Election Battle Blog

The Day After

Thu, 11 Oct 07 19:33:31 GMT

After 30 days and nights, it's over. Ontario's 39th general election saw the Liberals come back with the first back-to-back majority in 70 years. Today our Battling Bloggers give us their final thoughts on the election that was and the next fours years. Our big thanks to Jacquie, Joan, Jordan and Chris for all their hard work and insights.

The Liberal Party's Jacqueline Alderton: Ontario Votes to Support Dalton McGuinty

After all the votes were counted, it became clear that Ontarians made an overwhelming choice to support the positive progress that Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals are offering:

Stronger public services that Ontarians rely on to get ahead – whether it's publicly funded education, or public healthcare, or a cleaner environment.

Throughout the campaign I did notice the negativity of the other parties. This campaign proved once again that politicians should never underestimate the electorate. Given the choice, people will always reject negativity and choose hope and a positive agenda.

Joan Tintor of the Progressive Conservatives: McGuinty lacks class, mandate

Dalton McGuinty’s Napoleonesque, premature seizing of the crown – before John Tory could give his concession speech – was the sort of “I spit on your grave” triumphalism that has come to characterize the McGuinty Liberals.

The good news for Dalton McGuinty? He doesn’t have a mandate to govern. When your platform promises get scant attention during the election, people may be less upset when you break them afterward.

The bad news for Dalton McGuinty? He doesn’t have a mandate to govern. Government announcements may be met with “Huh? I never heard about that during the election.” Starting next week, the handicapping (double-entendre intended) of McGuinty’s would-be successors will begin.

Bubbles work. McGuinty spent the entire campaign in a Second Life world peopled solely by Liberal acolytes, public sector unionists and bewildered schoolchildren. But the bubble allegation holds as much interest for voters as whether the prime minister will attend the press gallery dinner. Taking the hit of being labelled Bubble Boy is less damaging than the downside risk, as McGuinty’s flypast of Ottawa cancer patient Mike Brady proved.

Reports of the mainstream media’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. New media, such as blogs, social network sites, YouTube, and the campaigns’ own websites, had little apparent impact on the course of the campaign.

But it was largely due to the efforts of the old media that the faith-based funding issue achieved the prominence it did. As Susanna Kelley wrote on October 4th: “Journalists have told me straight out they weren’t going to let him [John Tory] change the channel. Still others admitted to me they didn’t like the policy and so felt justified in helping to make it a major campaign issue.” Then, after driving the story for two weeks, media outlets commissioned polls showing that the public was against the idea. Push polling, meet push reporting.

Never write off the PCs. In May of 1990, Mike Harris became leader of the third-place PC party (after higher-profile contenders took a pass). Five years and six weeks later, he was sworn in as premier. He achieved the first consecutive majorities since Robarts. His popularity even forced McGuinty to run negative ads in the 1999 election (too bad none of the media confronted the re-virginized McGuinty with this inconvenient bit of history, when he claimed on Sunday that he never ran negative ads). So, to borrow a phrase, we’ll be back.

Jordan Berger of the NDP: Four More Years

I was obviously disappointed with the results. Despite running a strong and largely error-free campaign and despite increasing our share of the popular vote, the NDP lost a number of very close races last night ending up with ten caucus members.

The Party needs to grasp the reality that it is simply not a serious option for many Ontarians. We must find a way to reframe our values and historical mission to increase public comfort and trust for, without this reframing, future elections will be just as difficult as this one.

However, unlike the case of John Tory, there won't be pressure from the NDP on Howard Hampton to step down as leader. He once again was consistent, passionate, intelligent, and honest in his message and has nothing to be ashamed of.

In my own riding of Davenport, a strong campaign by Peter Ferreira came close to toppling the supposedly "unbeatable" Tony Ruprecht. Our activist base is truly energized and the general mood at the packed victory party was one of preparing for a victory next time, rather than commiserating over the narrow loss.

A number of other races will result in recounts. In Thunder Bay-Atikokan, for example, the NDP candidate, John Rafferty, trails the incumbent by only 36 out of 29,000 votes cast. For these races, and many more, the Party owes a debt of gratitude to Hampton.

In comparison, John Tory might want to consider something dramatic to salvage his honour. The problem goes well beyond the damage caused to his own party – it is shameful that his faith-based funding diversion allowed the Liberals to avoid a discussion of the last four years, especially as the province faces uncertainty in the months and years ahead.

Chris Tindall of the Green Party: Greens Surge

Obviously I'm thrilled with the surge in Green support to 8%, which almost triples our support over the last election. (This may surprise viewers of TVO who, like myself, went to bed early. Overall Green results weren't reported until after 11:30.) In what was a status quo election, we are the only party to have gained ground, and we've done so at an incredible rate.

In Bruce-Grey Owen Sound, Shane Jolley made us proud by breaking records and coming second with 33.5% of the vote, more than double that of the third place Liberal. In other ridings across the country – including Guelph and Barrie – we placed third with strong results that affected the outcome of the election. Despite the predictions of pundits and the wishes of our opponents, our support did not evaporate in election day. We've reached the tipping point where the Greens are a serious party that a large cross-section of Ontario is proud to support.

The referendum results are disappointing, but not particularly surprising. With the complete absence of an effective education campaign, misinformation was able to fill the void and wear the clothing of truth. While some who voted for the status quo yesterday surely had a good understanding of what they were doing, it's likely that many more were simply saying "I won't support something that I don't understand." The status quo victory is even less credible given the record low voter turnout, which was even lower for the referendum. By that measure, only about 1/3 of the population bothered to show up to indicate confidence in the current system, which is very troubling. One might argue that we didn't reach quorum for such an important decision.

Rest assured that the majority of Canadians who believe that in a democracy every vote should count are not going to let this issue go away. If you're one of those who's wondering "what's next," today is a good day to join Fair Vote Canada.

Partisans make their final pitch

Fri, 05 Oct 07 18:20:10 GMT

It's Thanksgiving weekend, and along with turkey and stuffing in their bellies, many voters will have their heads full trying to decide who to vote for in next Wednesday's Ontario election.

So, battling bloggers, over the Thanksgiving weekend, as Ontario voters try to decide who they will choose at the ballot box, what should they think about as they make up their mind?

The Liberal Party's Jacqueline Alderton: Thanksgiving -- A time for reflection

I love Thanksgiving. It's an opportunity to be with my parents and my siblings, and catch-up on all the things that have been happening in our lives. It's an opportunity to be grateful together for all the good things, and grateful for the fact we have each other. And I know this is happening not just in my home, but in homes across my community and across Ontario.

In those homes across our province, there are 400,000 of us around the dinner table who can celebrate a new job. That's how many net new jobs have been created during the last four years of the McGuinty Liberal Government.

Half a million more of us now have a family doctor.
That's 500,000 people who did not have a family doctor 4 years ago.

More than a million children are receiving the Ontario Child Benefit. That's income support for not only people on social assistance, but also the working poor.

My generation lost 26 million learning days to teachers' strikes and labour disruptions during the previous Conservative government.
My younger brother's generation has lost zero days of school during the last four years of the McGuinty Government.

Each gathering of family and friends will be different and distinct. Yet we are all connected by our shared values, our geography, and a future together. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have an ambitious agenda to strengthen the vital public services that we all depend on to get ahead. And they will continue to work hard with all of us to improve publicly funded education, public healthcare, our environment and our economy over the next four years.

On Wednesday October 10th, I hope you'll choose the change that's working for all Ontarians.

Progressive Conservative Joan Tintor: Stick a fork in this turkey of a government – it’s done

In the final days of the campaign, commercials featuring a twitchy Dalton McGuinty have been replaced by images of anonymous civil servants. Perhaps now that McGuinty’s low-altitude buzzing of an Ottawa cancer patient has been broadcast so widely, Liberal ad men think it best to confine McGuinty’s mug to his “Girls Gone into Hiding” bus.

