LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Oh, come on.  You thought it was over?  You thought that removing the Liberals was going to usher in a period of quiet, where Ford's seasoned team subtly guides him away from Trumpian excesses and the NDP continues to try and build on the gains they made?  Sorry to disappoint, but we're not through with the crazy by a long shot.

You can already see the storm clouds gathering, even as  Tabatha Southey dismissing the more moderate elements of the PC Party as Ford enablers.  Stephen Maher channeling the ghost of electoral reform.  Calls for Ford to deny the Liberals official party status.

Of course, Team PC is trying to put their best foot forward, by standing with Jason Kenney and Trudeau against Trump (he can't BE Trump if he OPPOSES Trump, right? right??????), by speaking out against anti-Israel rhetoric on al-Quds day, and by getting down to work with those high-profile, resume-strong MPP-elects in his new caucus.  All meant to calm the waters after a tumultuous election, and also to help the electorate forget all about those slow-boiling Ford scandals and lawsuits that cropped up during the campaign.

Unfortunately, these cooler heads within the PC fold overestimate their ability to prevail.  How soon they forget the Harper years, where everything the man did to advance his agenda was loudly opposed, and how soon they forget their own excesses of rhetoric during the 15 years of Liberal rule a learned habit which will be harder to break than they think despite being on the other side of the aisle.  Add to that Ford's learning curve if a curve is even possible with him and the likelihood that the PC's will do something, intentionally or otherwise, to make the anti-Ford forces rise up in full witch-hunt mode becomes higher and higher.

And even if Ford somehow pulls off the unlikely feat of out-Bill Davis-ing Bill Davis, those campaign scandals will no doubt be vigorously prosecuted by the new Opposition with the intent, or certainly the effect, of creating our very own Canadian knockoff of the Mueller investigation.

We'd all love to hope otherwise, but there is absolutely no chance the NDP will take the high road of quietly organizing, or working for the benefit of the province.  Instead, Ontarians will get all scandal-mongering, all the time.  Remember that, after a whole campaign spent trying to appear Ready To Lead, Andrea Horwath finally dropped the pretence and waded into the muck in the dying days of the campaign, commenting  to no discernable benefit and a possible loss on Renata Ford's lawsuit against Premier-to-be Doug.

Why?  For the same reason the commentariat is pulling at straws to find an explanation for how we got here.  The temptation to take partisan advantage proved too great.  The barely concealed hatred for Ford justified as it may be bled through.  And to be quite honest, it's better in the long run for the NDP to own their hatred of Doug Ford and the Ontari-archy he represents.

The PC's, whether they want to admit it or not, won because they owned what they were.  Whatever the PC Party of Ontario was in 1985, it is Doug Ford and Ford Nation now, for better or for worse.  And, perhaps it was Ford Nation, or whatever passed for Ford Nation, back in 1985, rather than the moderate paragon that nostalgia has made it out to be.  None remain who know, or will tell.

And the NDP, who in last week's election elected the woman who called a Toronto Police Chief a filthy, racist epithet, the Leap Manifesto endorser, the guy who held up the "F**k the Police" sign, and the woman who openly published stuff on her Tumbr that isn't too far away from the language used at Al-Quds Day, are much closer than they were before the writ dropped to being the NDP that they have always really been underneath their mask.

The province of Ontario has been ill-served in the past few decades by pretending it's something that it isn't.  Before it can dig itself out of the ditch, it needs to take a good, long, honest look in the mirror.  The longer spent delaying, the more times we'll lurch back from calm into chaos.

Written by Josh Lieblein

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


It was almost like clockwork.  The moment that Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives won Thursday night's election, the tweets and thinkpieces started fast and furious about how this was once again proof that our electoral system is "broken" and that we need electoral reform to ensure that a party that got 40 percent of the vote gets 100 percent of the power.  It is, of course, patently ridiculous and smacks entirely of sore loserism, but it's worth unpacking some of these arguments a little.

