Provincial Politics – Page 116

The tenacity of troglodytes.

November 29, 2013 by Peter Lowry

It is probably disrespectful to our prehistoric ancestors to think of some people arguing about how we vote as cave-dwelling troglodytes. They seem to insist on going backwards instead of forward. They look for solutions in repressive countries instead of the progressive ones. They brutalize statistics and numbers to make their point but prove nothing of substance. To give them their due, they are tenacious.

What makes no sense is the ill-named “Fair Vote” or “Democratic Voting” supporters and others that are suggesting that we vote for people we do not know to represent us. They want us to vote for lists of people proposed by political parties. They believe that is fair?

One of the most important aspects of our political system is that we can meet, question and discuss with the person seeking to represent us. That is not to say that there are not some in our electoral district who will vote for a party leader, irrespective of the village idiot being that party’s candidate. That happens but there is no reason for Canadians to encourage it.

American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had a wonderful observation equating strong leaders to ferry boats. He noted that the larger the ferry coming into dock, the more garbage that was washed into the dock with the ferry.

Over the last couple decades in Canada, we have had the situation wherein federal candidates have had to be approved by the party leader to be identified as a member of the party on the party’s slate of candidates. That system has corrupted Canadian politics to the point that some party leaders are routinely appointing candidates. Progressive leaders such as Justin Trudeau have made it clear that they will only sign for candidates selected democratically in their riding.

But the real answers in correcting some of the problems with our First-Past-the-Post voting system are in developments in technology. Internet voting is now a reality and it opens the door to almost immediate low-cost re-opening of the vote to satisfy ourselves that the selection in each riding meets with the approval of the majority of riding voters. This is far more democratic than preferential voting as citizens will be allowed to re-evaluate their decision based on the actual vote. By dropping off the person with the lowest vote until one candidate has a majority creates true consensus choice.

Canadians in British Columbia and Ontario have voted ‘No’ to electing party lists and preferential voting. Those promoting those ideas need to find a new plan.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

The economic answers in Ontario.

November 28, 2013 by Peter Lowry

It was right there opposite the editorial in the Toronto Star today. It was the answers to all our economic questions. The bold headline read: Keys to unlocking the full force of Ontario’s economy. It was by Roger Martin, chair of the Ontario Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress. What became apparent in reading the article was that Toronto Star editors still write headlines without reading the content.

All the article reports is that nothing has changed in Ontario since Michael Harris was Premier. It provides a few insights into the factors causing stagnation in our provincial economy but there are no panaceas offered. A prolific business school writer, Martin spared us from the deeper insights reserved for those in academia.

What he should have noted was that for Ontario to find its way into the 21^st Century is going to take leadership. Leadership is not something one normally equates with politics in Ontario. The standard answer to any question in this province is to create a task force to answer it.

Our current Premier learned the approach from her mentor Dalton McGuinty. With the sole exception of all-day kindergarten, McGuinty took us nowhere. His concern in ending coal-fired electrical generation is taking such a long time to resolve that it will end up being credited to his successor Kathleen Wynne.

The Leader of the Opposition in Ontario is usually just negative on anything from the Wynne government. He wants to create his own revolution. He says he wants to take on Ontario’s unions. He seems to look on governing as class warfare. His approach to leadership is to encourage conflict, urban versus rural, north versus south, city versus suburbs, rich versus poor. Luckily, he has a somewhat schizophrenic party behind him—and some of them are falling further and further behind.

Meanwhile Ontario’s New Democrats are acting as though they are leaderless. It is as though Andrea Horwath has to go to the Premier’s office to get the washroom key. It might be the only time she knows where she is going. She has yet to learn how to go about leading her caucus let alone the province.

With the province led by this group of misfits, there is not much point to having Roger Martin’s task force. Oh well, we need a laugh occasionally.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

With this Ring of Fire, I thee wed…

November 25, 2013 by Peter Lowry

It is a wedding of convenience. There seems to be little love lost between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. It is likely she only wants him for his money. She needs it to build an all-season road 500 kilometres north from Thunder Bay to the Ring of Fire. When you add the infrastructure costs, you are only talking a couple billion. Just call it her bride’s price.