Soaring to new heights of chutzpah, McGuinty is trying to jujitsu his messaging, using the ailing Mike Brady as a lever. Defending himself against charges that he is campaigning in a bubble, McGuinty said to reporters: “Maybe you weren’t there when I met Mr. Brady in Ottawa and mainstreeted in a hospital corridor.”

McGuinty’s claim that he listened to Brady – when the video of the brush-off is all over YouTube – reminds me of the old saying, “Who are you gonna believe: me or your lyin’ eyes?!” But it is sadly symbolic of McGuinty’s record.

That record shows that health care wait times have hardly budged, yet McGuinty insists they are way down. McGuinty sued the parents of autistic children angered by his broken promise, yet insists he is helping them. He says that education has improved. Yet class sizes remain high, test scores are stagnant, and turnaround teams, teaching mentors and public school choice have been quietly abandoned.

McGuinty’s crime initiatives have failed utterly, while crime statistics mask the growing lawlessness in and around our public schools. Here is September’s police blotter for Toronto-area schools: On September 11th, a 16-year old was stabbed to death. On the 19th, four boys were charged in connection with an October 2006 sexual assault. On the 24th and 25th, there were two stabbings in two days near another school. Yesterday, eight boys were charged with assaulting four girls at a middle school.

In 2003, a tearful George Smitherman promised a “revolution” in nursing home care. The revolution never came. Yesterday, the Ontario Federation of Labour issued a legal opinion claiming that the government is violating its own nursing home care standards. I listened to a Toronto radio talk show as people called in, recounting how their spouses and parents had been left to lie in their own waste.

Some blame the previous government, as the blustering Smitherman likes to do. But no one forced his leader to make 230 promises. All Dalton McGuinty is likely to deliver over the next four years, is more excuses why he couldn’t deliver.

The NDP's Jordan Berger: Ontario deserves better

Ontario has long played a central role in Canadian society. That role is in question today - partly because of economic restructuring and the rise of the West and partly, it must be said, because of the directionless leadership offered by Dalton McGuinty.

I do think there is general anxiety about Ontario's future in many parts of the province. However, most voters have not yet focused on the current election campaign and others have been distracted by the faith-based funding non-issue.

With the ban on election ads and the long weekend I hope Ontarians will take the time to carefully consider their voting intentions.

We have two opportunities to change our democracy for the better.

First, voting in new NDP MPPs will produce a minority government that is gauranteed to be more responsive than the current caretakers.

Second, passing MMP will forever shake up Ontario politics by bringing new voices and ideas into the Legislature. Perhaps then we'll get campaigns that excite rather than sedate voters.

The Green Party's Chris Tindal: Vote With Your Conscience For What You Think Is Right

What do you really value? What kinds of politicians and polices do you want to reward?

In terms of what specific issues are important, I haven't really changed my mind since day one of this TVO blog. The decisions that the next government makes over the next four years on environmental and energy policy will have an extremely long lasting impact, so we absolutely have to get them right.

I strongly urge people to vote for the party or candidate they most believe in, just as they'd expect their MPP to always vote for what they believe is right. The real danger in "voting for someone you don't want to keep someone even worse out" is that you can never be sure if you're getting the results you want. For example, we now know that Shane Jolley, the Green candidate in Bruce Grey Owen Sound, is polling ahead of the Liberal and NDP candidates and has a shot at overtaking the incumbent Conservative. I bet there are at least a few Green voters in that riding who are thinking of voting for another party to avoid "wasting their vote," not realizing that the Green candidate actually has the best chance. That happened in Elizabeth May's by-election in London North Centre as well. When you vote strategically, the results are uncertain. When you vote your conscience, however, you can be sure of two things: 1) you'll send the strongest message possible to whoever wins about what you value and what solutions you want to see implemented, and 2) you'll feel good about your vote, for once.

It's also critical that families and friends talk to each other about MMP this weekend. Go straight to the source, and find out what the Citizens' Assembly is recommending and why. While I can find flaws with MMP, I can find none with the democratic and open process that was used to create it. People on both sides of the debate have loved to nitpick at details, but when we look at the big picture, it's clear that MMP is a needed improvement over our current system. If we believe that Ontarians know what's best for Ontario, then we must support this recommendation that came from the people. If we don't believe that citizens know best, then we should maybe rethink this whole democracy thing.

Tory: Free vote on religious schools

Tue, 02 Oct 07 20:01:50 GMT

On Monday, John Tory announced that he would put his proposal to extend public funding to private, faith-based schools to a free vote in the legislature.

How would you interpret Mr. Tory's announcement of a free vote on the religious schools question?

Liberal Jacqueline Alderton: Weak Judgment from a Weak Leader

John Tory took a bad policy and made it even worse. Now he’s saying that he wants to plunge Ontario into years of turmoil and chaos. That would plunge us into the kind of divisiveness that takes a generation to heal. Is that what anyone wants?

Tory is acting like that annoying sales person who keeps showing you various types of the same product that you don't want with the hope that you might buy it.

We’re not buying.

He tries to package this as ‘listening’ to voters, but really it’s clear that his candidates were revolting and he had nowhere to go.

But what did he really change? He’s still going to implement the plan, still going to do the pilot projects, and only then is he going to have a free-vote.

How does this make any sense? Does anyone believe the money would be taken away once it’s given to the pilot schools?

I think the real free vote will be October 10th when people have the chance to finally put this issue to rest and get on with the real issues facing Ontario.

PC Joan Tintor: JT is bringing listening back

The Toronto Sun’s Christina Blizzard has described this as “the most unusual election I've covered.” So yesterday’s events were, in a way, fitting. John Tory said that “MPPs will be allowed a free vote, so they are at liberty to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents. In this significant way, the public can be more involved in the decision making. They have expressed strong concerns, and I have heard them.”

I interpret this as (1) a demonstration of having listened, and (2) an attempt to get the voters to focus on the other 99% of the issues that have gone ignored, issues such as finding a family doctor (what we were originally going to blog about today, funnily enough), struggling to keep up with the cost of living, safe communities, and restoring trust in elected leaders.

Yesterday, one Toronto radio talk show host spoke about how faith funding has come to dominate the campaign, to the exclusion of larger issues. He is right. Why, even other education issues have been ignored. For example, I have yet to see a news story examining why McGuinty was unable to keep his promises to implement so-called turnaround teams and teaching mentors, and his failure to allow public school choice.

As expected, the schadenfreude-soaked Liberals are eagerly lobbing their rhetoric of reversal. This is an interesting tack for the Liberals to take, given that their leader thinks elections are about telling the voters exactly what you’re going to do, then doing the opposite after the votes have been counted.

It is often forgotten that Dalton McGuinty did have the means to seek the public’s approval of his reversal on income taxes: he could have simply kept his promise to abide by the Taxpayer Protection Act, and submit the proposed tax hike to a referendum. He preferred to gamble that, three years hence, people would grow accustomed to his warts (my apologies to Lerner and Loewe).

Conventional wisdom might suggest that there is more risk in altering one’s position during an election campaign, than in breaking one’s promises afterward. But conventional wisdom has not been reinforced by much of what has happened in this campaign so far. Stay tuned.

New Democrat Jordan Berger: Time To Focus on Real Issues

As a supporter of the public school system, I was concerned about John Tory’s ill-defined commitment to extend funding to faith-based schools. That being said who besides Dalton McGuinty would deny the apparent contradiction that only Catholic schools are currently funded? Tory’s new proposal, to appoint a Commission and to hold a free vote on the matter, is a welcome clarification.

While I hardly agree with his general approach to public policy, I do think John Tory is a man of principle and it’s been painful to watch him try to square his beliefs with a hostile electorate. However, this whole episode does raise questions about his political maturity – especially given the controversy in the 1980s that surrounded the extension of funding to the Catholic system. John Tory has been widely portrayed as the whiz kid who made Bill Davis shine. I suspect the reality was that Tory was more dependent on the sage direction provided by Premier Davis than vice-versa.

