In 2011, the good people of Saanich-Gulf Islands in British Columbia voted to elect Canada’s first Member of Parliament from the Green Party. Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, has been an inspiration for all of those who run under the Green banner at federal, provincial and municipal levels in this country. This past May, British Columbians again elected a single Green – Andrew Weaver - this time to the B.C. provincial legislature. Although it’s happening slowly, Greens are showing that they can be elected in Canada, even under our archaic First Past the Post electoral system.
Many in the Green Party had hoped that Elizabeth May might be joined by more MP’s prior to the scheduled 2015 federal election. Two Green candidates had major breakthroughs in by-elections in Victoria (Donald Galloway – finishing second) and Calgary Centre (Chris Turner – a close 3rd) in late 2012. Greens put our hope in Deputy Party Leader and former NHL tough-guy Georges Laraque to lead the Party to victory in a by-election in Bourassa, but after a long summer of campaigning, Laraque was forced to drop out of the race just days before the by-election was called, in order to devote his time to deal with unexpected fraud charges brought on by the collapse of a business deal.
In December, 2013, Elizabeth May was joined by Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Bruce Hyer, who had formerly sat as an Independent after leaving the NDP’s caucus in 2012. Since then, Hyer has been appointed Deputy party leader, and has been named the Green Party’s Democratic Reform critic. With a little under two years between now and the 2015 election, might May and Hyer be joined by others in the House? So far, yet-to-be-announced by-elections which must take place this year will be in ridings where Greens haven’t done particularly well in the past.
With each passing day, it’s becoming clearer that the Green Party might be going into the 2015 general election with just two seats - which isn’t bad at all, considering that the Party is still very new to parliament. The Green Party’s challenges are different from the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP – more modest as a result of our size, resources and past history. With this in mind, how then, might the Green Party find a path to modest success? What would modest success even look like for the Green Party in 2015?
Mike Schreiner and Ontario
There are some factors which might help the Green Party of Canada before the 2015 election which are worth exploring prior to discussing a way forward for the GPC. Here in Ontario, we will likely have had a general election before the next federal election, and it could very well be that Ontario voters choose to elect our first Green MPP. Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner has been actively campaigning in the Green-friendly riding of Guelph in the southwestern part of the Province. With a minority government here, which could fall at any time, Schreiner and the GPO have taken a pro-active approach to campaigning, with the hopes that by the time the government falls, they will have made inroads with voters in Guelph. With the sorry state of politics here in Ontario, I believe that Schreiner has an excellent shot of getting elected – but he’s going to need some help from Greens throughout Canada.
And beyond Mike Schreiner, the provincial election in Ontario will give Greens an excellent opportunity to wage aggressive campaigns in a few ridings. Admittedly, the chances for success elsewhere are slim (unless candidates with significant local name recognition step forward). However, winning isn’t the point. Building local organizations from the ground up and mounting a get out the vote campaign will build transferrable skills and knowledge in local riding organizations, so that when 2015 does come around, Greens in Ontario will be better prepared to participate in the national campaign in key ridings (and here I’m thinking of other southwestern Ontario ridings like Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Dufferin).
David Coon and New Brunswick
The Province of New Brunswick will be heading into a general election in the fall of 2014. Green Party of New Brunswick Leader David Coon will be contesting the newly created Fredericton South district. Although the NDP have been polling relatively well in New Brunswick provincially, unlike Ontario, the NDP hasn’t really experienced a great deal of success in the province. Currently, the provincial NDP holds no seats in the provincial legislature. A canny and experienced veteran like Coon stands a good chance of finding his way into the provincial legislature – but like Schreiner in Ontario, he may need a little help from his friends.
I’m pretty sure that Greens from coast to coast will be hearing all about the ways we can assist Coon and the New Brunswick Greens at the Green Party of Canada’s Biennial General Convention, scheduled to start on July 18th at the University of New Brunswick’s campus in Fredericton.
While electing Greens to provincial parliaments might not seem like it would help the Green Party of Canada (after all, unlike the NDP, Green provincial parties and the federal party are not affiliated), the fact is that success at the provincial level almost assuredly would be great news for the GPC. The more that the Green Party can show Canadians that it is electable – and a mainstream part of political discussions – the better off we’ll be.
Ridings
As with the GPO and GPNB, realistically there are likely only a limited number of ridings which the Green Party of Canada will find itself with a decent chance in. That’s not to say that running for the Green Party in the vast majority of Canadian ridings will prove to be a lost cause. Election campaigns can produce unexpected results, and the right candidate in the right location at the right time could end up getting themselves elected despite the odds. Look no further than to the majority of the NDP’s MP’s from Quebec, who were surprised to wake up on the morning after the last general election to discover that they’d be moving to Ottawa.
But we can’t plan for the unexpected. We can only plan for the most likely. So let’s set out a realistic course of action which will see Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer returned to parliament, and joined by a caucus of Greens after the 2015 general election.
First, the Party must identify what it considers to be the ridings which afford the best opportunities for the Green Party. Past experience might play some role in this, but it’s not always definitive. I think it’s fair to say that there are no “safe” Green ridings in Canada – and likely not many which are realistically winnable for the Greens. Suggesting that a riding might not be winnable is not to belittle the Party in any way – it’s just to indicate that another party or perhaps several parties with strong ties and a longer history (and more money!) are likely to make many ridings a challenge for Greens to win. That doesn’t mean, however, that any riding should ever be written off. Indeed, the groundwork for future Green success throughout Canada needs to be laid now – in fact, in many ridings, the foundations for success were laid in the past decade’s elections.
The 2015 election will offer Greens a great opportunity to really build local capacity, especially in many of those unwinnable ridings. The goal here will be more than just showing the flag or even rallying the troops for the 35-day writ period. It will be to identify longer-term supporters and introduce key volunteers to the workings of the Party at the local level and beyond, with the desire to build stronger, more sustainable local teams of Greens. With the phasing out of the per-vote subsidy, stronger Electoral District Associations (EDA’s) will have to step up in the near future with local fundraising initiatives, supporter identification, and general organizational capacity building.
And a stronger Green presence in the House of Commons is almost certainly going to motivate local Greens across the nation!
Candidates
Sometimes, the personalities involved in a particular race (or not involved, if a strong incumbent has stepped down) will tell a part of the story of a potentially successful riding. Should a “star candidate” come forward, wanting to run for the Green Party in 2015, it’s almost certain that whatever riding they end up running in will become a priority for the Party.
Not that I’m holding my breath that David Suzuki will run for the Green Party!
However, there are others who are engaged with climate change who may look to the Greens as the only party offering a realistic and hopeful vision of the future (because it’s true – we are the only party with that on offer – read my numerous earlier blogs for an explanation as to why that’s so). It could be that a “star candidate” decides that she or he want to join Elizabeth May in changing the way that politics are done in Canada. Or perhaps there are other well-known climate scientists out there, like Andrew Weaver, who are fed up with government inaction, and want to take the bull by the horns.
This is in no way to suggest that I believe only climate scientists should run for the Green Party! Excellent candidates will assuredly come from a host of different backgrounds. By singling out climate scientists, though, I am suggesting that the Green Party may wish to do the same: single out climate scientists. For although Green candidates ought not all be climate scientists, all climate scientists who wish to pursue election to the House of Commons ought to be Greens, in my opinion. But again, the pursuit of star candidates from different backgrounds is extremely important.
Indeed, the Green Party should be actively looking for star candidates. I’m sure that’s already underway. But the Party shouldn’t be limiting itself to national personalities. Strong, well-known local leaders may also present certain star-like opportunities for the Party. Certainly, I could think of one or two here in Sudbury who could mount a decent campaign if they chose to throw their hat in the ring. Candidate recruitment of locally well-known individuals must be a priority of grassroots EDA’s.
Of course, to an extent, the Green Party will have trouble recruiting star candidates, because our lack of past electoral success. If you’re a star and you really do want to go to Ottawa as an MP, it’s not really clear that the Green Party represents the best vehicle to take you there (even though we’re the only zero-carbon choice!). For example, in the recent by-election in Toronto-Centre, I couldn’t help but scratch my head in wonder that Linda McQuaig had decided to run under the banner of Tom Mulcair’s NDP. Now, I understand that McQuaig has always been a supporter of the NDP, but the fact is that Mulcair’s NDP is not the NDP of 10 years ago – it’s not Ed Broadbent’s or Alexa McDonough’s NDP. Based on the pieces written by McQuaig that I've read, almost certainly she would be a better fit in the Green Party. Certainly she wouldn’t have to worry about answering to the Party Whip had she joined the Greens.