Ladies do love their rings! The chromite, nickel, gold, platinum and palladium deposits discovered in the area called the Ring of Fire Belt are estimated to be worth as much as $60 billion. That figure not only rivals the potential of the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta but is far less of a pollution problem.

American mining company, Cliffs Natural Resources left the province at the alter last week but this is more likely to be a negotiating tactic than a long-term rift with the province. The company is jealously guarding its already purchased mining rights in the area. Why the government is eager to deal with a company such as Cleveland-based Cliffs is the real question? The province has been ripped off for many years by people stripping resources and shipping them out of the country, providing little opportunity or jobs for the people of Ontario.

One of the strengths seen in the Ring of Fire negotiations is that Former Premier and Member of Parliament Bob Rae is working for native bands in the region. Rae is expected to negotiate upgraded living conditions in the area as well as improved job and educational opportunities.

But first somebody has to build a road. It can be a paved road or a railroad but it has to provide the ability to access the area and bring in the equipment to open the mining opportunities and then to ship out the refined product. The province needs to be reminded of the old axiom that if you build it, people will come.

While not doubting the short-term value to Ontario of opening up the Ring of Fire, it is nowhere near the economic potential of a high-speed electrified rail corridor from Quebec City to Windsor. It is Ontario’s opportunity to partner with Quebec—sure the federal government can add money—to generate continued growth for the provinces and Canada for decades to come. It is one thing to accept the bounty of our land by mining it and it is another thing to build long-term value for future generations.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Rob Ford, Civic Commando?

November 20, 2013 by Peter Lowry

The Rob Ford mayoralty situation in Toronto is just like trying to get rid of a Condo Commando. These are tenacious troublemakers for condominium boards. They are the bane of property managers and boards because they use the Ontario Condominium Act to terrorize the condo to get their way. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as little else gets done while the war continues. Rob Ford is just like a condo commando on a much larger scale and even more difficult to control.

And the fault for both situations can be laid with the Ontario government. The laws governing the Corporation of the City of Toronto are cluttered, confusing, contradictory, and created by and for lawyers. They enrich the legal profession and beggar the rest of us. And if Rob Ford takes the city council to court, he just might be a bigger fool than we thought. It is a conflict that nobody can win.

The same Ontario Legislature wrote the Ontario Condominium Act. If people in Ontario had to pass an examination on the Condominium Act before they were allowed to buy a condominium apartment or town house, there would be very few condominium homes in this province.

And it never has been who is right or wrong. City Council in Toronto has just trampled over the power of the mayor. They have created a precedent that can now be used by any council against any mayor in the province. It is a threat. It crushes what little authority mayors previously had. They never really had much other than what custom allowed. Now they can be second-guessed at any time.

The province will have more and more civic conflicts. The Legislature will have to take the blame for more and more conflicted councils. And when the councils become conflicted, the civil servants will play. It all becomes an anti-democratic shambles.

The province has a responsibility to fix this. In the same way that it is looking at fixing the Condominium Act, it needs to look at how municipalities are supposed to function as opposed to how they really function—or not.

And in a city the size of Toronto, the citizens have to have responsible government. The city’s governance can no longer be left to a haphazard resemblance of democratic action. The people elected by citizens of the city must choose their own mayor. It must be a fellow councillor who can garner the most support. Sure it can cause party politics. It will enable the voters to know what they are voting for. It will create stability. It could even be honest government.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

What is Wynne running from?

November 18, 2013 by Peter Lowry

There is a television advertisement running these days of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne running. It should have a warning on it to tell kids not to try this at home. Maybe the Premier can close county roads for her run to be recorded. Try running like that in the city and you would have imprints on your ass of automobile grills. She is not even running in the correct lane, against the traffic.