With just over a week to go, it’s now time to focus on the real issues facing Ontario. On education, for example, why do parents continue to fundraise to buy necessary school supplies? If we can’t have a discussion of the flawed school funding formula during the election, when can we address the real needs of our school children? I sincerely hope that Tory’s “climb-down” will allow the parties to focus on meaningful issues.

The Green Party's Chris Tindal: Losing Faith

I'll need a few days to know for sure, but at the moment I can't help but feel it represents the death of my hope that this campaign would rise above the useless partisan wedge-issue fear-fest it's been.

Is John Tory's position on religious school funding divisive? Yes. Should he have raised it in the first place? I don't know. I disagree with almost every position the man's taken over the last few months, but at least he's not so politically cynical as the Liberals and NDP that he would spend a whole campaign pretending to "oppose the funding of religious schools" when really what they mean is "unless they're Catholic schools, because they're not as scary as those Muslims over there." Or, at least, that's what I keep hearing whenever they talk about it. (The Green position, that we should merge the Catholic board into the public board and create one publicly funded school system, is explained here.)

Regardless, the reality is that the Liberals have kept this issue on the agenda to the exclusion of all others because that's what's best for their party--what's best for the province be damned. Didn't someone say something about spending $40,000,000,000 on nuclear power? Should we maybe talk about that before we create deadly radioactive waste that will be around for a million years? Should we maybe talk about the tritium that will seep into our children's drinking water?

Didn't someone say something about a climate crisis? Should we maybe talk about what we'll do when the farms that produce our food can no longer grow as much (or anything) due to shifting weather patterns?

Didn't someone say something about a referendum? Should we maybe talk about this once-in-a-lifetime chance to make democracy better? Should we maybe talk about how MMP tends to create more positive, issues-based election campaigns?

Now that Tory's made this announcement, I fear that instead of allowing us to move on he's simply thrown more wood on the fire, ensuring that we'll never get around to the list of issues that matter more. For example, today's blog question was going to be about the doctor shortage. Sorry folks, we're not going to deal with that problem in this election. Please take a magazine and wait. The doctor will see you in four more years. Maybe.

The Plight of Manufacturing

Wed, 26 Sep 07 17:18:33 GMT

Some political experts say that elections almost always boil down to the economy.

So, since we're discussing the state of Ontario's economy on tonight's show (Sept. 26), and given all the concern about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario over the past several months, we thought today we'd ask our battling bloggers the following:

Ontario's manufacturing sector has lost thousands of jobs over the past few years. How much can the provincial government really do to stop the exodus of manufacturing jobs?

The Liberal Party's Jacqueline Alderton: Helping Every Ontarian Reach Their Potential

Some people wonder what a provincial government can do to keep Ontario strong in a global economy. There’s the hands off approach of ‘you got your tax cut now go away’. That’s what I call the Conservative ‘lazy faire’ approach. We know it did nothing to prepare Ontario for the 21st century and it also led to damaging cuts to the public services that Ontarians depend on to get ahead. During the last 4 years of the McGuinty Liberal government, Ontario gained 360,000 net new jobs. 95% of those jobs are in occupations that average over $19.50/hr -- that’s according to Statistics Canada.

First and foremost, government has a responsibility to do everything it can for the person who is suddenly out of work to speed up the process between the devastating pink slip and that great moment when they call home to say “I got hired.” That’s what the McGuinty government’s Jobs Strategy is all about, from the Rapid Re-Employment Service to the Employment Ontario Centres that have helped a million people just this year. There’s more coming with a Second Career Strategy that was announced this year, that will help people learn new skills that are needed in the community where they live.

McGuinty Liberals also believe in a smarter and more muscular approach to our economy. Governments must utilize those levers that are available to them to set the province on the right track, right now and for future generations.

That means investing in public education to ensure that employees have all the skills they need to compete, and that employers have the best trained, best educated workforce on the planet. You don’t get there by gutting public education for private schools.

It means Investing in public health care to keep workers and their families healthy. Public health care also reduces costs for employers, and makes Ontario a great place to invest. You don’t create that by gutting public health-care for private clinics.

The McGuinty Liberals are also strategically going after the next wave of investment, as we did through our Auto Fund and now through our Next Generations Job Fund. We must encourage companies who invest in Ontario; to also invest in sustainable industries- with the Next Generations Job Fund we are doing just that.

We know that the world must address climate change. The Ontario Liberal Party will meet that challenge head on and support the research, development and commercialization of the solutions, ensuring a healthy future for our citizens, our economy and for our planet.

The Ontario Liberal Party knows we must maintain a competitive economy. That’s why we will maintain a competitive tax and regulatory structures, including eliminating the capital tax by 2010 and reducing the paper burden on business.

The Ontario Liberal Party’s philosophy is simple. Be aggressive in our pursuit of excellence, be aggressive in our pursuit of investment, and be aggressive in our pursuit of opportunity. If we help every Ontarian reach their full potential, there is no place in the world that can beat us.

I invite you to read our platform which outlines the Ontario Liberal plan to ensure that we do everything we can to help Ontario reach its potential.

Joan Tintor of the PCs: Let’s fire the underperforming McGuinty and find out

I agree with the question’s implicit assumption, that in a global economy, a government’s options are limited. US dollar parity marks the beginning of a period of even greater challenges for Ontario’s economy, challenges that the McGuinty Liberals have proven ill-equipped to handle.

Since January 2005, Ontario has lost more than 140,000 manufacturing jobs, hurting thousands of families and many communities. The Royal Bank forecasts that Ontario will be last in Canada in economic growth this year. Under Dalton McGuinty, Canada’s economic engine has become its caboose.

McGuinty has put all his eggs in the auto sector basket, handing $500 million to auto manufacturers. This works out to $70,000 for each “new” auto job. Yet layoffs in the auto sector continue. The most recent is the shutdown of the third shift at GM in Oshawa, something that hasn’t happened since the early 90s.

Last year, McGuinty cut the ribbon at a new diamond mine, claiming that our tax climate helped get it built. Then in its next budget, the government more than doubled the mine’s taxes. I’m not sure whether this is due to McGuinty’s incompetence, or because Greg Sorbara doesn’t tell him what’s in the budget until the night before.

With the election looming, McGuinty announced something called the “Next Generation Jobs Fund” in June. Here’s what its web page says today: “Program details to follow.”

In a way, you really can’t blame McGuinty, who has never run anything larger than a strip-mall law practice in suburban Ottawa. John Tory, on the other hand, has been managing partner of a first-tier law firm, and run Rogers Media and Cable, and the CFL.

Tory understands how large businesses make decisions, and his economic proposals reflect that. He will reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses, and continue to reduce the capital tax until it is eliminated (a tax that the Liberals cut in their first budget, reversing their prior opposition to business tax cuts). Other proposals include: promoting trade and knocking down barriers to free trade within Canada, improving border crossings, and making significant new investments in transportation infrastructure.

Finally, Tory does not make promises he cannot keep. Business likes certainty. The McGuinty government’s tax hikes and general promise breaking have revealed a crew that is not sure of what it is doing, and have contributed to an uncertain business climate. John Tory will do better.

The NDP's Jordan Berger: A Progressive And Engaged Government Can Make A Difference

Howard Hampton has made Ontario’s economic challenges a centrepiece of the NDP campaign and, like many Ontarians, I’m glad he has.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing a “two-tier” Ontario emerge with sustained economic growth in some regions (primarily the Golden Horseshoe) and stagnation or recession in the rest of the province. And the recent auto scare in Oshawa is a reminder to all Ontarians, no matter where they live, that our relative prosperity can not be taken for granted.

Dalton McGuinty has been asleep at the switch these last four years – Ontario has lost over 175,000 jobs in the manufacturing and resource sectors since 2003; including 52,000 jobs last year alone. In response, the Premier shrugs his shoulders and claims administrative impotence.

By the way, what ever happened to the bold new high-tech economy that was supposed to emerge under McGuinty? He did, after all, find someone he could trust to serve as Ontario’s first Minister for Research and Innovation: himself. When will he start explaining to those newly unemployed how they will fit into his bold new economy?