Local Strengths
That being said, the right candidate in the right riding could spell success for the Green Party. All political parties tend to match resources with expectations (just that the Green Party has both modest expectations and resources), so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Party will endeavour to focus on certain ridings. Those ridings are likely to be found in the expected areas of Vancouver and Vancouver Island (where Greens have been elected and continue to poll well), along with Southwestern Ontario (where Greens have done well in the past, and could do well again in places like Guelph).
The 2015 redistribution of ridings is also almost certainly going to create some opportunities for Greens.
Calgary
I’ll offer one last area where Greens probably could find some advantage: the city of Calgary. Greens have done pretty well in Calgary in the past (relatively speaking), and with Chris Turner’s energized by-election run, coupled with a lack of NDP and Liberal presence in Calgary (again, relatively speaking), Greens could challenge for seats throughout Calgary, particularly if voters start to search for alternatives to the Conservative Party (and I suspect they just might do that). The Liberals and the NDP have some ground-strength in Calgary, but in comparison to many parts of Canada, both the NDP and Liberals are weaker there. Surely the NDP is going to be writing-off much of Alberta as unwinnable, and choosing to focus their energies and resources elsewhere. The Liberals might make a serious play for ridings in Calgary and Edmonton, but it just might be that the Greens can prove more attractive to forward-looking urban Albertans than the Liberals.
Of course, the Party’s chances in Calgary would be bolstered by the presence of Chris Turner himself. Turner is a well-known journalist who mounted a campaign which caught the attention of the national media. Rumours have it that Turner may not contest the Calgary Centre riding again, particularly should a respected friend of his run for the Liberal Party there. Of course, Turner’s home is located in the new riding (and therefor incumbentless) of Calgary-Confederation, so it might be a story of one door shutting and another opening.
Other Parts of Canada to Keep an Eye On
Saskatchewan, too, may create some opportunities for Greens in the urban areas of Regina and Saskatoon, thanks in part to redistribution. While a resurgent Liberal Party on the prairies can’t be ignored, if a quality candidate can be found, there may be an opportunity for the Party there too.
Ridings along the shore of Lake Ontario between Toronto and Newcastle may also prove fertile ground for the Party, as might certain ridings in New Brunswick around Fredericton and Moncton – particularly if high-profile candidates step forward. The eastern part of the GTA has long been Conservative territory, with the Liberals the only party to mount a credible threat outside of Oshawa. A strong Green candidate in Ajax-Pickering or Whitby-Oshawa, or even Peterborough for that matter, could make things interesting.
And then there’s the Yukon. If popular Whitehorse municipal councillor (and former President of the Green Party of Canada) John Streicker decides to contest the Territory on behalf of the Greens again, the outcome might be different next time around.
Again, though, if the right candidate stepped up to the plate, many of Canada’s ridings could prove to be places where Greens could mount successful challenges.
Ground Games
To mount a successful challenge will require a good ground game – that means volunteers, organization and money. In the 2012 by-elections in Victoria and Calgary Centre, all three were present as part of a Green campaign. What was lacking, however, was any substantive pre-writ organizing, given that by-elections were called not long after MP’s had signalled they’d be stepping down. Turner probably had the most lead time – I don’t think that Donald Galloway was nominated all that much before the by-election in Victoria was called.
Given that we know the date of the 2015 election, it stands to reason that in the ridings which we wish to be effective, nominations will be held throughout 2014 – thus giving local Green campaigns a chance to rally around a candidate. It’s important for Greens, I think, to be the first into the fray – to signal to opponents that we’re going to be the ones to beat. I don’t have a problem with putting all of our cards on the table as early as possible, because it really gives voters something to consider. The other parties like to hold things back – policy and platform in particular. One of the things which attracted me to the Green Party in the first place is the fact that Green Party has always made policy documents available to the public through the internet. The contents of Vision Green aren’t a secret. So why not go all in, sooner rather than later?
Successful local campaigns will take advantage of the pre-writ lead up to the general election, and canvass their guts out. Door-knocking remains important – and for that, you need volunteers and co-ordination. Identifying supporters and potential voters is important, for when the writ does drop, you’re going to want to be able to count on the people you’ve already spoken with to come out and cast a ballot – or help out with the campaign. Greens don’t do enough of the pre-writ campaigning, in my opinion – but often that’s also true with the other parties, who seem content to rely on paid advertising between elections to get the message out. Our party’s modestness in many parts of Canada can create some significant pre-writ challenges for sure.
I’m looking for Green electoral district associations to start nominating candidates in 2014 – and I’m hoping that a few EDA’s will nominate a few stars, like Andrew Weaver. Goodness knows that there are a number of frustrated climate scientists in Canada – I hope that a few of them will decide to take a run for office under the Green Party’s banner. I can think of one or two who really should.
A Modest Success
At the end of e-day, how will the Green Party know if we’ve experienced modest success? I don’t think that there’s any magic number of MP’s which we’re going to have to elect in order to lay claim to the modest success mantle. It may be more of a question of knowing it if and when we see it. Some have suggested that ballooning the Party to 12 MP’s should be considered “success”, as this number of MP’s currently bestows Official Party status on a caucus. Of course, this may be changed by parliament after the 2015 election, in part to recognize an expanded legislature, but also perhaps in part to prevent the Green Party from becoming an official party.
I’d rather wait and see the extent of my party’s ambition pre-writ. By that I mean I’d like to see how successful we, as a Party, want to be in the 2015 election. If a number of star candidates step forward, if local EDA’s have been engaging with voters and raising money – these are the signs which will show me the extent of our ambition. Since a Party’s ambition should always exceed its grasp, my own measure will likely be somewhat less than the sum of our ambition – at that time, I may be able to identify a specific number of ridings to win, or perhaps the ridings themselves. A “modest success” is sure to be found somewhere between ambition and the status quo.
A “modest success” is certainly a reasonable pursuit for the Green Party in 2015.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
A Zero-Carbon Ring of Fire
Picture this: You’re riding a silent, electrically-powered railway northward into the heart of Ontario’s largest industrial project, the Ring of Fire. Occasionally, the landscape of trees and rocks is interrupted by one or two wind turbines or ground-mounted solar arrays. As you near the end of the line, you can see that the ore processing facility looks as if it were on fire, thanks to the thousands of solar panels affixed to just about every building surface. Here, chromite and other minerals are being extracted and processed in the world’s first zero-carbon mining project, deep in the heart of the James Bay lowlands.
Impossible? Hardly. Impractical? Not at all. A zero-carbon mining project would be good for the environment and for job creation. Sustainable, net-zero development may be the only option for “getting things right” in the Ring of Fire as we go deeper into the 21st Century, thanks to Canada having taken a back-seat on climate change reduction initiatives.
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord recognized the need to hold global warming at no more than 2 degrees Celsius. Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report established a global carbon budget for burning of fossil fuels up to the year 2100 – a budget which must be followed to keep warming below the 2 degrees C threshold. If warming continues beyond 2 degrees C, we risk triggering positive feedback loops which could lead to runaway climate change. To remain within budget, it is estimated that two-thirds of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves must remain buried in the ground.
Canada, one of the world’s worst per capita producers of greenhouse gas emissions, is on track to exceed our extremely weak 2020 emissions reductions targets. Real gains made at reducing emissions, such as closing Ontario’s coal plants, have been offset by the expansion of tar sands developments in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan. Without a national energy strategy, there is no compelling mechanism in place which parcels out our carbon budget based on provincial needs. Right now, each province pursues its own emissions reduction strategy in isolation of its neighbours – with the result that emissions from Alberta and Saskatchewan will continue to skyrocket and eclipse reductions made in each and every province.
And that spells bad news for the Ring of Fire. There is no question that successful resource extraction in Ontario’s remote northwest will be energy-intensive. The energy needs of First Nations and other communities are also expected to expand, as they become service hubs for development in the Ring. Yet, with Canada’s carbon budget being rapidly taken up by tar sands expansion, by the time that real infrastructure development in the James Bay lowlands occurs, there may be no other choice for the Ring of Fire than to go green.