In the voice-over dialogue, she is not the slightest bit winded. She tells us she loves running. Maybe she should prove that and run for election. Waiting for next spring and to have an election when her government’s budget is defeated is a cheap political evasion.

And do you not love how she evades problems?

Wynne lives in Toronto and obviously does not understand the city. She tells us she got into politics because she did not agree when former Premier Mike Harris and his government amalgamated Toronto into a single city. He took a city that was not working and made it worse. And Kathleen Wynne disagreed with Harris’ part solution. What she had was no solution. And she has none now.

It was 40 years ago that we fought tooth and nail to bring party politics to Toronto. It was so damn obvious then what would happen—and by God, has it ever happened. We foolish young politicos at that time wanted a mayor who was responsible to the majority of councillors. That is what is called responsible government. What we have now—thanks to many years of myopic politicians at Queen’s Park—is irresponsible government. Nobody wants to admit the solution to the problem is to have the candidates for mayor run as councillors and then let the elected councillors pick their mayor. That causes party politics.

The solution has been there all along and Kathleen Wynne cannot run from it. If the Ontario Government would just once live up to its responsibilities, the province would have stepped in a long time ago. Toronto has become ungovernable. Council has been a constant contest between the inner city and the suburbs since Mike Harris left it in the present mess. A council that constantly wrangles about priorities cannot function. A council that hates its leadership is self destructive.

But Premier Kathleen Wynne says she does not know what to do. Opposition Leader and Conservative Leader Tim Hudak does not have a clue what to do. New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath does not seem to have a clue about anything.

Run Kathleen, run. You can run but you cannot run away from it.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Any idiot can play blackjack.

November 17, 2013 by Peter Lowry

Periodically Babel-on-the-Bay tries to be helpful to Ontario gamblers. It is not that the rules are all that different but in Ontario you have two strong government ministries fighting over which one really rules gambling. It can also be fun to write about something you know about.

The one firm rule learned in years of dealing, playing and studying this game is that any idiot can play blackjack—and often does. And we can state categorically that having played blackjack in casinos around the world, it is our opinion that the very worst players are right here in the Province of Ontario. Be warned, you do not make friends by expressing that opinion at the gaming tables.

The problem is that many gamblers we see at Rama should be getting a charitable receipt from the casino for their donations. They make the classic mistakes of gamblers everywhere: They fail to manage their money; they do not increase their wager as they win; they try to guess the next card; they are suckers for silly propositions; they think playing two spots will reduce their losses; and they have no idea when to quit.

One of the rules about Ontario casinos and probably casinos everywhere is that you have to be an adult to play. Being of the age of majority, you are expected to manage your own money. Set a budget and stick to it. The casino does not need more of your money.

You win some and you lose some. Depending on how well you know the odds and play blackjack, you can win as much as 48 out of every 100 hands. If it goes in a win-lose-win-lose sequence it would be a waste of time because eventually the casino will have all your money. What makes it more interesting is that wins and losses tend to come in groups. A long series of losses drives people from the table. A long series of wins will only pay off if you increase your bet during that streak. You parlay your bet by keeping some of your winnings as profit and sending the rest out to win more.

People who hem and haw over drawing a card can drive good players crazy. If you are that new to the game, get one of those cue cards that explain when to hit or stay. You cannot guess the next card from a six or eight deck shoe. Just remember that the average card out of the shoe is a seven, not a face card.

And always remember that any of those propositions such as getting a perfect pair on your first two cards offers a great profit margin to the casino. Stick to bets where you know the odds.

The problem player is the one who wants to play two spaces. They see it as balancing their losses. They are wrong. The casino will let the person do it because the player can lose twice as fast. What annoys good players is these idiots can delay the game, make amateur mistakes and think they know what they are doing.

A final note on this subject for Ontario gamblers: you will be much happier about your gambling experience if you go home before you run out of money. Winning can be a very pleasant experience but leave some for the next player—casinos do not lose very often.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Does Tim Hudak really have a strategy?