In contrast, Hampton has been focusing on today’s Ontario. Commitments he’s made that bear repeating include:

• $600 Million in funding for enterprises that negotiate and meet targets to create and sustain good quality jobs

• An immediate increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour

• Measures to shift the tax burden from working people to the wealthy including a rebate on the health tax for lower-wage families and individuals

• Leveling the playing field between employers and workers by banning the use of scabs during industrial disputes and expanding card-check certification beyond the construction trades to all union organizing drives – Hampton understands the direct link between unionization, higher wages, employment sustainability, and better workplace training

• Lower hydro rates for job-sustaining industries

• A multi-million dollar Auto Strategy fund to support job-creation over five years with special incentives for companies developing and marketing environmental technologies

• And a Grow Ontario plan which will create new shelf space for local produce across the province – farming families (to say nothing of the environment) need a helping hand to reach consumers

One positive note for Ontario’s workers, it’s looking increasingly likely that October 10th will produce a minority government. If that happens, you can count on the NDP to link their support in the Legislature to immediate and meaningful action on the economic front.

The Green Party's Chris Tindal: Ontario Economy Must Diversify

I like the wording of this question, since I do believe it's a bit disingenuous for political parties to say "we created X number of jobs," or, "they lost Y number of jobs" over a short timeline. That being said, in the long run, there is much that government can do to create the right conditions for a healthy, thriving economy, including manufacturing and related industries.

I think, on a macro level, that the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario is a symptom of a shifting global economy. These industries are being squeezed by higher operating costs and increased international competition on the one hand, and the fact that value-added jobs are too often the exclusive domain of other jurisdictions on the other.

The Ontario government does not have the power to single-handedly reverse these global economic realities. Therefore, fighting against them (trying to artificially maintain the status quo at all costs) is a failing proposition. We do, however, have the ability to create new opportunities in the manufacturing sector and in the North, and to smartly adapt to global change, both economic and climate (which will disproportionately affect the North).

The Green party's election platform explains that, realistically, "the North must diversify its economy to retain its workforce and standard of living. It could do so through an aggressive pursuit of secondary and tertiary manufacturing opportunities to create 'value added' products, and by capitalizing on the tourism opportunities that lie in its inherent natural beauty."

Specifically, the Green Party of Ontario would:

---Establish a sustainable business development program for northern and rural communities by investing $1 billion over four years to encourage green business investment and job creation
---Invest $11.5 million over four years to alleviate labour shortages, especially in the skilled trades
---Inject $180 million into economic development initiatives [for the North]

There are, of course, more details and specifics in the platform [ pdf], specifically pages 6-9 (according to the printed numbering, not the PDF's numbering).

The Battle is Electric

Mon, 24 Sep 07 17:35:34 GMT

Hi there...A number of Ontario industries, from the forestry sector in the north to the manufacturing sector in the south, are struggling. Some say we should help lower their costs by reducing the price of energy.

Should Ontario lower its hydro rates?

The Liberal Party's Jacqueline Alderton: Encouraging Ontario’s Economy

The best way for Ontario to keep energy costs low is by encouraging conservation and energy efficiency. Subsidizing the cost of energy provides no incentive for companies, and homeowners, to reduce their electricity use.

Part of the Ontario Liberal Plan for the future is to work with communities in the North to identify and develop electricity opportunities. This includes a program for pulp and paper mills, whereby companies receive 15 per cent electricity rebates on the condition they demonstrate a plan to improve the energy efficiency of their operations.

If you want to read more on our plan for the North, click here.

The automotive industry is a very important part of Ontario’s economy. Our strategy is to encourage companies not only to invest in our province, but also to invest in the research and innovation that will ensure that we have a future together. The Ontario Liberals want to increase funding for the Next Generation Jobs Fund, which would do just that. It provides incentives for manufacturers to pursue clean vehicle technology, and cleaner fuels. Check it out here.

Ultimately, companies in every industry can reduce their energy bills by conserving and improving the efficiency of their operations. The McGuinty government is giving our industrial partners the tools to do just that.

Progressive Conservative Joan Tintor: More reckless promises are the last thing Ontario’s electricity system needs

I’m afraid I can’t give a bald yes or no answer, and not just because the last leader who said he would freeze hydro rates broke that promise two months after the election.

Dalton McGuinty’s main promises on hydro last time were: (1) freezing hydro rates at 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour until 2006; and (2) shutting down all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants by 2007. Shutting down one-quarter of our generation capacity is at odds with keeping the lights on, much less a rate freeze. Both promises were broken.

John Tory has said that he will not make promises he can’t keep. What he will do is help Ontario get back the competitive advantage it once enjoyed in electricity. That includes conservation incentives, speeding up the process for building new nuclear capacity, and cleaning up coal plants. There’s more detail in the platform.

There has been much criticism of the last PC government’s moves on electricity, some of it deserved. But Mike Harris and Ernie Eves are not running this time. Dalton McGuinty and Howard Hampton are. Both of them offer dangerous, back-of-the-napkin hydro policies.

The Liberals are gamely promising to eliminate all of Ontario’s coal-fired power by 2014. Dalton McGuinty likes to boast that Ontario would be the first jurisdiction in North America to ban coal. If you’re the only government doing something, maybe it’s not such a good idea. Especially if you have to buy coal-generated power from plants in the US – plants that spew their emissions across the Great Lakes.

Howard Hampton is promising a lower hydro rate for the Northern forestry industry. At the same time, he believes we won’t have to replace aging nuclear plants because the difference can be partly made up through conservation. An admirable goal, but completely unrealistic. Again, both promises are at odds with one another.

Liberal and NDP promises – if kept – will likely cause shortages and price spikes that would threaten existing industry, and drive away potential investment.

The lessons of the last 15 years are clear: arbitrary rates have unintended effects. Bringing new supplies online is a complicated business. Completely ruling out one source of power has severe implications. That’s why prudence and planning should prevail over pithy slogans.

John Tory’s plan isn’t headline-grabbing or sensational. It doesn’t fit on bumper sticker. But it’s responsible leadership in a policy area that badly needs it.

The NDP's Jordan Berger: Cheap power built Ontario's economy, market-based power may destroy it

Yes, we should consider adjusting hydro rates to maintain critical industries in this province. It is a little known fact that Ontario’s abundant sources and cheap cost of electricity was a major driver of our industrial sector. Luckily, one leader knows a great deal about the historical development of our economy, in fact, he wrote a book about it.

The global hunt for electricity sources and deregulation at home has led to higher prices and more volatile prices – serious threats to large industrial energy consumers. Forestry, in particular, is under threat and of unique importance to Northern Ontario. In the latest downswing, 9000 direct forestry jobs and 45,000 forestry-related jobs have been lost costing Northern Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars and threatening the tax base of many Northern municipalities.

NDP Leader Howard Hampton has taken the first step by offering a new hydro rate of $45 per megawatt hour for eligible Northern Ontario mills. In addition, government revenue generated from Northern Ontario industry will be reinvested back in the region.

Last week, Hampton also proposed a Job Protection Commissioner, a model that has worked very well in British Columbia. The Commissioner would become involved when companies start facing difficulties and would bring government resources to bear to find new arrangements with banks, creditors and employees.

I would ask you to contrast Hampton’s campaign themes and record with that of Dalton McGuinty. Dalton would never turn up the opportunity to join a plant opening, but where is he as plants and jobs are shed throughout the province?

The Green Party's Chris Tindal: Policy Should Encourage Efficiency and Competitiveness

As residential customers we already pay less than the true cost of energy, and large industrial users pay even less than that. This is perhaps the worst kind of corporate welfare, because it encourages waste and inefficiency while harming competitiveness and contributing to pollution and a distorted market economy. Lowering hydro rates would not only be an environmental disaster, but in the long run would harm these sectors more than it would help. To the contrary, we should raise them.

