos, and, well, everybody paying even a little attention, is faith-based schooling:
While at the beginning of the campaign 35% of Ontarians either ‘strongly’ (14%) or ‘somewhat’ (21%) supported the Progressive Conservative plan to extend funding to faith-based schools throughout Ontario, just three in ten (30%) Ontarians currently either ‘strongly’ (13%) or ‘somewhat support’ (17%) this idea. What is profound is the intensity with which Ontarians overwhelmingly oppose (68%) this plan, with a majority (51%) indicating that they ‘strongly oppose’ and two in ten (17%) saying that they ‘somewhat oppose’ the Ontario Government in extending full funding to faith-based schools and others of a similar nature.
If there’s any solace for John Tory it’s his personal numbers. On the Best Premier front he’s still neck and neck with Dalton McGuinty, with Dalton at 33 per cent and John at 32 per cent.
So, perhaps people do think leadership matters. It’s the rest of the ‘John Tory Team’ that Ontarians have a problem with. And, one wonders how strong Tory’s leadership numbers will stay if he flip-flops and breaks his promise on the faith-based schooling issue, forsaking ‘leadership’ for political opportunism. Perhaps that’s why, as Jason speculates, he was pushing supporters to vote last week.
Just a week and a half to go to e-day. Makes me a bit sad I’ll be in Vegas and will miss all the excitement. But only a little bit.
The Ontario provincial election campaign is officially underway, and I think the lead of this article in the Globe & Mail sums-up well how things have gone so far:
Voters got a sense of Ontario's election campaign yesterday with Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty listing his past successes in public education, and his chief opponent labeling him a promise breaker.
That pretty well sums it up. While McGuinty has been talking about his accomplishments, discussing policy and outlining goals, the Tory Conservatives have been relentlessly negative, with nasty radio ads and personal attacks on the Web. And when Tory does try to talk policy, well, it doesn’t go well and the clarifications inevitably follow.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is the worst promise breaker of modern times, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said Sunday on the eve of a 31-day provincial election campaign.
Really John, the worst promise breaker in modern history? As Seth and Amy would say, really John Tory? I mean, obviously Tory needs to hammer on the health care premium issue. I think there’s a solid counter-argument to be made on the Liberal side, given the record the Harris/Eves Conservatives left behind, but it’s fair game and a key issue for Tory.
But the worst promise breaker in history? Really? Don’t overreach John. Descend into hyperbole and people won’t take you seriously. I mean, why just in modern history? Why not the worst promise-breaker of all time, or, as comic book guy would say, worst promise-breaker ever? Maybe there’s a French king in the 1600s that was a worst promise breaker, hence the qualifier from Tory. I mean, really.
But I can see why John is jumping-on the hyperbole train and going negative hard. A new SES poll today shows, despite all the Tory hype, the Liberals lead the Conservatives (opens pdf). The poll puts the Liberals up six on the Conservatives at 40 per cent of committed voters to the Conservatives’ 34 per cent, with the NDP back at 19 per cent and Greens at 8 per cent.
Some 15 per cent are undecided meaning this is still anyone’s game, could go either way, and everyone will have to work very hard the next few weeks. But the vaunted Tory hype hasn’t translated into support yet. Also, looking at the polling period it appears Tory’s creationism faux pas, which pissed-off both the left and the right, wasn’t factored into these numbers. It will be interesting to see how that plays-out in the next poll. A new Ipsos poll also puts the Liberals in majority territory, albeit a slim one.
There's news this morning that Kate Holloway has been appointed the provincial Liberal candidate for Trinity-Spadina, and will run for the McGuinty Liberals in the fall election.
Kate is a former high profile Green Party member, and I had the pleasure of meeting Kate a few weeks ago a the Progressive Bloggers BBQ in Toronto. I think she’ll make a great candidate, I wish her well.
August 10, 2007 For immediate release
Environmentalist, activist Kate Holloway Liberal candidate in Trinity-Spadina Former high-profile Green Party of Canada member appointed by Premier
TRINITY-SPADINA – Ontario Liberals today announced that high-profile environmental activist and former Green Party of Canada executive member Kate Holloway will be the party's candidate in the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina.
Holloway has been appointed as candidate by Premier Dalton McGuinty.
"Kate Holloway has two very strong passions – the community and conservation. She believes in action, she has compiled an impressive list of achievements and already serves as a role model. I'm proud to have her as part of our Liberal team," said Premier McGuinty.
The addition of Holloway to the McGuinty Liberal team has received immediate applause.
"Today's announcement represents a huge environment coup for Premier Dalton McGuinty. To be able to recruit such a high calibre environmental candidate shows he means business in further developing his strong green team going into this fall's election. Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals, now including Kate Holloway, are where the action is for environmental protection in Ontario," said Deb Shulte, Co-Chair, Friends of Boyd Park.
"Kate has a rare combination of qualities. She is passionate about the environment, wise in the ways of business, and politically astute," said Chris Lowry, Executive Director of Green EnterpriseToronto.
"Kate understands the issues of sustainability and the urgent need for a greener agenda; she will be an energetic and effective Member," said Michael De Pencier, publisher of Toronto Life.
"Kate Holloway is very well known in the community as a strong and effective proponent for progress on environmental issues," said David Donnelly a prominent environmental lawyer and activist. "From action on renewable energy to climate change, she's been a leader. She's a green diva."
Holloway has founded, managed and directed several Toronto environmental startups and non-profit associations. She sits on the Steering Committee of Green Enterprise Toronto, a network helping independent businesses and consumers become greener and buy locally and is a founding member of the Women's Environmental Alliance.
She was also a high-profile member of Green Party of Canada, where she served on the national executive, co-founded the Green Party Women's Caucus and ran as a federal candidate.
"As a conservationist and advocate for strong, sustainable communities I've been impressed with progress made by the McGuinty Liberals, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, investing in public transit, becoming a leader in clean energy such as wind power and offering incentives to help Ontarians go green – not to mention support for our schools, hospitals and neighbourhoods. I want to make sure thatprogress continues," said Holloway.
"We all know where the province was four years ago – the environment was under attack, our cities were facing neglect, public health and education were on a downward slope. We can't afford to go back to that. We need to keep moving forward," she said.