The timing, however, for going green, might be just right. Distributive energy systems, powered by renewables and based on smart-grid technology, are just now coming online in Europe. Renewable energy is the world’s fastest growing industry, and local-scale distribution means that energy can be bought and sold by small and medium-scale producers, such as Ring of Fire miners and First Nations energy co-operatives. With northwestern Ontario offering a blank slate for development, the Ring of Fire is a real opportunity to do things right the first time.
A profitable, job-creating, zero-carbon future is a very realistic goal for the sustainable development of the Ring of Fire. “Getting it right” must involve building the low-carbon distributive energy smart-grid and electric transportation infrastructure for prosperity in the 21st Century.
-----
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Originally published in the Sudbury Star, Saturday February 2, 2014, as "A zero-carbon Ring of Fire is needed" (online Friday, February 1, 2014.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Facebook Notes: Road Pricing Fees - Why Our Current Road System Fails the Test of "Public Good"
Originally published as a Facebook Note at my Facebook Engagement Page (which you can "Like" at: https://www.facebook.com/SudburySteveMay)
-----
I've put together this Note in response to feedback I've been receiving related to my latest column, published in the Sudbury Star (published online as "We need pay-as-you-go driving", the Sudbury Star, December 28 2013). In that column, I brazenly propose that the primary users of our road systems should be the ones who pay for the privilege of use - through a GPS based user pay system adapted for time of use to resolve congestion issues. I argue that savings can be achieved for property taxpayers and income taxpayers (by shifting maintenance costs off of property tax bills and reducing the provincial costs of road maintenance funded by income taxes). I also argue that such a system would be better for the economy and the environment, as it would lead to smarter trip-making on the part of commuters (fewer cars = less congestion, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions).
One of the primary criticisms I've received has to do with the notion that shifting to user pay models actually ends up impoverishing us a society. As examples, our health care system, schools and libraries are often cited - and concerns are raised that my example of having users pay their own road fees is the same sort of initiative. In these situations, lower income wage earners are disadvantaged. Picking and choosing which services we collectively pay for will only lead to a reduction in service quality. I think that those are all fair comments.
I think it's fair to say that critics and myself are likely in agreement that hospitals, schools, recreation centres, parks - all fall broadly under the category of "public good" and therefore are things that we, as a society, like to have - and agree to support through taxes. We all benefit from the education that individual children receive (through their enhanced economic contributions later in life). We benefit from health care (getting sick doesn't end up bankrupting an individual, or leading to further expensive public supports). We benefit from parks (places to play and recreate - for our personal growth and well-being). Clearly, these are all public goods.
Roads - well, at first blush, it might seem that roads are also a "public good" in that they facilitate transport of people and products. Getting around easily is in the public's interests.
However, consider that our current road system is really designed with one primary goal: to move personal vehicles about efficiently (meaning: as fast as possible). Achieving this goal has shaped the design of our road system to the exclusion of all other forms of transport: public transportation, walking, cycling, etc.
Consider how a transportation system with different priorities might physically appear. You need look no further than to many cities in Europe - designed without the prioritization of cars. The shape of transport systems also led to the way in which our cities have been built - in North America, we've sprawled outwards - in many cities in Europe, cities have grown upwards, leading to the more efficient (spatially - and economically) use of infrastructure.
Further, more efficient transportation systems - those based on non-motorized vehicle use or on public transit - contribute far fewer climate changing greenhouse gas emissions to our atmosphere. Given that we have failed to internalize the costs of climate change (we, as a society, continue to choose to pay for those costs - even though they are clearly not a "public good"), it's very difficult to argue that a system designed for the very worst polluters - in this case motorized vehicles, many of which are used primarily by single occupants - is within the public interest. Yet, we taxpayers continue to subsidize motorists for their profligate use - and continue to cater to motorists through inefficient urban design.
The notion that our current road system is a "public good" is actually a false notion - or at least, it's fair to say that our road system isn't primarily designed and used as a public good.
How is it that a "public good", such as the provision of public space for transport, has morphed into something which only works for that portion of the public which is fortunate enough to operate a personal motorized vehicle - the very least efficient form of transport in terms of climate changing greenhouse gas emissions? How has it come to pass that we consider subsidizing car drivers for their fossil fuel use a "public good" when they aren't paying for their pollution? It's actually been very easy, because driving on efficient, safe roads, maintained by municipalities through property taxes, certainly feels like a "public good". After all, isn't everybody doing it?
Well, first off, no not everybody is doing it. Here in Greater Sudbury, it's been estimated that one third of citizens don't have regular access to a personal vehicle - yet they too must get around. Those who don't own personal vehicles for whatever reason (economic, health, lifestyle choice) aren't deriving the same benefit from the system as car drivers are. Sure, they derive some benefit (they purchase food at supermarkets supplied by trucks using our roads - that's one example), but it's quite likely that those benefits which are clearly in the public interest would have been included in a differently-designed transportation system (they are certainly considerations in European cities).
When looked at this way, it becomes clear that our road system, designed for cars, really isn't a "public good" at all - at least not in the same way that hospitals, schools and rec centres are. Yes, we still need an efficient public transportation system - but one which caters to personal vehicles isn't, frankly, in the best interests of the public. Right now, property taxpayers continue to subsidize the driving habits of car users, creating an unsustainable situation. By passing on the costs to the primary users for maintenance of a system designed with their unique needs in mind (which, I might add, already happens elsewhere, through tolling), we would be better off economically (by removing a large chunk of these costs from property tax bills - and potentially a reduction in income taxes for provincial portions of municipal road maintenance) and environmentally (because guaranteed people will drive less).
The savings for municipalities on maintenance costs could be invested in created a truly multi-modal, efficient transportation system which we'll need for the 21st Century - one which is designed and used by the public, in the public's real interests. Such a transportation system would be better for the environment (fewer greenhouse gas emissions directly from cars - but also, since it would likely lead to more urban intensification, fewer emissions from suburban and exurban sprawl). The system would still allow personal vehicle use - but at an additional cost - in the same way that certain high occupancy vehicle lanes set aside for car pooling allow use by single-occupant vehicles through a toll - and similar to those circumstances where private individuals and corporations pay rent for the use of public spaces (vendors markets; parking facilities; even renting a room at a public banquet hall).
I don't really expect to see this kind of user-pay transportation system happen any time soon. One of the things I want to do with my column, however, is to challenge the ways that we think about common, every day ideas - particularly given the climate crisis which we currently find ourselves in.
In my recent column, I really wanted to challenge the notion that our roads are a "public good" in the same way that other public infrastructure, like sewer and water lines, and libraries, are. From the perspective of carbon pollution, our current transportation system, which prioritizes roads and personal vehicle use, is extremely inefficient and ultimately not in the public's interests. Therefore, adopting a "user pay" system for personal vehicle use on roads is not the same as charging uers extra fees for the use of hospitals, libraries and schools.
It's time to consider eliminating subsidies on things we don't want - like pollution - and lowering taxes on the things which actually make our society better - such as the income we earn through our work. Pay-as-you-go road pricing for personal vehicle use would be an equitable step in that direction - but should be coupled with significant public investments in transit and the provision of alternative transportation options. If we are going to be competitive in the 21st Century, it's important that we get this right - a good first step will be to stop the public subsidization of carbon pollution.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
-----
I've put together this Note in response to feedback I've been receiving related to my latest column, published in the Sudbury Star (published online as "We need pay-as-you-go driving", the Sudbury Star, December 28 2013). In that column, I brazenly propose that the primary users of our road systems should be the ones who pay for the privilege of use - through a GPS based user pay system adapted for time of use to resolve congestion issues. I argue that savings can be achieved for property taxpayers and income taxpayers (by shifting maintenance costs off of property tax bills and reducing the provincial costs of road maintenance funded by income taxes). I also argue that such a system would be better for the economy and the environment, as it would lead to smarter trip-making on the part of commuters (fewer cars = less congestion, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions).
One of the primary criticisms I've received has to do with the notion that shifting to user pay models actually ends up impoverishing us a society. As examples, our health care system, schools and libraries are often cited - and concerns are raised that my example of having users pay their own road fees is the same sort of initiative. In these situations, lower income wage earners are disadvantaged. Picking and choosing which services we collectively pay for will only lead to a reduction in service quality. I think that those are all fair comments.