Am I under any illusion that pledging to raise electricity rates to their true cost will be an instantly popular idea? Of course not. But it's the right decision, and it must be done. As long as we keep the price of energy artificially low (not factoring in real "externalized" costs caused by air pollution, climate change, nuclear disaster insurance, etc.) we'll be unable to fully realize what policies (investments in renewable energy, efficiency, decentralized generation, etc.) are actually the most economically responsible and ecologically sane.

At the same time, however, we must ensure that lower-income people, who could be the most vulnerable to higher energy prices, are not left in the dark. Increasing the price of energy must be done within the context of a tax "shift" which reduces income tax. A Green government would also provide targeted financial supports for energy retrofits and other cost-saving measures, which can reduce energy consumption (and, therefore, energy bills) by up to 80%.

We must also ensure there are other kinds of supports made available to Ontario industries, including the forestry sector and manufacturing sector. There are huge opportunities in those areas for the creation of more "green-collar" jobs and more internationally competitive businesses. We should learn from the lessons of American car manufacturers who complained inexplicably that increasing their efficiency would hurt them, only to be left in the dust by their Japanese counterparts. By subsidizing the price of energy and keeping it artificially low, we are discouraging innovation and positive progress. Good, responsible government would do precisely the opposite.

Three's a Party, More's a Crowd?

Thu, 20 Sep 07 19:43:20 GMT

Whether or not tonight's debate will sway voters, the electorate will at least be able to see the "Big Three" party leaders free of slick campaign packaging and be able to compare leadership abilities among them. Which takes us to the next question for our battle bloggers:

Should more party leaders have been included in the Leaders' Debate?

Jacqueline Alderton of the Liberals: Inclusion Means More Debate

For those who want more participants in the televised debate, I say bring it on! I know the Ontario Liberal Party accepted the invitation of the broadcast consortium who set the ground rules – including the number of participants. A look at the Green Party’s platform highlights many of the issues that are important for Liberals like me. Here’s where we stand:

On the Environment: David Suzuki said Ontario is on the forefront of renewable energy, and Dalton McGuinty will continue to fight for a cleaner, greener Ontario with a sustainable economy that grows next generation jobs. Check out what we’re doing for Economic Prosperity.

How do we get ahead and stay ahead of the global competition? Education is at the forefront of Dalton McGuinty’s plan for the future of Ontario, with a public education system that’s second to none.

Public Healthcare is a vital part of the kind of Ontario we want to live in – one where everyone has access to the highest quality of care.

I invite you to check out our entire election platform by clicking on any of the links above. Feel free to compare our platform to anyone else’s.

Joan Tintor of the Progressive Conservatives: You must be this Big to get on this Ride

In keeping with my argument in the last post – that the bar for entry to the Ontario Legislature should be high – the same applies here.

And after Green Party leader Frank de Jong’s performance on “The Agenda” earlier this week, the networks may have done the Green Party a favour by limiting their stage to the parties represented in the Legislature.

During his interview with Steve Paikin, De Jong argued for MMP by citing an incident in which Greenpeace protestors locked themselves to the propeller of a ship:

De Jong: “If green issues were properly debated in the Ontario Legislature, Greenpeace would not have to risk the lives of these young people. That’s an example of a dysfunctional electoral system, where the debate has to take place on a ship out in the middle of Lake Ontario, risking life and limb of our young people.”

Paikin: “I’m not sure why that follows. You’re saying that if the Greens had representation in the Ontario Legislature, they wouldn’t have to be to be doing this kind of thing?”

De Jong: “That’s correct. Because these issues, climate change, would be properly debated, properly financed, the discussion properly researched and presented in the Legislature. If we had a functional electoral system, all the people who support Greenpeace could vote for the Green Party and know that their vote counted and then Greenpeace would not have to risk these young people’s lives.”

First past the post has been criticized for a lot of reasons, but this is the first time I’ve heard someone say it is to blame for environmental kamikaze missions.

The networks already have a daunting task in covering a range of issues and giving each party sufficient time to respond and debate. I have not watched any of the US presidential debates yet, but there are widespread complaints that having six to ten candidates on one stage ends up being not much of a debate, and more like the reviewing stand at the May Day parade in the Soviet Union.

Speaking of May, de Jong’s federal leader must not be too chuffed about his chances in October, having chosen this time to have surgery, and be out of commission for six weeks. Despite some hiccups since becoming leader, Elizabeth May has a high profile and a certain amount of media savvy, and could have helped.

Jordan Berger of the NDP: No, Participation has to be Earned.

In general, I would like to see many more debates between the leaders. How about a series of debates between Hampton, McGuinty, and Tory in different regions of the province? In a month-long campaign, taking an extra four or five days for real debate wouldn’t endanger democracy as we know it.

This is true at the riding level as well. In Davenport, where I live, our increasingly bizarre Liberal MPP Tony Ruprecht is notorious for trying to avoid community debates. He has only relented to debate NDP candidate Peter Ferreira after local activists threatened to make his no-show public.

That being said, as long as there is only one televised debate, I do feel that only parties currently represented in the Ontario Legislature should be represented. . It is a cliché, because it is true, that the only poll that counts is Election Day. Party fortunes wax and wane and a leader of a fourth or fifth or sixth party should not get paid access to 11,000,000 Ontarians simply because their party spikes in a third-party opinion poll. Almost all entitlements parties enjoy – be they seats, state funding, or party status itself – depend on the most recent general election results; so should access to the official debate.

Watch for a breakout by Hampton this evening. He’s got more experience than either of his opponents and a powerful message to deliver.

Chris Tindal of the Green Party: Let The People Decide

Yes. Frank de Jong and the Green Party of Ontario have earned their place at the table. Of course, it's predictable and at least a bit self-serving for me to say that, so let's take a look at the facts and arguments.

First, it's important to understand that, contrary to the claims of our opponents, there are no rules for deciding who gets to be in the debate. None. The decision is made behind closed doors by a group of unelected and accountable broadcast executives using whatever criteria they chose. That's not right; there should be an open and transparent process with clear criteria.

Second, there's precedent. Provincial Green leaders have been included in other televised debates, including Adriane Carr in BC and, most recently, Sharon Labchuk in PEI.

Third, Greens are polling at an all-time high, within striking distance of the NDP. Thomas Walkom writes in The Toronto Star that "if I had to pick a winner for the week, it would be Frank de Jong's Greens," and Ian Urquhart says that the Greens have hit a nerve . In other words, we're a serious, credible voice that many people are considering voting for. They deserve to hear what we have to say.

Fourth, as columnist John Lorinc points out, excluding the Green party means excluding whole issues and new ideas. It means, for example, that the majority of Ontarians who support the creation of one publicly funded school system will not hear from a single party leader who shares their views during tonight's debate.

Finally--and, for me, most importantly--the overwhelming majority (close to 80%) of voters believe that the Greens should be included in the debates. We live in a democracy, so surely that counts for something. (Check out these responses when the CBC posed the question.) And you have to ask yourself, if that many people want to hear where we stand, what right do the broadcasters have to deny them? And to the party leaders who oppose our inclusion: what are you afraid of?

I'd encourage you to read Frank de Jong's excellent op-ed piece in today's Toronto Sun outlining the reasons he should have been included. And if you'd like to hear what Frank has to say on the issues, check out gpo.ca during tonight's debate. He'll be responding to questions live, because he believes that you have a right to know where the Green party stands.

Who's Afraid of MMP?

Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:27:46 GMT

Hey, Battling Bloggers: MMP — Mixed-Member Proportional representation — is one of the most important issues voters will have to consider in this election, and the one they know the least about. A referendum is asking Ontarians if they want to abandon our first-past-the-post system, in favour of a system that will take the popular vote into consideration in the allotment of seats in the legislature.

So our question to you is, who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if Mixed-Member Proportional representation goes forward?

Discuss...