November 13, 2013 by Peter Lowry

There was a Toronto Star exclusive story the other day about a document that might be Ontario Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s secret strategy for the upcoming provincial campaign. The Lord knows that Timmy needs all the help he can get. Yet if he follows the plan as described, he will be lucky to do better in the election than the provincial Green Party.

Going into the last provincial election, the Tories also had high hopes for Timmy. The polls showed him out front and destined to beat Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty. While Timmy actually did better than some of us expected he would, Ontario still ended up with a minority Liberal government.

The only difference in the plan this time from the last is the Conservative’s featuring of Rob Ford’s brother Doug as a star candidate in Toronto. The Tory strategists would be wise to remain flexible on that part of the plan.

The reporter tells us that the Conservative plan is for a hard right-wing anti-union strategy. That should surprise nobody. Timmy wants to kill the Rand Formula that has given us many years of relative labour-management peace in Ontario. It is part of Timmy’s plan to destroy the union movement in the province. We have no idea what unions ever did to Timmy but he is quite adamant on the issue.

The document says he will use the theme: “Allow choice in union membership.” What is odd about this is the Rand Formula does exactly that. It allows people to have choice on union membership—but not a free ride. All the Rand Formula has done for more than 60 years is to say that a person who works with union members on a shop floor pays the same amount in union dues as everyone else. That is how the formula keeps the peace.

The reporter tells us the plan includes a proposed day-to-day itinerary for the Conservative leader. It says that everything is scripted down to the minute. It also seems to read like anyone with a modicum of central campaign experience could have written it.

The plan even sets aside time for Timmy to have a few beers with the news media assigned to travel with him. Whether he even likes beer or the media want to have a beer with him seems to be of no concern to the writer.

It says Timmy should spell out what he is going to do for the first 100 days after the election. The reporter says there is no detail. That is because Timmy might spend his first 100 days after the election looking for a job. It will probably not be in a union shop.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

In wonder of Wynne’s Whigs.

November 8, 2013 by Peter Lowry

There was a picture in the newspaper the other day of Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa. He was looking so smug and self satisfied as though all was great in the sphere of provincial finances. It seemed to contradict the forecasts that Ontario’s economy is struggling and we are at least $100 billion behind in updating provincially funded infrastructure. That is replacement and upgrades costs for outdated bridges, highways, commuter trains and transit, hospitals, courts, provincial parks facilities and other infrastructure across the province.

The only problem with this figure is that Charles and the Premier seem to have no idea where the money is to eventually come from. Sure, they mention public-Private partnerships (3P), Trillium Funds and Green Bonds but these schemes just delay costs. Ultimately, the public still has to pay.

There is certainly no fourth ‘P’ for panacea in public-private partnerships. SkyDome in Toronto was one of the first experimental 3P ventures in Ontario and the province gave away its portion as something of a gift to a private sector that hardly needed the taxpayers’ charity. We can commit to 3P relationships to get anything built but somebody still has to pay for it.

It is even more important if you use tax-free bonds to fund public projects that there be a recognizable cash flow with which to pay the interest and ultimately retire the bonds. Charles Sousa is a banker and he can explain that better than this observer.

What worries us about the approach the Whigs are using is that Sousa and Wynne continue to disparage selling beer and wine in convenience and food stores. Far more money can be gained from these new tax revenue streams than is presently earned through the archaic, outmoded Brewers’ Warehousing operations.

In the same way, selling off the Liquor Control Board operations would gain one-time billions as well as an increased revenue stream from the private sector jobs created. Conversely, selling off the province’s General Motors stock is just killing the goose and getting nothing further for the taxpayers’ investment. Charles should remember that he is working with the taxpayers’ money and he should show more respect.

The Wynne Whigs have another few months before they present their Spring Budget. They should bear in mind that that will be the time when the taxpayers can do some spring house cleaning at Queen’s Park. They should take heed.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Has the NDP’s Horwath lost control?