I think it's fair to say that critics and myself are likely in agreement that hospitals, schools, recreation centres, parks - all fall broadly under the category of "public good" and therefore are things that we, as a society, like to have - and agree to support through taxes. We all benefit from the education that individual children receive (through their enhanced economic contributions later in life). We benefit from health care (getting sick doesn't end up bankrupting an individual, or leading to further expensive public supports). We benefit from parks (places to play and recreate - for our personal growth and well-being). Clearly, these are all public goods.
Roads - well, at first blush, it might seem that roads are also a "public good" in that they facilitate transport of people and products. Getting around easily is in the public's interests.
However, consider that our current road system is really designed with one primary goal: to move personal vehicles about efficiently (meaning: as fast as possible). Achieving this goal has shaped the design of our road system to the exclusion of all other forms of transport: public transportation, walking, cycling, etc.
Consider how a transportation system with different priorities might physically appear. You need look no further than to many cities in Europe - designed without the prioritization of cars. The shape of transport systems also led to the way in which our cities have been built - in North America, we've sprawled outwards - in many cities in Europe, cities have grown upwards, leading to the more efficient (spatially - and economically) use of infrastructure.
Further, more efficient transportation systems - those based on non-motorized vehicle use or on public transit - contribute far fewer climate changing greenhouse gas emissions to our atmosphere. Given that we have failed to internalize the costs of climate change (we, as a society, continue to choose to pay for those costs - even though they are clearly not a "public good"), it's very difficult to argue that a system designed for the very worst polluters - in this case motorized vehicles, many of which are used primarily by single occupants - is within the public interest. Yet, we taxpayers continue to subsidize motorists for their profligate use - and continue to cater to motorists through inefficient urban design.
The notion that our current road system is a "public good" is actually a false notion - or at least, it's fair to say that our road system isn't primarily designed and used as a public good.
How is it that a "public good", such as the provision of public space for transport, has morphed into something which only works for that portion of the public which is fortunate enough to operate a personal motorized vehicle - the very least efficient form of transport in terms of climate changing greenhouse gas emissions? How has it come to pass that we consider subsidizing car drivers for their fossil fuel use a "public good" when they aren't paying for their pollution? It's actually been very easy, because driving on efficient, safe roads, maintained by municipalities through property taxes, certainly feels like a "public good". After all, isn't everybody doing it?
Well, first off, no not everybody is doing it. Here in Greater Sudbury, it's been estimated that one third of citizens don't have regular access to a personal vehicle - yet they too must get around. Those who don't own personal vehicles for whatever reason (economic, health, lifestyle choice) aren't deriving the same benefit from the system as car drivers are. Sure, they derive some benefit (they purchase food at supermarkets supplied by trucks using our roads - that's one example), but it's quite likely that those benefits which are clearly in the public interest would have been included in a differently-designed transportation system (they are certainly considerations in European cities).
When looked at this way, it becomes clear that our road system, designed for cars, really isn't a "public good" at all - at least not in the same way that hospitals, schools and rec centres are. Yes, we still need an efficient public transportation system - but one which caters to personal vehicles isn't, frankly, in the best interests of the public. Right now, property taxpayers continue to subsidize the driving habits of car users, creating an unsustainable situation. By passing on the costs to the primary users for maintenance of a system designed with their unique needs in mind (which, I might add, already happens elsewhere, through tolling), we would be better off economically (by removing a large chunk of these costs from property tax bills - and potentially a reduction in income taxes for provincial portions of municipal road maintenance) and environmentally (because guaranteed people will drive less).
The savings for municipalities on maintenance costs could be invested in created a truly multi-modal, efficient transportation system which we'll need for the 21st Century - one which is designed and used by the public, in the public's real interests. Such a transportation system would be better for the environment (fewer greenhouse gas emissions directly from cars - but also, since it would likely lead to more urban intensification, fewer emissions from suburban and exurban sprawl). The system would still allow personal vehicle use - but at an additional cost - in the same way that certain high occupancy vehicle lanes set aside for car pooling allow use by single-occupant vehicles through a toll - and similar to those circumstances where private individuals and corporations pay rent for the use of public spaces (vendors markets; parking facilities; even renting a room at a public banquet hall).
I don't really expect to see this kind of user-pay transportation system happen any time soon. One of the things I want to do with my column, however, is to challenge the ways that we think about common, every day ideas - particularly given the climate crisis which we currently find ourselves in.
In my recent column, I really wanted to challenge the notion that our roads are a "public good" in the same way that other public infrastructure, like sewer and water lines, and libraries, are. From the perspective of carbon pollution, our current transportation system, which prioritizes roads and personal vehicle use, is extremely inefficient and ultimately not in the public's interests. Therefore, adopting a "user pay" system for personal vehicle use on roads is not the same as charging uers extra fees for the use of hospitals, libraries and schools.
It's time to consider eliminating subsidies on things we don't want - like pollution - and lowering taxes on the things which actually make our society better - such as the income we earn through our work. Pay-as-you-go road pricing for personal vehicle use would be an equitable step in that direction - but should be coupled with significant public investments in transit and the provision of alternative transportation options. If we are going to be competitive in the 21st Century, it's important that we get this right - a good first step will be to stop the public subsidization of carbon pollution.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Smart-Shifting Road Costs: Pay-As-You-Go Pricing
Imagine your municipal property tax bill being reduced by almost 25%. Impossible? Not if we shift one of our biggest municipal costs off of the backs of taxpayers, and pass them along to benefitting users instead. And the biggest winner of this shift will be our planet’s climate.
Road pricing has become a hot topic lately, as the balance between road maintenance costs, transit and the costs of environmental and social externalities remains tilted in favour of motorists, at the expense of taxpayers. In Greater Sudbury, roads and maintenance eat up about 23% of our municipal property tax bill (See: "Toward Fiscal Sustainability: our Municipal Property Tax at Work", City of Greater Sudbury online publication). In Ontario, approximately $3.3 billion is spent on highways and related road costs each year (See: “Where the rubber meets the road: How much motorists pay for road infrastructure”, the Conference Board of Canada, October 2013)
While gasoline taxes help offset a portion of road maintenance costs, many of the costs related to personal vehicle use are picked up by taxpayers, including social and health costs related to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. The economic costs of climate change from transportation sector carbon emissions are also put on the taxpayer’s tab, often in the form of debt we pass on to our children.
In Ontario, congestion on our roads and highways has been estimated to contribute over $6 billion in lost economic activity annually (See: "Costs of Road Congestion in Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area; Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Metrolinx Draft Regional Transportation Plan", Metrolinx, December 1, 2008). Beyond social and environmental concerns, there is a clear public interest in operating a more efficient and effective transportation system.
Pay-as-go road pricing would shift the road cost burden from property and income taxes onto the primary users of the transportation system – motorists. The shift will almost certainly reduce vehicle trips and gasoline usage, and lead to a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011, emissions from Ontario’s transportation sector accounted for almost 34% of total emissions (See:“Failing our Future: Review of the Ontario Government’s Climate Change Action Plan Results”, Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, June 2013).
Existing Global Positioning System (GPS) technology can today track when and where vehicles travel. As with electricity bills, time-of-use pricing could encourage off-peak travel to reduce congestion and vehicle idling. Prices could be adjusted depending on vehicle type and environmental impacts. Meters which monitor real-time expenses could easily be installed in vehicles, providing motorists with critical decision-making data.
Similar pricing schemes are already being used in places like Singapore, and London, England, where congestion fees have become an integral part of a commuter’s travels. And, over the last decade, several national and regional governments have been studying the use of GPS for broader road pricing initiatives (See: “UK concludes GPS based distance road pricing trials”, Road Pricing, August 2011)
Pay-as-you-go road pricing would result in lower property taxes and a corresponding reduction to income taxes or some form of taxpayer rebate. The shift to road pricing would mean that conservation-minded taxpayers could end up with more money in their wallets. Motorists, too, would benefit from decreased congestion.
Governments would be able to invest in needed low-carbon transport options, such as inter-city rail and public transit, to better meet the needs of tomorrow’s commuters.
What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to challenge the way we pay for the privilege of automobile use. However, per capita North American car ownership is peaking, and fewer people are relying on costly personal vehicle ownership to meet their transportation needs. In part, this shift is underway as a result of a growing awareness of the environmental implications of personal vehicle use.
