Ontario Election: GSAs, Greens and Catholic Schools

The issue of gay-straight alliances in Catholic schools in Ontario has heated up again, this time in the Toronto Catholic District School Board, which voted this week to place denominational rights above other rights in implementing the provincial equity policies - which were supposed to guarantee GSAs in Ontario high schools. Clearly, the individual schools in the board are interpreting this as carte blanche to ban anything which explictly has "gay" in the name, going so far as to threaten disciplinary action against students who are fighting for these support groups.

I am pleased to see that this issue is not only getting attention from the gay and alternative media. The Globe and Mail has been devoting significant coverage to this issue, including today's commentary piece from Aidan Johnson.

I'm going to be very curious to see how this issue plays out in the provincial election campaign. So far, the approach of the McGuinty government has been to support the creation of GSAs, using gay Toronto Centre MPP Glen Murray as the main spokesperson on this issue. (Although I find it curious and significant that Education minister Leona Dombrowsky is largely MIA on this issue). But there is clearly reluctance to putting the full weight of the government behind a strategy of compelling the Catholic boards to accept these support groups, especially with the Liberal government in danger of losing the election.

The option of seeking a constitutional amendment to eliminate public funding for the Catholic boards - as was done in Quebec and Newfoundland - does not appear to register on the radar for the current government. I'm not overly surprised by this, given the stew John Tory found himself in in the 2007 election with his promise of funding for other denominational schools. I'm not sure if the gay community and their supporters will be able to mobilize this as a major campaign issue, particularly given the fact that the only major party to endorse an end to public funding of Catholic schools in the 2007 election - the Greens - have retreated from this platform promise, and so there will be no standard bearer for this approach.

I imagine that the Liberals (and the NDP, for that matter), will make vague promises about resolving the issue in the courts, which should tie things up for at least a few more years.

More's the shame, as it will be gay and lesbian teens who suffer in the meantime. I'm not at all surprised by the hateful position of the Catholic schools (having been educated in the system myself), or by the hesitancy of the major parties when faced with a sizeable Catholic voting block. But it does betray their cynical political calculations and lack of willingness to passionately advocate for one of our most vulnerable populations.

Recommend this Post

"The fundamentals are sound" and other Liberal self-delusions

Although I was clenching my fists on election night, praying that we wouldn't get a Conservative majority, a bit of time to watch the post-election fallout has convinced me that such an outcome might at least have been good in terms of allowing - or perhaps forcing - the other parties to rebuild and rethink their positions on several issues. With that introduction, here are some thoughts on what we've seen in the last two weeks.

Cabinet shuffle: Let's start with Canada's new new government. I think that the shuffle shows a few signs that Harper is being intelligent (at least in some limited ways). He's moved his pitbull from the sensitive Environment dossier and replaced the anti-safe-injection site crusader in Health. I'm hoping that the appointment of Jim Prentice to Environment is a sign that we're going to see some constructive action on that file. Likewise, I'm pleased to see James Moore get a promotion to Heritage. I don't know why I keep seeing commentators praise the "great wisdom" of Jason Kenney - I don't think he needs any more clout than he already has.

Liberal leadership: Anyone who thought that the pummeling of the Liberals on election day would lead to some, er, sober second thoughts will have their hopes dashed. I spent time at a political science/history conference last weekend with a number of Liberal political scientists, historians, senators and party activists (I'd call them "Liberal insiders", but I would prefer to avoid becoming the Jane Taber of the blogging world), and was very disillusioned with the general discourse of the weekend.

The gist of the collective wisdom of most delegates was that "the fundamentals are sound", both with the Liberal party and its brand, and with Canada's electoral system more broadly. Panelist after panelist decried the regionalization of Canada's political parties and the rise of minority governments. When I suggested that perhaps some form of electoral reform might be needed, the panel turned on me like a pack of wolves. Their response: "Majority governments are good and bring stability. Liberal majority governments are good for Canada. When Canadians are thinking right, and not being 'tricked', they vote the way they should - for a Liberal majority." There was no acknowledgment that our current set-up came within a hair's breadth of producing a Conservative majority.