Jacqueline Alderton of the Liberals: MMP — Letting Ontarians Decide

Who has the most to gain? Single issue parties that have broader appeal. Who has the most to lose? Potentially, the majority or a sizeable minority of people who are on the other side of that issue. Two or three people could hold up important legislation that many more people want. On the other hand, two or three people could help give voice to important concerns, important constituencies, and be the catalysts for needed change. I think it’s great that the McGuinty government created a Citizens’ Assembly to study different ways to renew our democracy. I think it’s even better that people are thinking about MMP and our democracy. At the end of the day, the referendum question is giving us all good reason to take another look at our democracy, and we’re either going to vote to reform it or we’re going to validate the system we have. Either way, it's about our voices being heard, and our vote shaping our political process. We all gain when there's greater citizen engagement.

Joan Tintor of the Progressive Conservatives: Citizens Likely to Lose While Back Roomers Gain under MMP

In narrow political terms, “fringe” parties would gain from MMP. In a larger way, however, voters would lose, while unelected advisors and party power brokers would gain.

The most-cited objection to MMP is that the “List” Members would be chosen from lists put forward by the parties. Parties would decide how those candidates are selected, but must disclose what the process is. Some have raised fears that the parties will choose hacks, fundraisers, defeated candidates, or others who are owed a payoff of some kind.

The introduction of the List Members would result in two tiers of MPPs: those who are accountable to a constituency, and those who are not. The List Members will have no constituents to serve, no local events to attend, no calls to make to unresponsive bureaucracies. Sounds like, well, the Senate. Of course, List Members would be free to do worthwhile policy work, as the Senate does, but they would equally be free to do politics full time on the taxpayers’ dime.

The motive of marginal parties in supporting MMP is that the bar for entry to the Legislature is high. The bar should be high.

When the ADQ was leading in the seat count the night of the Québec election, I wondered what ADQ leader Mario Dumont was thinking. Something along the lines of “Holy @#$%! I may have to implement my promises and run the government!” I should think. That is precisely the fear that should govern the words and actions of every party leader, every day, not just during campaigns. This helps protect voters against outlandish promises, though it is admittedly not foolproof.

Speaking of Dalton McGuinty, despite having initiated this proposal – that has cost $11 million thus far – he remains strangely reticent about it.

Last month, John Tory announced his ideas to restore Ontarians’ confidence in elected politicians. These include having more free votes, improving freedom of information, and more family-friendly Legislature hours.

Fortunately, Tory already has some credibility on this issue, having allowed PC MPPs to vote freely approximately 25% of the time since becoming leader. He and the PC caucus have also succeeded in improving the decorum in the Legislative chamber. Tory’s initial attempts to do so were ridiculed by veteran Liberal foghorns Dwight Duncan and George Smitherman. But he and the PC caucus persevered and succeeded, a fact for which most Liberal MPPs are probably thankful.

Jordan Berger of the NDP: Electoral Reform Now!

The principal losers from MMP would be the two mainstream parties which explains, in large part, their explicit and implicit opposition.

Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives can hope to attract a majority of votes cast and thus First Past the Post (FRTP) is their only chance at winning a clear mandate to govern.

Both parties are also electoral machines that contain diverse constituencies under a single banner. A form of Proportional Representation would greatly increase their vulnerability to splintering, but this is especially true of the Liberals. One suspects that an end to FPTP would challenge their only raison d'etre — to win.

The NDP may well face the same sort of internal pressures and a future schism. However, since the main pressure we have faced in recent elections comes from dishonest Liberal appeals to vote "strategically", a move to Proportional Representation would increase our voice and influence.

But there's a much more important reason to support the referendum: to boost the effectiveness and legitimacy of the electoral system itself. As many have suggested, perhaps the biggest threat to Canadian democracy is voter apathy. Many citizens do not vote because of the paucity of choice and outcomes that do not reflect their wishes. Proportional Representation addresses this fundamental problem in our system. What true democrat would oppose giving voters more choices and an effective voice at the ballot box?

Chris Tindal of the Green Party: Exciting Opportunity to Make Democracy Better

For me, the most important thing to remember about the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) recommendation is that it was designed by people, not just politicians. 103 randomly-selected Ontarians worked for eight months on our behalf studying, consulting, and deliberating on which voting system is best for Ontario. They were not beholden to any political party or special interest — they were just everyday Ontarians trying to make the best decision they could. And in the end, by an overwhelming vote of 94-8, they decided that it's time for change.

It's also interesting to note that MMP is supported across the political spectrum, by Conservatives like Hugh Segal, Liberals like Carolyn Bennett, and New Democrats like Ed Broadbent. Therefore, we must conclude that the people most likely to benefit from this new system are voters themselves.

Here's what I mean by that. Under MMP, we would each get two votes: one for a local candidate, and one for a party. So, we could decide to vote for a good candidate but not their party, or vice versa. In this way, MMP gives voters more choice. Then, the percentage of the vote each party wins determines how many seats they get, so that 10% of the vote would mean approximately 10% of the seats (unlike our current system). In this way, MMP produces fairer results. Finally, voters would be able to hold every party accountable or go to any party's "list MPPs" with a request, since the fact that every vote counts forces parties to work hard for every vote in every region of the province. In this way, MMP provides for stronger representation.

Of course, no system is perfect. Opponents of MMP are quick to point out its flaws, conveniently ignoring all of the flaws with our current system (most notably that a party can, with less than 40% of the vote, get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power). They also ignore the fact that no group of people is more familiar with the advantages and flaws of both our current system and MMP than the Citizens' Assembly that recommended the change.

What's worse, some opponents of MMP resort to fear tactics and distortions, making claims about MMP that are not substantiated by any examples from countries that use the system (New Zealand, Germany, Scotland, and Wales). They do this because they know, as we learned from the Citizens' Assembly process, that when Ontarians learn all of the facts about MMP, they overwhelmingly favour it to the status quo. October 10 is an exciting opportunity to make democracy better.

Rumble over Religious Schools

Thu, 13 Sep 07 15:25:08 GMT

Hey, Battling Bloggers: An Ipsos-Reid survey released on September 10 reported that 62% of Ontarians are against religious school funding. Did John Tory make a mistake politically by promising to fund faith-based schools?

Discuss...

Jacqueline Alderton of the Liberals: I'm with McGuinty

It's a mistake to take 500 million dollars out of public education. Think of where we've been. The 26 million learning days lost during the Conservative years. I'm sure the Conservatives believe in pursuing their own interests. But When push comes to shove, the Conservatives prove time and again that they are not about the public interest.

Over the last four years, the McGuinty government has worked hard with teachers, parents, experts, officials elected and otherwise to turn public education around. Kids have worked hard.

Just when test scores are going up, just when class sizes are going down the Conservatives are proposing a scheme that would take $100,000 out of every school in Ontario. Take a look at the school in your neighborhood and ask yourself what you would cut.

I'm with Dalton McGuinty and the 2 million kids in public education in Ontario. They come from across cultural, religious, and ethnic communities. Let's not turn our backs on them.

Progressive Conservative Joan Tintor: The mistake was McGuinty’s – in making McGuinty the issue

It’s Dalton McGuinty who has made the mistake.

In a now-infamous quote, McGuinty has described faith-based schools as “sequestered and segregated.”

Segregation is an ugly and loaded word, evoking images of burning crosses, labelled water fountains, and National Guard troops escorting little black girls in starched dresses to formerly all-white schools. Today, whispered fears of Muslim schools are like the “Working Families” commercials: the McGuintyites have nothing to do with them (wink), but they are grateful for their effects nonetheless.

Yet we know that on numerous occasions, McGuinty has endorsed the concept of funding for faith-based schools. He told the Toronto Star that “I’m not ideologically opposed” (May 22, 1999). He told the Ottawa Citizen that “there’s an issue of unfairness there that will have to be addressed” (June 1, 2001).

We also know that McGuinty attended a publicly-funded, faith-based school, McGuinty’s father endorsed funding of faith-based schools, McGuinty’s four children attended faith-based schools, and McGuinty’s wife teaches in a faith-based school.