As the priorities of the public begin to shift, so too will our outlook on how we pay for those priorities. Equipped with the knowledge that increased personal vehicle use is a detriment to our environment, the public subsidization of that activity simply can’t be justified. Moving to a pay-as-you-go personal transportation system will tilt the balance back in favour of the taxpaying public, while simultaneously reducing climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.
Steve May is an Officer of the federal and provincial Nickel Belt Greens
-----
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Originally published in the Sudbury Star, Saturday December 28th, as "Time for motorists to pay full cost of roads", and online Friday, December 27th as "We need pay-as-you driving".
Road pricing has become a hot topic lately, as the balance between road maintenance costs, transit and the costs of environmental and social externalities remains tilted in favour of motorists, at the expense of taxpayers. In Greater Sudbury, roads and maintenance eat up about 23% of our municipal property tax bill (See: "Toward Fiscal Sustainability: our Municipal Property Tax at Work", City of Greater Sudbury online publication). In Ontario, approximately $3.3 billion is spent on highways and related road costs each year (See: “Where the rubber meets the road: How much motorists pay for road infrastructure”, the Conference Board of Canada, October 2013)
While gasoline taxes help offset a portion of road maintenance costs, many of the costs related to personal vehicle use are picked up by taxpayers, including social and health costs related to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. The economic costs of climate change from transportation sector carbon emissions are also put on the taxpayer’s tab, often in the form of debt we pass on to our children.
In Ontario, congestion on our roads and highways has been estimated to contribute over $6 billion in lost economic activity annually (See: "Costs of Road Congestion in Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area; Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Metrolinx Draft Regional Transportation Plan", Metrolinx, December 1, 2008). Beyond social and environmental concerns, there is a clear public interest in operating a more efficient and effective transportation system.
Pay-as-go road pricing would shift the road cost burden from property and income taxes onto the primary users of the transportation system – motorists. The shift will almost certainly reduce vehicle trips and gasoline usage, and lead to a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011, emissions from Ontario’s transportation sector accounted for almost 34% of total emissions (See:“Failing our Future: Review of the Ontario Government’s Climate Change Action Plan Results”, Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, June 2013).
Existing Global Positioning System (GPS) technology can today track when and where vehicles travel. As with electricity bills, time-of-use pricing could encourage off-peak travel to reduce congestion and vehicle idling. Prices could be adjusted depending on vehicle type and environmental impacts. Meters which monitor real-time expenses could easily be installed in vehicles, providing motorists with critical decision-making data.
Similar pricing schemes are already being used in places like Singapore, and London, England, where congestion fees have become an integral part of a commuter’s travels. And, over the last decade, several national and regional governments have been studying the use of GPS for broader road pricing initiatives (See: “UK concludes GPS based distance road pricing trials”, Road Pricing, August 2011)
Pay-as-you-go road pricing would result in lower property taxes and a corresponding reduction to income taxes or some form of taxpayer rebate. The shift to road pricing would mean that conservation-minded taxpayers could end up with more money in their wallets. Motorists, too, would benefit from decreased congestion.
Governments would be able to invest in needed low-carbon transport options, such as inter-city rail and public transit, to better meet the needs of tomorrow’s commuters.
What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to challenge the way we pay for the privilege of automobile use. However, per capita North American car ownership is peaking, and fewer people are relying on costly personal vehicle ownership to meet their transportation needs. In part, this shift is underway as a result of a growing awareness of the environmental implications of personal vehicle use.
As the priorities of the public begin to shift, so too will our outlook on how we pay for those priorities. Equipped with the knowledge that increased personal vehicle use is a detriment to our environment, the public subsidization of that activity simply can’t be justified. Moving to a pay-as-you-go personal transportation system will tilt the balance back in favour of the taxpaying public, while simultaneously reducing climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.
Steve May is an Officer of the federal and provincial Nickel Belt Greens
-----
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Originally published in the Sudbury Star, Saturday December 28th, as "Time for motorists to pay full cost of roads", and online Friday, December 27th as "We need pay-as-you driving".
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
2014 Crystal Ball Gazing - Political Predictions, Part 3: The Federal Scene
The Conservative Party
2013 was unquestionably a bad year for the Conservative Party of Canada – although perhaps not the disaster some in the media are portraying it as being. 2013, however, really exploded the myths of the Stephen Harper’s infallibility and iron-grip control. The Senate Scandal in the PMO’s office has really hurt – as have the changing story-lines which the Prime Minister himself has altered throughout the year regarding Nigel Wright. For me, there were more important matters at play here (particularly the fact that sitting members of our legislature were able to force three other members out of their jobs – which I find particularly chilling), but for the general public, what seems to be sticking is that the Prime Minister has been lying about what he knew, based on his reactions to events, and that constantly influx story line.
Contrary to my predictions for the Conservative Party in 2013 (I stated that it would be “business as usual” for the Conservatives – it’s been anything but!), what we’ve seen is a public conversation emerging about whether Harper can stay on to lead his Party in 2015 – along with a discussion about whom the frontrunners for a snap leadership race might be. These discussions really weren’t on anybody’s radar at the end of 2012 – and in some ways, I believe they are being oversold today.
Steady-Handed Steve
Look, Conservative support remains fairly strong, although it has suffered a dip in public opinion polls – those same polls which are becoming less and less trustworthy each day. What the Conservatives can count on more than any other Party is that it can mobilize its vote on election day – and be competitive in all of the ridings that it needs to be competitive in (and can still spend a tonne of money in the ridings that it has only a moderate chance of success in – like Sudbury). Strong campaigns by the NDP and Liberals (and Greens in certain ridings – and the Bloc in others) could split the vote in such a way that Conservatives are still able to come up the middle in marginal ridings, particularly in B.C., Quebec and suburban Ontario.
But what about those by-elections in Manitoba, where the Conservatives lost a lot of ground to the Liberals? Aren’t they a sign of what awaits the Conservatives in 2015? No, I don’t believe that they are, given the dynamics of a general election versus a by-election. That being said, I don’t think that there’s any question that a resurgent Liberal Party poses a threat to the Conservatives in many western ridings – and we can expect a number of Conservative incumbents to go down in defeat to Liberal candidates in 2015. But as far as 2014 goes, I don’t think that there’s enough there to rock the boat considerably.
Conservatives will continue to look for Justin Trudeau to fall on his face (although I must admit that I was surprised that the Conservative attack machine generally offered Trudeau a “pass” throughout 2013 – particularly at times when the Conservatives were being hammered over the Senate Scandal, and a good “look over there” might have come in handy to change the channel for a day or so. What this tells me is that maybe the Conservatives don’t have the goods on Trudeau to the degree that many of us have been thinking they do). That’s not a winning strategy, I don’t think, but it’s likely enough to keep backbenchers quiet for another year. While some pundits are predicting a caucus revolt for the Conservatives in 2014, I just can’t see it happening. Such a revolt might mean victory for a few die-hard social conservatives in Alberta, but it would assuredly mean the destruction of the Conservative Party – and that’s not a place which most conservatives want to go.
Conservative “Successes”
I believe that Harper will keep a firm hand on the tiller throughout 2014 – and that the Conservatives will continue to obstruct Elections Canada from doing its job(s) on spending and voter suppression investigations. Delays will also help the Conservatives with regards to Nigel Wright and the Senate Scandal. Look for modest polling gains to be made with tough-on-crime anti-prostitution bills, coupled with a relatively healthy economic performance.
The Conservatives will also toot their own horn on the environment as President Obama finally gets around to making a decision about Keystone XL. Obama will approve the pipeline, with credit taken by the Conservatives. Keystone XL will be a media-hyped victory for the Conservatives, after losing one to Europe – as the EU will vote to add Canada’s tar sands to it’s “high carbon pollution” fuel quality standard (something we won’t hear a lot about in Canada).
Other scandals may re-emerge (particularly Robocalls), but generally speaking, the Conservatives will be able to dust themselves off at the end of 2014 and position themselves strongly for another run for a majority government in 2015 under the leadership of Stephen Harper.
The New Democratic Party of Canada
2013 was a tough year for the NDP – and not at all in keeping with my prediction that the NDP would emerge, at the end of 2013, in a position of strength relative to the Liberals. I sincerely thought that Thomas Mulcair was the “real deal” for the NDP (and in fact, I continue to think that he is – but it seems that most Canadians don’t agree with me on that). A the end of 2012, I predicted that the NDP’s fortunes were tied irrevocably to those of Justin Trudeau – on that I was correct – but I also predicted that Canada’s flirtation with the apparently vacuous Trudeau would be short lived – and it clearly has not been.