Moreover, the consensus seemed to be that the problem with the last several years has been the personal failings of Paul Martin and Stephane Dion. People at the conference - many of whom are warriors from the Meech Lake days - seemed to think that if the party could just find the "right" leader and the "right" platform, they would be rewarded with a majority. What I didn't hear much of was discussion of how that platform should be crafted, or what values it should reflect.

Beyond the academic world, I think we're seeing this same malaise in the leadership race itself. I'm not seeing any fresh faces in the race. I don't think that a new face is necessarily what the Liberals need, or that this would be a magic bullet. But the fact that we aren't seeing these faces could be a sign of the lack of vitality and enthusiasm for the party. Domenic Leblanc is far from an injection of new blood, as the scion of an old Liberal family in New Brunswick. When the great hope and speculation is whether Frank McKenna or John "Beaker" Manley might run, you know that the party is grasping at straws.

It's time for a more serious reflection than we're seeing. It might mean that the next election is a rebuilding election which results in another minority. But the Liberals need to realize that their house of cards is tumbling.

NDP/Greens: I should probably say a word or two about the other parties. Kudos to the NDP for increasing their vote and seat share (albeit slightly) despite having the Green party nipping at their heels. I am wondering if Jack Layton has done all he can to bring his party along, and if it might be time for someone with a bit more gravitas. That being said, I'm not sure who that would be, so he may well be safe for a while longer, unless the party really wants to gamble on Thomas Mulcair. I happen to think that the path to growth runs through Western Canada, but I could be proven wrong.

As for the Greens, I think that Elizabeth May's days are numbered. I found her to be a fresh voice on the national scene. However, she demonstrated the strategic sense of a toaster on too many fronts. Specifically, she violated several of my basic rules for riding selection for a representative of an outsider party:
1) Don't run against an incumbent in the Maritimes.
2) Don't run against a cabinet minister.
3) Don't run against a favoured son of an established Maritime family.
May managed to break all these rules, and in a remarkable combination - running against an incumbent Cabinet minister in the Maritimes who is a favoured son, and moreover, the son of a former Cabinet minister from the Maritimes from the same riding. Had she chosen another riding - even my own riding of Guelph - she might well have been in the House of Commons.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Parliamentary gong show.

Recommend this Post

Greens in the debate - and the nature of Conservative "principles"

Interesting. The NDP has reversed its position on letting the Greens participate in the leaders' debate, and the Conservatives have followed suit. Incredible what looking like an anti-democratic thug in the mass media and the blogosphere can do to one's opinions on an issue.

What I find particularly choice is the Conservative party's talking point on the issue, stated here:

“It appears the NDP has changed their position. Our position has been to support the NDP on this point of principle. We are not going to be the only ones to boycott the debate,” Mr. Teneycke said."

Assuming that this is a direct quote from Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke, can we therefore infer that the Conservative position on the debate issue was completely unprincipled? Or that the Conservatives are in the habit of supporting NDP principles - unless those principles change?

Just a thought...


Update:When this issue first broke in the media, I wrote to my local NDP candidate Tom King's campaign office to ask what his position was on including the Greens in the debate. I just got a phone call back from the campaign office - after the announcement - and the campaign worker informs me that Tom King was one of the voices in the party urging the inclusion of May in the debates. Given that his campaign is focusing on environmental issues and that the Greens are such a force here in Guelph, I'm inclined to believe him. It would have been nice to hear it before the official party line changed though.

Recommend this Post

Greens should be in the debate

The Green Party will be excluded from the leaders' debates after three of the party leaders - presumably Harper, Layton and Duceppe - threatened not to participate if Elizabeth May were allowed to participate. I don't buy the "Greens are Liberals in disguise" line that Harper has been spewing. It certainly isn't the case here in Guelph, where the Greens are a major challenger to the Liberals and critics of their policies. Frankly, I don't see why Gilles Duceppe should get to participate, as a regional candidate whose party only fields 75 candidates, and polls around 8% nationally, if Elizabeth May, who presumably will field more candidates and has similar polling numbers, cannot. The Bloc got its first MPs through party defections, just as the Green party did last week.

