crazed monkey

As the electioneering in Ontario reaches a feverish pitch, Alec Saunders is second-guessing himself, despite his disdain for Tory campaign tactics. It wouldn’t be a Canadian election without the feeling of being forced to choose between a lesser of two or three evils. These choices demand hard questions on economics. Are further tax cuts necessary? Can programs and services continue to operate if tax cuts occur? Do you feel lucky?

Tax cuts are a large part of Ernie Eves campaign. Do Ontarians, who have benefitted from 225 tax cuts in recent years, need more? If the province was in an economic downturn, tax cuts might improve growth, but that isn’t the case here. Are those who would argue further cuts just being greedy? Ernie Eves’ proposed cuts pit Ontario voters against one another: private schooling vs. public schooling, old vs. young, renters vs. owners, municipalities vs. the province, etc. Do we really need these cuts or is Ernie Eves just trying to buy votes?

At what costs would Ontario reap these tax cuts? Ernie Eves is promising 1,000 more police officers, more roads and highways, a $2.6 billion investment for post-secondary education, $28 billion in health care, and a slew of other promises which would cost money. Where is there room for tax cuts? Is it even responsible to promise both tax cuts and increased government spending if Ontario is running a deficit? To paraphrase Alec, applying a little logic leads one to the following conclusions:

• Either Ernie Eves is telling the truth, and there is no deficit but instead a surplus running in the tens of billions, or
• Ernie Eves is lying, either when he says he will provide tax cuts, or when he says he will increase government spending by billions of dollars.

On the one side of the Ontario election, we’re promised further tax cuts, huge increases in spending across the board, and are being greeted with denial that a deficit exists. On the other side, we’re promised no personal tax increases, increases in spending, and an acknowledgement that a deficit exists. You can either believe that we can handle a reduction in government revenue as well as a dramatic increase in government spending, or that we can keep government revenue steady, while at the same time increase spending and pay off a deficit. Either way, it’s a tough call.

Do you feel lucky, voter?

Posted on September 27th, 2003 in ontario, politics - No Comments »

I thought I’d practice what I preach and select my candidate for the coming election based on how well he will represent his constituency. Frankly, I would be foolish to vote for anybody but Michael Bryant in my riding of St. Paul’s.

Ever since I have been living in Toronto, Michael has been tirelessly advocating tenant’s rights. This is important to me, seeing as though I rent and will continue doing so until I either move out of Toronto or until condo prices drop to something more reasonable. Michael Bryant also looks set to hold a position in a Liberal cabinet, should they win the upcoming election, and that will bode well for St. Paul’s.

It looks like Victor will also be voting Liberal in his riding of Guelph-Wellington.

Posted on September 21st, 2003 in ontario, politics - No Comments »

If you’re confused about who is running in your provincial riding this coming election, do yourself a favour and check out The Election Prediction Project. The Ontario 2003 section of the project is filled with information for each riding, including results from the last election, predictions for the upcoming election, census information, as well as feedback from people living in that riding.

While I am wary of the predictions The Election Prediction Project offers, the comments section alone is reason to visit the site. Too often do Canadians forget that they do not vote for a party or a premier or prime-minister, but for a representative who will voice their concerns in Parliament. The comments section offers a glimpse into what those running in your riding may be like, their past successes and failures, and how well others feel they would represent the constituency.

Posted on September 21st, 2003 in ontario, politics - No Comments »

Ernie Eves has hit a new low in his smear campaign against Dalton McGuinty. Mr. Eves had this to say in response to the Liberals attempts to accuse the provincial Tories of hindering the efforts of an independent SARS review (emphasis mine):

“The Liberal spin doctors put the spin on that — that I am ordering people to shut up,” Mr. Eves said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and it’s that kind of, I would say, almost libelous action on behalf of the Liberal campaign team, that surely the people of Ontario are objective enough to see through.”

My only explanation is that Ernie Eves suffers from some sort of multiple personality disorder which prohibits him from recalling his almost certainly libelous three-week campaign against Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals. It’s also not too late for Eves to invoke the “evil twin” defense.

Posted on September 20th, 2003 in ontario, politics - No Comments »

By now, most of you have heard the news that the more inclusive definition of marriage has won over the more traditional definition as existing solely between a man and a woman. Like many, I was disappointed to see how close the vote tallies were. Quite frankly, I’m appalled that so many MPs have such a lack of respect for our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms and the courts’ ability to enforce it. I’m pleased to see that my MP is not one of those.

It was interesting to see how this decision was presented in the various newspapers. Not surprisingly, The National Post broadcast their opinion of the vote with the negative banner headline “Traditional marriage defeated”.

It is amazing that many in Canada feel that the gay marriage ruling is a ruling against traditional marriage, as the National Post headline implies. Indeed, Stephen Harper said as much in the presentation of his bill:

“This position is also very dangerous because, no matter what the Liberals say today, the kind of mentality that would have traditional marriage declared illegal and unconstitutional would inevitably endanger actual rights that are enshrined in our constitution, not merely read in, such as freedom of religion.”

Mr. Harper makes it seem that marriage between men and women will be outlawed or marginalised once marriage is redefined to be more inclusive. He then went on to mention the oft-repeated false assertion that churches would be eventually forced to marry homosexual couples:

“The Liberals and the justice minister say today that they will not touch the ability of churches, temples, mosques and synagogues to determine their own definition of marriage but these are the same people who said in the last election that they would never consider touching the definition of marriage itself.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the Liberal Party who agree with us in principle to think very carefully about this. If the Liberals and some of their front bench people now say that the traditional definition of marriage is illegal, immoral, discriminatory and racist, what will stop them? Why would they ever tolerate those who, through their religious institutions, believe otherwise?”

Churches in Canada have always been able to refuse to marry couples they do not wish to marry. Many churches will not marry those who are not members of their church, or those who have not been baptized. Some will refuse to marry couples if they do not approve of their character or their moral fibre, although this is often dependent on those performing the ceremony. Still others refuse to perform inter-faith marriages and some, although this is a very small minority, will not allow interracial marriages. Clearly, nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone.

On a related note, Svend Robinson introduced his bill to include homosexuals in the list of groups protected from hate crime. Thankfully, this one won by a comfortable margin of 141-110.

It’s interesting to note that when a similar issue was in front of the House in May of 1996, Stephen Harper voted against it, but voted for it this time around. Yet he attacked the PM on his change of heart since a 1999 motion almost identical to yesterday’s on the definition of marriage. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

On another somewhat interesting note, Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay endorsed Robinson’s bill:

Mr. MacKay told reporters that he supports Mr. Robinson’s bill because it modernizes laws that have not changed in 100 years.

MacKay voted yesterday to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, which has remained unchanged since the early 19th century. Sadly, the irony is lost on him.

It looks like Canada’s conservative parties will try to make gay rights an issue in the upcoming election. Brace yourselves if you think the hate being flung around in Ontario election campaign is bad. You haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen the right-wing and the bible thumpers participate in some good, old-fashioned, religious, homophobic hate-mongering. Thankfully, Svend Robinson thought ahead with Bill C-250. Now those anti-gay marriage types will be rounded up and sent to jail. Problem solved!

Posted on September 17th, 2003 in canada, politics - No Comments »