The NDP Flop of 2013
And so the NDP have ended 2013 as the third place party in opinion polls, having failed at gaining either of two coveted ridings in recent by-elections, despite aggressive campaigns. In Bourassa, the NDP actually lost ground to the Liberals (from 2011 results), while Toronto-Centre proved to be extremely problematic for the NDP, with Linda McQuaig, the NDP’s star candidate, going down in defeat to Chrystia Freeland, who ran a positive campaign. McQuaig’s continued personal attacks on Freeland no doubt disgusted traditional NDP supporters (as did McQuaig’s continued denial that she was engaging in the politics of character assassination – even though she was clearly doing just that), and this type of negative campaigning isn’t going to sit well with Canadians who are clearly growing tired of partisan antics.
Despite having an extremely effective year in the House, Thomas Mulcair has led the NDP to the brink of disaster at the end of 2013 – although it may not seem like it to most NDP supporters, at least not yet. Mulcair’s year-end interviews, however, tell me a different story on several fronts.
Negative Campaigning Turns Off NDP Base
First, back to that negative campaigning. It’s no secret that the NDP’s forensic analysis of their electoral disaster in B.C. in 2013 pointed to a lack of aggressive, negative campaigning on the part of former provincial leader Adrian Dix. Mulcair has now clearly stated that his Party will engage in negative campaigning in 2015 as a result – and it won’t all be directed at the Conservatives. In contrast, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has vowed to remain positive (which may prove difficult for the Liberal Party – but based on recent by-elections, Trudeau appears to be generally remaining true to his word – in all four contests, the Liberals ran what can only be described as “positive” campaigns). Mulcair believes that the negative stories of his opponents need to be told if the NDP is going to experience success. He may be right – but Mulcair also needs to keep in mind that he risks alienating his base if throws too much sand out of the sandbox.
Now, dyed-in –wool NDP supporters might argue that the NDP base, like the Conservative Party’s, really has nowhere else to go in terms of shifting votes to. First, I’d argue that’s probably not the case, as the Liberals and (especially) the Greens would be attractive parties for alienated New Democrats to park their votes with in 2015 – as a protest of Mulcair’s right-ward shift and partisan antics. Even more likely, however, is that NDP supporters simply stay at home and voice their disgust with their party in the same way that 90-year old Joy Taylor did, when she witnessed the questionable antics of her Party during the candidate selection process for a recent Ontario by-election in Scarborough-Guildwood.
NDP Ultra-Partisanship Taking a Toll on Supporters
The heavy hands of Thomas Mulcair are turning long-time supporters away from his Party. Although the NDP claims to be in favour of improving democracy, their vote-whipping and stated aim of not co-operating with any other political parties to oust Harper are starting to take a real toll with an increasingly cynical membership, which had long understood their party to be above these sorts of cynical partisan games.
The extent of the NDP’s ultra-partisanship was on display recently when Independent MP Bruce Hyer opted to join the Green Party. The NDP was forced to relive Hyer’s story again, which put the NDP in a bad light nationally. Moronic, anti-democratic calls for a by-election in Hyer’s Thunder Bay-Superior North riding exposed not only the NDP’s hypocrisy (no such calls were made when Hyer left the NDP to sit as an independent) but their lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of Canada’s system of governance.
NDP Achilles Heel No. 1: The Sherbrooke Declaration
All of this brings us to what will be the NDP’s Achilles heels in 2014: their unabashed support for the Clarity Act-contravening and Supreme Court of Canada “Sherbrooke Declaration” and it’s 50% + 1 formula for breaking up the country; and their recent policy reversal on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline. We’re going to be hearing a lot more about these NDP initiatives in the 2014 – and they will both prove to be losers for the NDP.
First, the Sherbrooke Declaration. On the surface, a 50% plus one simple majority might appear to be a democratic outcome in a referendum. However, the fact is that it’s just not that simple. First of all, a simple majority for a sovereignty referendum is clearly in violation of Canada’s laws and the Supreme Court of Canada’s recommendations that include a reference to a “clear majority” – obviously something different from a “simple” majority. Beyond the legalities, however, outside of wooing the separatist vote in Quebec, Sherbrooke will prove a real loser for the NDP, as the rest of Canada will start to take affront to the NDP’s soft position on sovereignty the more it becomes aware of its existence. Given that the Liberal Party was the one which adopted the Clarity Act in the first place, you can bet that they’ll be talking up the NDP’s soft-handed stance on breaking up the country. Increasingly, Canadians will come to view the NDP as not ready to govern.
NDP Achilles Heel No. 2: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Policy Reversal
Regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline: right before the Christmas holidays, Tom Mulcair sat down with reporters and advised that the NDP was changing its position of opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline to one of non-opposition. Interestingly, the NDP’s B.C. election failure forensic analysis seemed to point to the NDP’s mid-election opposition to Trans Mountain as being one of several reasons why the NDP grabbed defeat from the hands of victory in 2013.
A more comprehensive analysis suggests otherwise – that the NDP’s mid-election policy change was actually popular – certainly opinion polls showed a modest bump of support for the NDP for days after the announcement was made. I’d go so far as to argue that the NDP’s opposition to Trans Mountain probably led to the defeat of a couple of Greens in B.C., after the NDP stole a little Green thunder. But apparently, that’s not Tom Mulcair’s read.
Mulcair was making some pretty good noises in late 2013 about supporting the emerging green energy economy (although in the same speech, given to the Economic Club of Canada, he may have also watered down the NDP’s long-standing emissions reductions target goals). Mulcair signaled his Party’s continued support of a Cap and Trade carbon emissions trading scheme, and made other observations that he was going to start getting tough on climate change. The NDP has long been opposed to both the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipeline, and have been lukewarm to the Line 9 reversal. In his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Mulcair made it clear that he would only support a “West-East” pipeline if value-added refining jobs were a part of the equation. In short, Mulcair appeared to oppose the increase in transport capacity for raw bitumen.
NDP Abandons Environment as Vote-Getter
Which is what makes the NDP’s reversal in position on Trans Mountain a real head-scratcher. Trans Mountain is one and a half times as big as Northern Gateway – it will allow raw bitumen to flow to the Port of Vancouver for increased international export. Rather than 4 tankers a month in the Port, the Trans Mountain expansion is anticipated to lead to as many as 34 per month. Locally, Vancouver’s municipal council has signalled its opposition to Trans Mountain – and opinion polls show Vancoverites as being more inclined to oppose it than support it.
Given the tightness of public opinion polling in B.C., where the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP are within mere points of one another, and the Green Party has its strongest opinion poll showing of any jurisdiction in the world (with above 18%), Mulcair’s pre-Christmas policy reversal doesn’t appear to make much sense, as both his Conservative and Liberal opponents support Kinder Morgan. It may be that Mulcair is trying to show Canadians that he doesn’t oppose all pipelines in an attempt to combat Liberal and Conservative criticism that the NDP is anti-economic development. That might play well in other parts of Canada, including suburban Toronto, which is where the NDP must make gains in 2015.
The NDP’s Gift To Greens
But it hands the anti-Trans Mountain support over to the Green Party, which is now the last federal party standing which opposes the pipeline for numerous reasons, including tankers, dilbit spills and climate change impacts. And the Green Party is going to make hay with this – especially in ridings in Vancouver and on the Island which may be directly impacted by increased tanker traffic and attendant spills – and which are exactly the ridings which the Greens have been building a regional power base in.
Not only does it hand the Greens a local issue on which to oppose the NDP in B.C., but Mulcair’s reversal of the NDP’s position completely calls into question his Party’s stance on climate change. Now, I suspect that Mulcair is gambling that those nuances might be lost on voters who are concerned about this issue (particularly if Mulcair continues to tout Cap & Trade as a means of reducing carbon pollution), but those nuances aren’t going to be lost on environmental public opinion shapers. Within days of Mulcair’s reversal, there have been several critical documents published which do just that – claiming that the reversal clearly shows that the NDP doesn’t understand the depth of the climate crisis. These public opinion shapers will eventually have an impact on voters throughout the nation.