First off, the notion that you want electoral reform to keep certain parties out of power is blatantly undemocratic.  These kinds of arguments are always absurd on their face, but they're usually accompanied by some undemocratic undercurrents in other subtle ways.  The argument, usually put forward by left-leaning parties and their supporters, is that these parties would get together and form nice leftist coalitions that would do great, progressive things, and there will be harmony across the land, and solar panels on everyone's home, and most of all, there will be no "policy swings" that will undo the work of previous governments because you have more parties involved in making those policies in the first place.  While ignoring the current situation in Europe where nice leftist coalitions aren't forming governments, the notion about "policy swings" is somewhat undemocratic because it assumes that there is only one direction that policy should ever travel in, and it also gives the assumption that there is no value to be placed on the ability to hold a government to account for its policy direction and actions.  As I am so fond of pointing out, one of the most important things that we need to remember is that elections are not only about choosing new representatives, but it's also about holding them to account, and there was very much a sense of that when it came to the Ontario Liberals.

With this suspicion about motives on the table, let's look at the construction of their arguments.  First of all, they will throw around the popular vote share that a party that gets 40 percent of the vote gets to form a majority government.  That 40 percent figure, however, is a logical fallacy.  It can't exist because a general election is not a single event it was 124 separate elections in Ontario last Thursday (and 338 separate elections federally).  Each election has a different number of candidates and local factors, and to mash them all together into a single figure is intellectually dishonest, and to that end, it's abused by proportional-representation campaigners explicitly to demonstrate the supposed "unfairness" of the current system.  In other words, they are using a made-up number in order to justify their sore loser feelings.  That's not only a falsehood, but it fundamentally misrepresents how the system works, or how it should work.  Now, you can have all kinds of arguments about whether or not each particular riding election is "legitimate" when it is won on a plurality rather than a simple majority, but it is worth bearing in mind that the plurality figure should be instructive to the winner of the race.  Did they get more than 50 percent with multiple candidates on the ballot?  Great!  Did they get far less?  Then it means they can't take their win for granted, and they need to reach out to all sides and do a better job in the next election of brining more people onside.  That should mean something.

As for the argument that any party gets "100 percent of the power," and that would be different under a PR system, it's ridiculous on its face.  In existing PR systems, Cabinets are not composed of members from all parties on a proportional basis.  Not only that, but the head of government position, be it premier or prime minister, does not rotate between parties on a proportionate basis either.  In fact, it would have the exercise of giving outsized influence to small coalition members kind of like how BC is twisting itself into constitutional knots right now over the Trans Mountain pipeline to appease three Green MPs propping up the government, and they're not even in Cabinet.  The coalition governments of Israel that have to appease the right-wing hardliner minority players in order to carry on is another example of how these parties can have outsized, not "proportional," influence.  Of course, that's why parties like the Greens are so invested in PR because they feel it will give them the outsized influence that their inability to win more seats would otherwise.  The other lesson here is that power is not easily divisible and speaking in terms that implies that it is should make any rational person shake their heads.

When I make these points in (frequent) debates, I am usually confronted with the retort that the notion of separate elections is antiquated because everything is about party leaders these days, so we might as well just accept it.  And I will firmly and flatly reject that notion for the very reason that just because the pendulum is swinging in a particularly troubling direction right now, it doesn't mean that we need to reform our entire system to accommodate that.  Our system as it exists ensures that there are lines of accountability throughout, from the ability of a riding association to choose its representative, to members of a caucus holding their leaders to account (most of the time), to the members of the legislature, be it Queen's Park or Parliament ensuring that they can withdraw the confidence in a government when necessary.  Yes, we need to restore the caucus selection and removal of leaders to restore some of these lines of accountability, but you can't underestimate the ability of a few disgruntled MPs or MPPs can have on a leader's decision to stay on or resign.  And just because we don't often see demonstrations by these members to remove confidence in their leaders or the government, it doesn't mean that the power should be taken away just like our constitutional "fire extinguishers" in the GG or the Queen.  They're important to have, which is why the logic of taking them away to appease the false sentiment of "every vote should count" based on the logical fallacy of the popular vote, or the bizarre notion that the only ballot that counts is one that elects your chosen team, is absent.  The system works as it's supposed to and upending it because someone you don't like won is an insult to democracy.

Photo Credit: Ottawa Citizen

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


As leftists in the chattering classes continue to hyperventilate over Premier-designate Doug Ford and the PCs' resounding victory from last Thursday, cooler heads in Ontario are breathing a sigh of relief that we did not elect a radical NDP or Liberal government that would've plummeted us back into the Stone Age with crippling debt, if we aren't already irrevocably headed there.