If nothing else, I'd like May to be in the debates so that Canadians can get a chance to see what her party actually stands for, and to see it subjected to critique by the other parties. I'm getting rather tired of seeing reports of high polling numbers for the Green party, when I suspect that most Canadians only have a vague sense of what the Greens are about. Frankly, I'd prefer to have them in the debates so that Canadians can make an informed decision, lest we wake up to find out that a number of voters made a "Hail Mary" vote for the party, only to wake up and find that they split votes in dozens of ridings, despite not having a clear sense of what they were voting for.

Moreover, if the Greens are just "Liberals in disguise", wouldn't this become clear in the debates?

I realize that this is now a moot point, but I'm disappointed in the cowardice of the networks. I don't believe that the other leaders would actually have skipped a leadership debate with May there. The potential bad publicity would have been very hard to spin. It also would have made for some fascinating television!

Recommend this Post

MMP in Guelph

In my last post, I indicated that the all-candidates debate in Guelph helped me narrow down my choices to two: Liberal candidate Liz Sandals and Green candidate Ben Polley. At present, my voting intentions are being influenced by two main issues: the funding of religious schools out of the public purse and the move to a mixed-member-proportional electoral system.

In both cases, the positions of the candidates are leading me to support the Green candidate. The Green party position on the schools question is to support a constitutional amendment to eliminate public funding for the Catholic school board system. To my mind, this is the best way to deal with the question of equitable treatment of religious groups raised by the UN. It is also a route that has been successfully followed in Newfoundland and Quebec. The Liberals, meanwhile, are content to simply defend the status quo, which is preferable to the Conservative approach, but somewhat cowardly in terms of showing leadership.

As for MMP, on his website Ben Polley clearly states that he favours MMP. The Greens are, understandably, fully in favour of a system that will give them some representation for the 5-10% of the vote that they attract. The Liberals are not taking a firm position, although some have adopted a favorable stance. I contacted Liz Sandals to find out her stance on the issue. Her reply was as follows:

"In 2003, the Ontario Liberal Party ran on a platform that included giving Ontarians a choice through a referendum, for the first time ever, on how people are elected in Ontario. When asked to study our electoral system, a randomly selected group of 103 Ontarians came forward with the suggestion of using the MMP system. I am not advocating for either side in this debate. We called the referendum to ask voters which system they prefer, and I will follow the direction of the voters.

That, to my mind, is not showing leadership on this issue, which I expect from a politician. I would at least like to know where their personal preference lies. This, again, is a check in the Polley column for me.

I might yet be swayed back to the Liberals before election day, but it's looking less likely.

Recommend this Post

Ontario election

So apparently an election has been called in Ontario. Who should I vote for? The governing Liberals of Dalton McGuinty, who hasn't done a great deal to excite me, other than proposing to ban fresh sushi-grade fish a few years back(and that wasn't the good kind of excitement)? The Conservatives of John Tory, who want to undermine the public school system, and perhaps allow the teaching of creationism - or maybe not? (Oops, perhaps I should be saying PC party, since the party seems to be running scared from the Conservative brand - so much so that the word does not appear on the entry page of their website). The tired NDP of Howard Hampton, who are "fighting for working families," a slogan that gets under my skin like no other, and are still trying to rid themselves of the albatross of the Bob Rae years? Or the Green Party of a leader who has made such an impression on me that I had to go look up his name (it's Frank de Jong) and have no chance of forming government?

As you can probably tell, while I'm pleased to be back in my home province, its political life is not exactly filling me with glee and excitement. I will, however, be diligent in trying to decide which way to vote, and inform you, my friendly readers, with what I find out about issues that are near and dear to my heart. I'll also attempt to put up some content about the referendum on changing the electoral system to a Mixed-Member Proportional system, which I am supporting. I'll also be placing a particular focus on my home riding of Guelph.

In the meantime, my first observation on the campaign is that I find it curious that in a province with a sizeable Franco-Ontarian minority community and a French-language services act, only one of the four aforementioned parties - the Liberals - has bothered to create a bilingual webpage. It's not like this election date wasn't set a long way in advance. If I were a francophone, I'd find this very insulting indeed.

Recommend this Post