NDP Hypocrisy Exposed
Further, the reversal on Trans Mountain is internally inconsistent with the NDP’s so-called New Energy Vision – in which Mulcair laid out that the price of any pipeline exporting Canada’s oil resources would be jobs. Trans Mountain will export raw bitumen – and create no value-added jobs. This is exactly the sort of proposal which the NDP ought to be opposing if value-added is a real concern for that Party. That was one of the reasons that Dix and the NDP offered when opposition was announced in the first place.
I believe that the backlash to the NDP’s support of Trans Mountain will lead the NDP to reconsider this stance prior to the end of 2014. A lot of this backlash is going to come from the NDP’s own members and supporters in B.C., along with public opinion shapers who have long opposed Trans Mountain. The only question that I have is how much damage will the NDP do to itself before this position is again reversed?
On the Shrebrooke Declaration, the NDP has too much time and energy invested in propping up this policy loser – there will be no alteration of course on it. Both Shrebrooke and Trans Mountain are going to be big-time problems for the NDP in 2014.
The Liberal Party of Canada
What’s bad, of course, for the NDP is good for the Liberals. With the NDP’s dismal performance in 2013, the Liberals are at the tops of public opinion polls. Those of us who believed that Justin Trudeau would fall flat on his face in 2013 were proven wrong. If anything, Trudeau has had one of the strongest performances of any Leader in 2013, and hasn’t let a few bozo eruptions alter his course. Strong showings in 5 by-elections (with 3 wins – including the defeat of an incumbent in Labrador) have left the Liberals sitting pretty at the end of 2013.
Liberal Strength – or NDP Weakness?
2014, I believe, will prove to be an even stronger year for the Liberals, even as the Conservatives start to bounce back from 2013 lows. The good news for the Liberals is going to be Tom Mulcair and the NDP’s continued descent towards the high teens of public opinion.
Polling inroads will be made by the Liberals in the Atlantic provinces, B.C., Manitoba and (modestly) in Quebec. The Liberals will continue to face off against the Conservatives in Ontario – but with the exception of a handful of downtown Toronto ridings, urban and suburban Ontario is going to continue to make a pronounced shift in preference towards the Liberals. And these are exactly the ridings the Liberals need to win if they are going to reclaim the title of Official Opposition in 2015.
Again, for me, this isn’t so much of a question of how well the Liberals might be doing in 2014, but rather a question of how poorly the NDP might fare. I’ve obviously been surprised that the NDP has seemingly decided to sink its own ship – even as it tries to tack towards a populist course. It seems that Mulcair is helming the gang that can’t shoot straight – and the Liberals have, until this time, been the primary beneficiaries of NDP folly. With an increasing number of high-profile candidates ready to go to bat for Liberals across Canada, the fortunes of the Liberal Party will consolidate throughout the year – although potential breakthroughs in Alberta and parts of Quebec will continue to appear elusive at the end of the year.
The Green Party of Canada
Unquestionably, the Green Party had a good year in 2013 – but primarily for one reason only: that it doubled its caucus with the addition of former-NDP and Independent MP Bruce Hyer. Other than this one event (which I broadly predicted in 2012 by stating that there would be a new Green MP in place by the end of 2013), the fortunes of the Green Party appear to be somewhat mixed. The reality, however, is that the Green Party has really started to position itself for success in 2013 – and although I am a Green partisan – I also feel that I’m a realist when I write the Greens should not be under-estimated in 2014.
As I indicated above, the Green Party has been hard at work at building a regional power base in B.C., and our polling in that Province has never been higher (even with an interim Party Leader which the majority of British Columbians couldn’t pick out of a police line-up). With the election of Green MLA Andrew Weaver to B.C.’s provincial legislature in 2013, Greens continue to show that we can be competitive in a First Past the Post electoral environment. Look for the Greens to continue to build in B.C., especially when a (relatively) high-profile leadership contest gets underway (no date has been set yet, but one can imagine that the Greens will want to capitalize on momentum by holding a vote for Leader in the spring of 2015 – just months in advance of the fall federal election). Look for a well-known west coast environmentalist to throw their hat in the ring a la Elizabeth May to become Party Leader.
B.C. Momentum
The momentum for the Green Party coming out of B.C. might start to rub-off on other constituencies as well. If a provincial election is held in Ontario (and I have predicted one won’t be) and Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner is elected in Guelph (which I predicted he would be were an election held), it is conceivable that other Southwestern Ontario ridings could be in play for Greens come 2015. Historically, Greens have had decent showings in Buce-Grey-Owen Sound and Dufferin County.
Bruce Hyer
Bruce Hyer’s profile is going to loom larger in the public realm throughout 2014. Hyer and the Greens know that holding on to the Thunder Bay-Superior North riding is going to be tricky come 2015, but Hyer’s reputation as a strong constituency representative will only be enhanced by his higher profile in the Green Party. Already, Hyer is off on an international trade mission to Taiwan as the Green Party’s representative.
Will May and Hyer be joined by any other Greens in the House in 2014? It’s within the realm of possibility that a by-election might come along in 2014 in a location where a strong Green campaign can develop. As for additions to the Party from current Members – I’m doubtful. I think that the Greens are going to have to wait to 2015 to see an increase to caucus. But the signs are pointing in the right direction, in my opinion, particularly if the NDP sticks to its guns on its Trans Mountain reversal – a policy decision which will really upset a lot of NDP supporters in Vancouver and on the Island.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
2013 was unquestionably a bad year for the Conservative Party of Canada – although perhaps not the disaster some in the media are portraying it as being. 2013, however, really exploded the myths of the Stephen Harper’s infallibility and iron-grip control. The Senate Scandal in the PMO’s office has really hurt – as have the changing story-lines which the Prime Minister himself has altered throughout the year regarding Nigel Wright. For me, there were more important matters at play here (particularly the fact that sitting members of our legislature were able to force three other members out of their jobs – which I find particularly chilling), but for the general public, what seems to be sticking is that the Prime Minister has been lying about what he knew, based on his reactions to events, and that constantly influx story line.
Contrary to my predictions for the Conservative Party in 2013 (I stated that it would be “business as usual” for the Conservatives – it’s been anything but!), what we’ve seen is a public conversation emerging about whether Harper can stay on to lead his Party in 2015 – along with a discussion about whom the frontrunners for a snap leadership race might be. These discussions really weren’t on anybody’s radar at the end of 2012 – and in some ways, I believe they are being oversold today.
Steady-Handed Steve
Look, Conservative support remains fairly strong, although it has suffered a dip in public opinion polls – those same polls which are becoming less and less trustworthy each day. What the Conservatives can count on more than any other Party is that it can mobilize its vote on election day – and be competitive in all of the ridings that it needs to be competitive in (and can still spend a tonne of money in the ridings that it has only a moderate chance of success in – like Sudbury). Strong campaigns by the NDP and Liberals (and Greens in certain ridings – and the Bloc in others) could split the vote in such a way that Conservatives are still able to come up the middle in marginal ridings, particularly in B.C., Quebec and suburban Ontario.
But what about those by-elections in Manitoba, where the Conservatives lost a lot of ground to the Liberals? Aren’t they a sign of what awaits the Conservatives in 2015? No, I don’t believe that they are, given the dynamics of a general election versus a by-election. That being said, I don’t think that there’s any question that a resurgent Liberal Party poses a threat to the Conservatives in many western ridings – and we can expect a number of Conservative incumbents to go down in defeat to Liberal candidates in 2015. But as far as 2014 goes, I don’t think that there’s enough there to rock the boat considerably.
Conservatives will continue to look for Justin Trudeau to fall on his face (although I must admit that I was surprised that the Conservative attack machine generally offered Trudeau a “pass” throughout 2013 – particularly at times when the Conservatives were being hammered over the Senate Scandal, and a good “look over there” might have come in handy to change the channel for a day or so. What this tells me is that maybe the Conservatives don’t have the goods on Trudeau to the degree that many of us have been thinking they do). That’s not a winning strategy, I don’t think, but it’s likely enough to keep backbenchers quiet for another year. While some pundits are predicting a caucus revolt for the Conservatives in 2014, I just can’t see it happening. Such a revolt might mean victory for a few die-hard social conservatives in Alberta, but it would assuredly mean the destruction of the Conservative Party – and that’s not a place which most conservatives want to go.