November 4, 2013 by Peter Lowry

It is one thing to argue with your party leader but it is entirely different to have a profanity-laden screaming match with her in the Ontario Legislature. That was what happened between Hamilton New Democrat Paul Miller and his fellow Hamilton MPP and party leader last Thursday. While New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath brushed it off as Miller taking her off her game for a bit, it indicates far more serious problems.

Andrea Horwath could be on her way out. It is not that one of her MPP’s disrespected her but she failed to kick him out of caucus. It is like the gang leader who fails to immediately shoot a gang member who disrespects him. As any gang member can tell you, it is all about respect. Without respect, you cannot lead.

When one of the gang gets away with dissing the leader, others will not be far behind.

The situation with the Ontario Conservative caucus is similar and still simmering. The fact that Timmy Hudak put down the recent attack on his leadership was more because of the lack of leadership among those attacking than any desire to support him. There are simply too many Bill Davis-type Conservatives in Ontario who have absolutely no desire to support a Mike Harris stand-in such as Timmy. Those people desperately need a decent Tory leader.

At least Andrea is not leading her party in the wrong direction. Her problem is that she is not leading them anywhere.

The good news is that Andrea has passed the point where she can keep the Wynne Liberals in power. Timmy tried a procedural trick to force a confidence vote recently and you could see the relief on her face when Horwath told people that there was no point in supporting it because it would not be accepted as a confidence vote.

It could be as early as April next year when Ontario voters will have to sort out the mess at Queen’s Park. The likelihood of any change coming out of the vote seems remote at this time but lots can happen over the intervening months. Who knows, Premier Kathleen Wynne can have a revelation and become a real Liberal. Andrea Horwath can still put on the gloves and beat the snot out of Paul Miller or any other caucus member who disrespects her. And Timmy Hudak can renounce Mike Harris’ brand of economics.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Conservatives constantly challenge change.

November 3, 2013 by Peter Lowry

At the Halloween convention of the Conservative Party in Calgary, there was often more of interest behind the scenes than at the microphones. One of the most unusual pieces of Conservative literature noted was an attack on proportional representation. It made the unusual claim that “Our country was founded on the equality of ridings first and foremost.”

It must have started when a conservative—who could count—realized that the party would not have a majority government under proportional representation. That revelation alone must have been frightening. The reality is that in the 2011 federal election, the Conservatives won only 41 per cent of the vote. Under proportional representation, they could only have formed a minority government.

It was our first-past-the-post electoral system that gave the Conservatives the majority. And that is why this strange piece of literature exhorts Conservatives to say ‘No’ to proportional representation. While there are many reasons why Canadians continue to reject proportional representation, this Conservative piece adds an entirely new perspective by saying Canada was founded on the principle of equality of ridings.

If that were true, this country would be unworkable today. While there was some awkward rigging by our Fathers of Confederation of the one-man, one-vote principle to accommodate the language factor in Quebec and the size of Prince Edward Island, Canadians have made a continuing effort over the years to try to balance out most of the electoral districts.

The current redistribution, to be enacted shortly, will add 30 electoral districts where needed in Ontario and the West. It will not be a perfect equality among voters but it will be close enough until Canadians can agree on a Constitutional Conference to bring our country into the present day.

The archives of Babel-on-the-Bay are always available if you need more arguments against proportional representation. The Democracy Papers were written for the ‘No’ side of the Ontario Referendum on Proportional Voting in 2007. They remain the most accessed reference on why Canadians do not want proportional representation.

Babel-on-the-Bay will continue its research on voting systems and when we find a better solution than first-past-the-post, we will pass it along. Our best hope in this regard is the ease today of controlling internet voting. This can potentially allow for run-off elections in electoral districts that do not get a majority decision.

We remain convinced that proportional voting or preferential voting produces mediocre governments. There are examples of that all over the world.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]