Typical for them, left-wingers turned logic on its head and have declared Ford an unmitigated disaster for Ontario before he's even stepped into office.

First came the desperate attempts to delegitimize his win.  Before all the votes had been tabulated, many political observers from the left were saying the voter turnout was at an all-time low, even though the turnout number was still increasing as the votes were tabulated.  Eventually the final number showed the best turnout since 1999 at 58 per cent voter turnout.

Then came the calls for electoral reform because Ford and the PCs only managed to get 40.5 per cent of the popular vote, despite those same people cheering when Trudeau, Wynne and McGuinty won with slimmer margins. They also shrugged their shoulders when Trudeau decided to back out of his promise to change the first-past-the-post electoral system.

As hypocritical and nonsensical as those arguments were, the most convoluted argument coming from left-wing circles is that Ontario can't afford four years of Ford.  Sure, Ford didn't put out a fully costed platform, but neither, in reality, did the other two main parties.  The Liberals, after presenting a phony surplus budget last year, broke their promise to deliver a balanced budget come election time.  Currently the fourth highest budget expense is paying $12 billion in annual interest payments on our whopping $312 billion provincial debt.  They proposed running deficits for the next several years, ignoring the outrageous debt level we're currently in, instead suggesting we dig the hole even deeper.

The NDP were no better.  They put out a platform that had a $1.4 billion gap in it hiding in plain sight.  Their math was just as spotty in their proposal to buy back Hydro One, downplaying the true cost of buying back a ship that has long sailed.  Also, to make such an enormous purchase when the province is already up to its eyeballs in debt doesn't make any practical sense.  Then there were all the ways the NDP wanted to expand an already bloated government.

That being said, Ford likely over-promised as well.  His promises to cut taxes for the lower and middle classes, redistribute the province's $300 million Hydro One annual dividend to ratepayers instead of using it as a revenue stream, axe the carbon tax and cut business taxes all while maintaining balanced budgets, spending more on health care, giving childcare rebates, paying off the debt, investing in mental health and pouring billions into infrastructure projects sounds like a pipe dream.  Especially since the actual severity of Ontario's financial situation is likely much worse once Ford and his team get a chance to look at the books and bring it to light.

Nevertheless, Ford has been clear that he will find savings in government spending.  As he told me in an interview a couple short months ago, back when he was running for the PC leadership, he will find four cents on the dollar in savings.  What he hasn't been clear on is what what exactly are the inefficiencies he plans to weed out.  He's only said it won't involve government layoffs.

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne has pointed out in his previous columns that simply putting a hiring freeze in a growing province with growing annual revenue streams can actually be effective in helping balance budgets.  This, and salary freezes for public sector workers that make significantly more on average than the average private sector worker.  Then there are the many overpriced government contracts Ford can opt not to renew or get out of where possible.

The past few weeks many pundits, even on the right of the political aisle, have been reminiscing on how strong and well-versed Kathleen Wynne has been as Ontario's premier.  Part of the reason for this is that the Liberal government spent an excessive amount of money on making itself look good.  A Toronto Star column by former NDP strategist Robin Sears pointed out that Wynne's government had an excessive "578 tax-paid, politically exempt staff members at the time if its defeat."  Sears pointed out that a lot of these staff members were barely out of school and were better tasked for coming out with great talking points than coming up with well-researched policy plans.  Much of this former Liberal government was about style, not substance, nor getting down to brass tacks.

The following day after Wynne's defeat she addressed reporters one by one before giving a press conference.  She has always been good at working a room.

But Ontario doesn't need a premier that is easy to get along with and is good at giving a speech and memorizing talking points on different files.

No, this province needs someone not worried to take on the unions and other special interest groups that have for too long gotten their way and run roughshod over the overall financial well-being of Ontario.  Ford has shown he has no problem making adversaries and has pledged to clean up the province's books.  If he balances the books, knocks down the debt and gives Ontarians tax relief, the odd broken promise will just be water the bridge.  He has a daunting four years ahead of him.

Written by Graeme C. Gorodn

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.