The policy that John Tory is proposing would invite faith-based schools to join the public system on the same footing as the McGuinty family’s schools, requiring them to (1) hire certified teachers; (2) participate in standardized testing and other accountability measures; (3) teach the Ontario curriculum, which means that Christian schools would be required to teach evolution in science class, but remain free to discuss Genesis in religion class – just as the McGuinty family’s schools are. As voters learn that this is what the policy is about, they see that it is consistent with Ontario’s history of promoting minority rights and equality, things that Liberals used to believe in.

The thing that has most alienated rural and other voters is Dalton McGuinty’s dishonesty. When they see that his portrayal of faith-based schools funding contains as much truth as his promises on taxes and support for farmers, their distrust is rekindled anew.

Some have asked McGuinty: if religious education is so bad, why not dismantle the Catholic schools? McGuinty has a ready excuse for not leading in that direction either: the system was like this when he got here. Or, as he likes to say, it was “inherited.”

Which brings me back to segregation. To a generation of American politicians, segregation was also “inherited.” Some of them believed that remedying that injustice would open a can of worms that was best left closed. Those politicians were not thoroughly bad people – but neither were they leaders.

Jordan Berger of the NDP: Is faith-based funding really the most important issue facing Ontario?

If John Tory goes down to ignominious defeat on this issue, future historians will be delighted by the clean narrative arc of his political career. After all, Tory left provincial politics in the 1980s with his mentor and boss Premier Bill Davis shortly after the Premier decided to further extend funding to Roman Catholic schools. Many observers blame this decision for alienating traditional Conservative voters and leading to the defeat, in 1985, of what had been Ontario's "natural governing party". Now, Tory seems to be reviving the issue with the potential for an equally dismal outcome.

Will it happen again? I'm not so sure. A generation has passed since 1984 and the divisions between Catholics and Protestants that supposedly drove the earlier controversy have receded further into history. Are the embers of Orange Ontario stil glowing? If so, who will they punish? John Tory, for his plan to further weaken public education, or Dalton McGuinty, for hypocrisy in side-stepping the publicly-funded Catholic schools his children attend?

Both mainstream parties have been quite shameless in courting new Canadians or, more precisely, organizations claiming to represent these communities. Just ask Mike Colle, the Liberal Cabinet Minister forced to resign over the mismanagement of the community slush fund program. The faith-based funding issue has the potential to cost both the Liberals and the Conservatives if it gets out of control.

But there are greater issues at stake in this election that go far beyond the Liberals' "gotcha" politics. Ontario's manufacturing sector has taken a hell of a beating and voters are rightly concerned about the future. If there is one thing I've learned about the Ontario electorate it is that voters will punish any party that does not address economic concerns. Ontarians need to be convinced that future prosperity is secure before they will focus, or even tolerate, debate about marginal issue like this one.

The NDP is quite rightly focusing on the issue that matter to all Ontarians, whatever their ethnicity or creed. Yesterday, Howard Hampton announced that the health care levy will be eliminated for the 1.5 million workers earning less than $48,000 per year and significantly reduced for other middle-income families. Most voters, be they Muslims, Hindus, Mongolians, or Finns, will respond to concrete proposals like this one rather than be drawn into a sterile debate about faith-based schooling.

The Greens' Chris Tindal: It's All or Nothing

Currently, Ontario uses public money to fund the schools of one denomination of one religion (Catholicism) to the exclusion of all others. On two separate occasions the United Nations has censured Ontario for this clear discrimination on the basis of religion. There are historical reasons why this may have made sense back at the time of confederation, but surely we can agree today that the status quo is unfair and unacceptable.

Given that, I personally concluded several years ago that there were only two options: we must either fund all religious schools or none. And there, in a nutshell, we have the positions of the Conservatives and the Greens, respectively. The fact that the Liberal party and the NDP argue that our government should continue to discriminate on the basis of religion is beyond my comprehension (particularly the cynical Liberal position, which is to pretend to oppose the funding of religious schools, when what they're actually opposing is the equal funding of all religions).

On this specific issue, therefore, I don't have much of a desire to criticize the Tory position too strongly, since at least it advocates for fairness. I do not believe, however, that their solution is workable or acceptable to most Ontarians. The Liberals are at least right when they say that the money to fund religious schools would inevitably have to be diverted from public schools, and I'm not sure I want my government getting into the business of deciding which religions are "legitimate" enough to deserve school funding. Did John Tory "make a mistake politically?" Maybe. More importantly, I think he's mistaken in thinking that his solution is the best for Ontario.

The Green Party position [ pdf], on the other hand, is to create one publicly funded school system, where children of all religions and creeds can learn together, and from each other. It is the most realistic and sensible position, and enjoys the support of most Ontarians. We can do it without opening up the constitution, just as other provinces have already done. In addition to resolving the current inequality, this will also eliminate duplications in administration, facilities and transportation between the Catholic and public school boards, getting more out of every education dollar. For me, it's the obvious choice.

Off to Battle -- by Blog!

Mon, 10 Sep 07 19:31:00 GMT

As elections increasingly play out online, so too will the role of the blogger. Today as the campaign for the leadership of Ontario begins, we roll out our own battlefield...

Throughout the course of the election, The Agenda's Election Battle Blog will be a place to debate the issues online. We'll feature the thoughts and arguments of some of this province's brightest political bloggers: Jacqueline Alderton from the Liberals, Progressive Conservative Joan Tintor, NDP activist Jordan Berger and Chris Tindal of the Green Party.

Please come by and join in the battle -- it's your chance to have your views heard by party insiders -- and other members of The Agenda's community.

For their first posts, we asked our battling bloggers which issue they thought would shape the campaign.

Jacqueline Alderton is in her last year of her Sociology degree at the University of Windsor, as well as being on the executive of the Ontario Young Liberals. She has been involved in both the provincial and federal parties. She was a part of Stephane Dion's liberal leadership campaign. Her blog can be found at southwesternontarioliberal.blogspot.com.

It's About the Ontario you Want: Public vs. Private

I wonder if my little brother will enjoy high school. CJ just started last week. Will anyone notice if he struggles in math? Will he get to play soccer? Will he have a prom? That’s part of the ballot box question for me, because I know what it was like to be in school when the Conservatives were in power. I could go through the litany of lost days because of teacher strikes and budget cuts but what I remember the most was how politicized school became. The priority wasn’t to give kids what they need to succeed. We were just bumps in the road of the Common Sense Revolution.

That’s why I support Dalton McGuinty, and that’s why I’m a Liberal. It’s not about the label, it’s about the values. It’s about strengthening vital public services of all Ontarians as opposed to the private interests of a few.

That means protecting our environment for everyone, instead of letting someone pave over the greenbelt.

It means protecting our drinking water and preventing another Walkerton, instead of voting against the Clean Water Act like the NDP and the Conservatives.

John Tory claims he’s different. But you look at his Conservative platform is the same old Tory, same old story.

Tory wants to slash $3 billion dollars from public healthcare just as key medical wait-times are coming down. The McGuinty Liberals have hired thousands of nurses, new doctors and 500,000 more Ontarians have family doctors. Yet all the Conservatives can propose is opening private clinics that could lure those doctors away.

And then there’s Tory’s proposal to take half a billion dollars from publicly funded education and give it to private, religious schools. Tory is willing to say or do anything to pander for votes- teaching creationism and saying evolution is just another theory. You really have to question his judgment.

After just 4 years of the McGuinty Liberals, kids are getting more attention in smaller classes in primary grades and test-scores are going up. I don’t know why anyone would want to give up on public education just as its getting better.

I know a bit about what better feels like. I’ve benefited from the largest investment in post-secondary education in 40 years. I love my university, and more than that, I love that I can afford to go thanks to upfront grants and bursaries. Voting Liberal is one way I can do my part to make sure my little brother and tens of thousands of others have a chance to experience what better feels like.

Joan Tintor is a writer and researcher living in Toronto. Her political experience includes having served as legislative assistant to Ontario transportation minister Al Palladini, and as a writer/researcher for the Ontario PC Caucus. She earned a degree in journalism from Ryerson Polytechnic University in 1994. She also blogs at www.joantintor.blogspot.com.

