Ontario has voted and returned the Liberals led by McGuinty to the Ontario Legislature. John Tory of the Conservatives went down to defeat not only from the position of Premier of the Province but failed to win in his own riding. One of the lowest voter turnout in Ontario’s history voted down the MMP referendum which I’m happy to see go down. I just wish that more Ontarians had felt the need to add their voice to the referendum.

Tory has said he’s going to stay on to serve the people of Ontario. I’m going to be rather surprised if his party will let him stay on. He managed to take an election that by all appearances was his to win and lose it over an issue which wasn’t even on the public radar going into the campaign — faith based school funding. It took some of his own candidates who were facing the barrages at the doors to revolt before he modified his stand to promising to allow a free vote.

All things considered, I suspect that the knives were being sharpened before the polls closed on Wednesday evening and Tory will either need to leave gracefully or find himself pushed out the door. Howard Hampton also failed once again to deliver any significant gains to the NDP, I suspect some within the party will be suggesting it is time for him to take a graceful exit.

The referendum vote seems to indicate that while some voices may be loud and vocal about wanting electoral reform, they don’t represent the majority of the voters of the province who vote for the mainstream parties. I sure hope that McGuinty wont be spending more taxpayers money on that folly.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

In roughly 10 days Ontario will vote. We’ll either retain McGuinty for the Liberals as Premier or give someone like Tory for the Progressive Conservatives or Hampton of the NDP a shot at the helm. The polls at this point seem to be unsure if we’re looking at a majority or minority government.

The race for the main spot seems to be between McGuinty and Tory. If the province goes to a minority government, Hampton will have the balance of power, meaning that his support will be required to keep the government alive.

As in most elections, I have to make a choice between basing my voting choice on the local candidates or the leaders of their respective parties. This could change on election day if voters support a proposed electoral reform plan to bring in Mixed Member Proportional. I’ve already come out opposed to this proposal even though it would give me two votes, one for the local candidate of my choice and one for the leader.

The local Liberal and Conservative candidates are both good choices. The incumbent Liberal hasn’t been exactly stunning in the legislature but by all accounts he has represented the riding well in the last four years. His opponent from the Conservatives lives locally, has a history of strong community involvement. The NDP and Green candidates I have zero awareness of and can’t say I’m particularly concerned about even considering either of them.

So, with a more or less equal race in the riding, I look at the leaders of the two parties. In the last election, I voted Liberal but only because I felt that the local candidate was a far better choice. I wasn’t too impressed with McGuinty. I felt he was trying to be all things to all people which usually means you end up being nothing to anyone. I did respect Ernie Eves who struck me as a more moderate, almost liberal Conservative. (I know, what an oxymoron)

Four years on, I’ve formed a different view of McGuinty. I have to admire the fact that has the courage to admit his errors and move on. He admits he broke promises from the last election (what politician doesn’t). In doing so, he admitted that his promises were rather rashly made without knowing the whole picture. A concern I had when he was making his promises in such a grandiose manner.

He’s learned to be more cautious, to not pass judgment or make rash promises without first learning the facts. He introduced a health tax for which he’s been heavily censored. I don’t believe there is any question that this has raised revenue which has enabled the provincial government to increase spending in the health care area. There are still thousands of Ontarians, including myself, without a doctor but doctors are not produced in a short period of time.

There has been relative peace in the educational field during the last four years. Spending which had been cut to drastically low levels under the Harris Conservatives. All three current leaders are promising to increase educational spending.

Tory claims he will find 1.5billion in ‘efficiencies’ to save money which wont include service cuts and that he will phase out the health tax. I’m left rather puzzled how he’s going to decrease government revenue while increasing government spending. When my income drops my spending can’t increase without going into debt. That might explain why McGuinty found an unreported $5billion deficit when he took over from the PCs. That sleight of hand is not unique.. seems to be Peterson left the NDP a deficit when he left office after reporting that the province’s books were balanced.

Liars, damn liars. Time to choose the least liar of them all… or so is the hope.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is the latest group to come out against Provincial Conservative John Tory’s pledge to fully fund all religious schools if he is elected Premier on October 10th. The Association calls for an end to the funding of Catholic separate schools. The move, if any politician was brave enough to back it, would be gutsy but likely political suicide.

The United Nations has called the practise of providing funding for Catholic schools but no other religions discriminatory. Tory calls his pledge to fully fund all religious schools ‘fair’. I wonder if Tory has even thought about a definition of what constitutes ‘religion’. That is a term that has to be harder to define than the word ‘terrorist’. For some, the two words mean the same.

In the early days of this country, and this province as an original part of confederation, the funding of Catholic education in Ontario and Protestant education in Quebec was a part of what forged the union of the Catholic dominated French and the Protestant dominated English parts of Canada. The religious divide really shouldn’t be necessary in an increasingly secular society.

Other provinces have taken the bold steps of obtaining the necessary constitutional amendments to opt out of faith based school systems in favour of fully funding a public school system. What’s the problem here in Ontario? No politicians with guts?

One question I’m a bit surprised hasn’t been asked though. I note that Tory predicates his full funding of private religious schools teaching the Ontario curriculum and hiring accredited teachers. Does that mean that currently they don’t have to? If not, why not?

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it

On October 10th Ontarians will be asked not only to elect their government for the next four years but to vote on whether to change our current first past the post system of elections to one called mixed member proportional. We will have two votes that day, one for each.

I’ve spent some time reading a range of websites on the subject of the referendum. One of the frustrations I’ve had with the first past the post system has been that my one vote determines both local candidate and premier. In many cases the local is preferred but the leader isn’t or vice versa. Election day means determining which is my stronger preference.

In theory, the mixed member proportional (MMP), which Ontario is voting on, would provide me with separate votes for local candidate and the premier. So, why am I going to vote against the referendum?

In order to provide me with two votes, the province under MMP would elect 90 MPPs directly and then appoint about 34 others from party lists to reflect the popular vote each party receives. In other words roughly one third of the provincial legislature would be political appointees.

The theory is that political parties would have to select their lists through an open and ‘democratic’ process and that the electorate would penalize parties who didn’t do so through their votes. Nice theory but we know that the process can be manipulated while appearing to be transparent. So, in my opinion, a political appointee is an appointee no matter how you try to dress it.

Some try to argue that this will make the legislature more democratic. I have a problem with the logic that defines democracy as roughly one third appointed. Other arguments put forward claims that women and visible minorities will find greater representation, maybe in fringe parties who can lay claim to seats through appointments. In the mainstream parties, women still need to break through the old boys club.

Ah yeah, the fringe parties. In my opinion, if a party can’t convince the majority of voters in a local riding to send them to the legislature, why should they get handed a seat in the legislature because they manage to garner pockets of support around the province?

So, to get rid of one frustration, I would have to trade it for several others. No thanks.

Visit Out of the Shadows - My commentary on the world as I see it