Coming this Fall: Who Wants to Believe Dalton McGuinty?

“I love this election, because it’s about something . . . I won’t raise your taxes.”
--Dalton McGuinty, campaign commercial, 2003

“Well, what we’ve said all along, I am very clear about this, is that we’re not going to be raising taxes.”
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, April 24, 2004

No, that last date isn’t a typo. Dalton McGuinty continued to stick to his no-tax-hike pledge, long after the so-called hidden deficit was discovered like the roulette table in “Casablanca,” and right up to three weeks before the 2004 budget that imposed his regressive health tax.

The traditional definition of chutzpah is a man convicted of murdering his parents, then asking for the mercy of the court on account of he’s an orphan. I think we have a new definition: Dalton McGuinty making more promises, and expecting the voters to believe him.

As is well known, Dalton McGuinty made over 200 promises in the last election, broke over 50, fell short on others, and has now topped up his tank with another 71 promises ripe for the breaking, in his platform document released last Thursday.

Whether it’s banning transfats, a tax break on bike helmets, or $300 cheques for university students, the question isn’t whether these are good ideas or not, as some of them surely are. The question is: why would anyone believe any of them?

Credulous headline writers will not be enough to inculcate in the voters an eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, wiped clean of broken Dalton McGuinty promises. In fact, McGuinty’s Gainesburgers may have the reverse effect, with every trinket tossed reminding voters of the last barrage of McGuinty promises, which shattered like whisky bottles in a John Wayne movie.

The occasion of Dalton McGuinty’s platform document release was, aptly enough, also the occasion of another massive broken promise: his three-year old pledge to review his regressive health tax. Turns out, that was all a lie too. Oh, there will be a “review” – in the same manner that I review my eating habits every time I go clothes shopping – but there will be no change in this regressive tax that hits people earning as little as $20,000 annually.

I don’t think Dalton McGuinty is going to love this election quite as much as the last one, even though it is “about something” too: about whether people can believe a word Dalton McGuinty says.

Footnote: I’d like to thank TVO for providing the parties space for their “battling bloggers.” Given that the major battles in my life to date have all been with the white stuff (sugar, that is) – and I usually lose – this is going to be, at the very least, interesting.

Jordan Berger works for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and has an extensive history with the NDP as an activist, Rae Government political staff, member of the Ontario NDP Executive, Co-Chair of the ONDP platform committee, and as a two-time candidate in Davenport.

The Most Important Issue is Leadership

It is a reality of modern media-driven electoral campaigns that attention is focused primarily on Ontario's party leaders. This poses a huge challenge to the Liberals because Dalton McGuinty just has not gelled as Premier. In fact, he often appears, despite a small fortune spent on image consultants, uncomfortable and indecisive.

In stark contrast, the NDP Leader Howard Hampton offers a wealth of experience, sincerity, and a consistent track record -- Hampton has always looked beyond the froth of daily punditry to focus on the challenges faced by working people. As Ontarians look for a leader they know and trust to guide their families and communities through a difficult economic period, Hampton will emerge as the best choice for Premier.

McGuinty's personal negatives are not helped by his government's legacy in office. To clinch the 2003 win McGuinty offered a laundry list of promises that he knew would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement. The introduction of the health care premium after promising, "no new taxes," is the best remembered broken promise but the coming month will bring daily reminders of many more promises made and not kept.

At the same time, Ontario faces a referendum that will either maintain the current first-past-the-post electoral system or move to modified proportional representation. The proposed changes will fail unless voters see a fundamental reform of electoral machinery as the best way to keep their elected representatives accountable. I'll be watching closely to see if voters start to make the connection between broken promises and an electoral system that discourages democratic accountability.

Ontarians are concerned about the province's future -- they see the central role of the province fading as Alberta and British Columbia surge on the strength of natural resources. In contrast, Ontario has suffered 175,000 lost manufacturing jobs and while the governing Liberals have tried to ignore the job carnage, the residents of cities like Hamilton, Sudbury, Cambridge, and Windsor, to name a few, certainly have not. Cynical last minute promises are not going to cut weight with voters -- the concern and anxiety across Ontario is very real this time.

The Liberals are in love with the game of politics, not with the art of democratic leadership. The New Democrats hit the nail on the head by contrasting the lack of movement on the minimum wage -- which sets the basic standard of living for millions of Ontario workers -- with the speed and stealth used to pass massive wage increases for 107 lucky MPPs. This NDP strategy made a huge contribution to their recent byelection victories: Paul Ferreira in York South-Weston and Cheri Di Novo in Parkdale-High Park. As a symbolic example of the differences between the two parties and their leaders, it may well contribute to a real breakthrough for Hampton and the Ontario NDP on October 10th.

Chris Tindal is the Democratic Reform Advocate for the Green Party of Canada, and is the party’s nominated candidate in Toronto Centre. As a candidate in the 2006 federal general election, Tindal ran in Toronto Centre. He is a coauthor of “A Realistic Energy Plan for Toronto,” which has been endorsed by hundreds of individuals, including politicians and community leaders. He blogs at www.christindal.ca.

What Will We Wish The Issues Were?

Of course, absent a crystal ball it's impossible to know what the most important issue will be in this election, and most campaigns end up taking unexpected twists and turns. So far, funding for religious schools has probably played most prominently in the media, and I know several people plan to vote based on that issue alone. From a strictly selfish/partisan point of view, I wouldn't mind if that stuck. With the Liberals and NDP supporting the status quo of one religion receiving funding to the exclusion of all others (in opposition to most Ontarians' sense of fairness, as well as two separate United Nations censures for religious discrimination), and with the Conservatives' wildly-ridiculed and unrealistic plan to divert money from the public school system in order to fund all religions, the Green Party of Ontario's plan to create one, publicly funded and cost-efficient school system is clearly the most reasonable, and, according to polls, enjoys the support of most voters.

I think a more interesting and important question, however, is what should be the most important issue of this campaign. Or, in other words, when we look back at the end of the next government's term, what will we wish we'd spent more time debating? In that case, three things come to mind. First, for those of us familiar with the science of climate change and the fact that it's accelerating far more rapidly than climatologists predicted, it's hard to consider that any other issue could be more important than meeting our green obligations to ourselves and the world. When we're talking about climate change, we're talking about the uncertainty that our planet will continue to be able to support life as we know it via clean air, drinkable water, and fertile soil. And we are no longer talking about "the world we leave for our grandchildren;" The IPCC says we only have 8 years to make the significant changes that must be made. By the time we have another provincial election in 2011, half of that window will have passed. Therefore, it's critical that our provincial government makes the right decisions in the next 4 years in areas where they can make a difference, like, for example, energy policy.

Which brings me to the second issue I think voters should think carefully about: the Liberal/Conservative plan to spend $40 billion dollars on nuclear power. If in the next 30 days we decide to go down that path, we will have made a mistake with a million-year legacy. The reasons to oppose nuclear power are many, and I've outlined them in detail on my blog. For now, suffice it to say that nuclear is extremely fiscally irresponsible, and, despite expensive PR campaigns, is ineffective in addressing the climate crisis. The last nuclear plant built in Ontario went 270% over budget, and we're all still playing down the debt from those plants. Do we really want to add another $40 billion to that debt, to say nothing of the environmental or health concerns, or the fact that nuclear takes 12 years to build, and we're in an energy crisis now?

Finally, and somewhat ironically, the most important issue in this election may have nothing to do with which party or candidate you vote for. October 10th is not just a provincial election, it's also the date for a referendum on electoral reform. In my opinion, the most important vote I've cast in my lifetime will be to vote for Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), as recommended by the 103 randomly-selected citizens who worked on our behalf. MMP is not a perfect system (nothing is), but by a vote of 94-8 the Citizens' Assembly concluded that it's better than the one we have now. Under MMP you'd get to cast two votes: one for your preferred candidate, and one for your preferred party. It would also mean that a party that got 40% of the vote would get 40% of the seats (not 60%), and that more women and minorities would be represented in the legislature. For more information, visit voteformmp.ca.