Conservative “Successes”
I believe that Harper will keep a firm hand on the tiller throughout 2014 – and that the Conservatives will continue to obstruct Elections Canada from doing its job(s) on spending and voter suppression investigations. Delays will also help the Conservatives with regards to Nigel Wright and the Senate Scandal. Look for modest polling gains to be made with tough-on-crime anti-prostitution bills, coupled with a relatively healthy economic performance.
The Conservatives will also toot their own horn on the environment as President Obama finally gets around to making a decision about Keystone XL. Obama will approve the pipeline, with credit taken by the Conservatives. Keystone XL will be a media-hyped victory for the Conservatives, after losing one to Europe – as the EU will vote to add Canada’s tar sands to it’s “high carbon pollution” fuel quality standard (something we won’t hear a lot about in Canada).
Other scandals may re-emerge (particularly Robocalls), but generally speaking, the Conservatives will be able to dust themselves off at the end of 2014 and position themselves strongly for another run for a majority government in 2015 under the leadership of Stephen Harper.
The New Democratic Party of Canada
2013 was a tough year for the NDP – and not at all in keeping with my prediction that the NDP would emerge, at the end of 2013, in a position of strength relative to the Liberals. I sincerely thought that Thomas Mulcair was the “real deal” for the NDP (and in fact, I continue to think that he is – but it seems that most Canadians don’t agree with me on that). A the end of 2012, I predicted that the NDP’s fortunes were tied irrevocably to those of Justin Trudeau – on that I was correct – but I also predicted that Canada’s flirtation with the apparently vacuous Trudeau would be short lived – and it clearly has not been.
The NDP Flop of 2013
And so the NDP have ended 2013 as the third place party in opinion polls, having failed at gaining either of two coveted ridings in recent by-elections, despite aggressive campaigns. In Bourassa, the NDP actually lost ground to the Liberals (from 2011 results), while Toronto-Centre proved to be extremely problematic for the NDP, with Linda McQuaig, the NDP’s star candidate, going down in defeat to Chrystia Freeland, who ran a positive campaign. McQuaig’s continued personal attacks on Freeland no doubt disgusted traditional NDP supporters (as did McQuaig’s continued denial that she was engaging in the politics of character assassination – even though she was clearly doing just that), and this type of negative campaigning isn’t going to sit well with Canadians who are clearly growing tired of partisan antics.
Despite having an extremely effective year in the House, Thomas Mulcair has led the NDP to the brink of disaster at the end of 2013 – although it may not seem like it to most NDP supporters, at least not yet. Mulcair’s year-end interviews, however, tell me a different story on several fronts.
Negative Campaigning Turns Off NDP Base
First, back to that negative campaigning. It’s no secret that the NDP’s forensic analysis of their electoral disaster in B.C. in 2013 pointed to a lack of aggressive, negative campaigning on the part of former provincial leader Adrian Dix. Mulcair has now clearly stated that his Party will engage in negative campaigning in 2015 as a result – and it won’t all be directed at the Conservatives. In contrast, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has vowed to remain positive (which may prove difficult for the Liberal Party – but based on recent by-elections, Trudeau appears to be generally remaining true to his word – in all four contests, the Liberals ran what can only be described as “positive” campaigns). Mulcair believes that the negative stories of his opponents need to be told if the NDP is going to experience success. He may be right – but Mulcair also needs to keep in mind that he risks alienating his base if throws too much sand out of the sandbox.
Now, dyed-in –wool NDP supporters might argue that the NDP base, like the Conservative Party’s, really has nowhere else to go in terms of shifting votes to. First, I’d argue that’s probably not the case, as the Liberals and (especially) the Greens would be attractive parties for alienated New Democrats to park their votes with in 2015 – as a protest of Mulcair’s right-ward shift and partisan antics. Even more likely, however, is that NDP supporters simply stay at home and voice their disgust with their party in the same way that 90-year old Joy Taylor did, when she witnessed the questionable antics of her Party during the candidate selection process for a recent Ontario by-election in Scarborough-Guildwood.
NDP Ultra-Partisanship Taking a Toll on Supporters
The heavy hands of Thomas Mulcair are turning long-time supporters away from his Party. Although the NDP claims to be in favour of improving democracy, their vote-whipping and stated aim of not co-operating with any other political parties to oust Harper are starting to take a real toll with an increasingly cynical membership, which had long understood their party to be above these sorts of cynical partisan games.
The extent of the NDP’s ultra-partisanship was on display recently when Independent MP Bruce Hyer opted to join the Green Party. The NDP was forced to relive Hyer’s story again, which put the NDP in a bad light nationally. Moronic, anti-democratic calls for a by-election in Hyer’s Thunder Bay-Superior North riding exposed not only the NDP’s hypocrisy (no such calls were made when Hyer left the NDP to sit as an independent) but their lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of Canada’s system of governance.
NDP Achilles Heel No. 1: The Sherbrooke Declaration
All of this brings us to what will be the NDP’s Achilles heels in 2014: their unabashed support for the Clarity Act-contravening and Supreme Court of Canada “Sherbrooke Declaration” and it’s 50% + 1 formula for breaking up the country; and their recent policy reversal on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline. We’re going to be hearing a lot more about these NDP initiatives in the 2014 – and they will both prove to be losers for the NDP.
First, the Sherbrooke Declaration. On the surface, a 50% plus one simple majority might appear to be a democratic outcome in a referendum. However, the fact is that it’s just not that simple. First of all, a simple majority for a sovereignty referendum is clearly in violation of Canada’s laws and the Supreme Court of Canada’s recommendations that include a reference to a “clear majority” – obviously something different from a “simple” majority. Beyond the legalities, however, outside of wooing the separatist vote in Quebec, Sherbrooke will prove a real loser for the NDP, as the rest of Canada will start to take affront to the NDP’s soft position on sovereignty the more it becomes aware of its existence. Given that the Liberal Party was the one which adopted the Clarity Act in the first place, you can bet that they’ll be talking up the NDP’s soft-handed stance on breaking up the country. Increasingly, Canadians will come to view the NDP as not ready to govern.
NDP Achilles Heel No. 2: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Policy Reversal
Regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline: right before the Christmas holidays, Tom Mulcair sat down with reporters and advised that the NDP was changing its position of opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline to one of non-opposition. Interestingly, the NDP’s B.C. election failure forensic analysis seemed to point to the NDP’s mid-election opposition to Trans Mountain as being one of several reasons why the NDP grabbed defeat from the hands of victory in 2013.
A more comprehensive analysis suggests otherwise – that the NDP’s mid-election policy change was actually popular – certainly opinion polls showed a modest bump of support for the NDP for days after the announcement was made. I’d go so far as to argue that the NDP’s opposition to Trans Mountain probably led to the defeat of a couple of Greens in B.C., after the NDP stole a little Green thunder. But apparently, that’s not Tom Mulcair’s read.
Mulcair was making some pretty good noises in late 2013 about supporting the emerging green energy economy (although in the same speech, given to the Economic Club of Canada, he may have also watered down the NDP’s long-standing emissions reductions target goals). Mulcair signaled his Party’s continued support of a Cap and Trade carbon emissions trading scheme, and made other observations that he was going to start getting tough on climate change. The NDP has long been opposed to both the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipeline, and have been lukewarm to the Line 9 reversal. In his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Mulcair made it clear that he would only support a “West-East” pipeline if value-added refining jobs were a part of the equation. In short, Mulcair appeared to oppose the increase in transport capacity for raw bitumen.
NDP Abandons Environment as Vote-Getter
Which is what makes the NDP’s reversal in position on Trans Mountain a real head-scratcher. Trans Mountain is one and a half times as big as Northern Gateway – it will allow raw bitumen to flow to the Port of Vancouver for increased international export. Rather than 4 tankers a month in the Port, the Trans Mountain expansion is anticipated to lead to as many as 34 per month. Locally, Vancouver’s municipal council has signalled its opposition to Trans Mountain – and opinion polls show Vancoverites as being more inclined to oppose it than support it.
Given the tightness of public opinion polling in B.C., where the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP are within mere points of one another, and the Green Party has its strongest opinion poll showing of any jurisdiction in the world (with above 18%), Mulcair’s pre-Christmas policy reversal doesn’t appear to make much sense, as both his Conservative and Liberal opponents support Kinder Morgan. It may be that Mulcair is trying to show Canadians that he doesn’t oppose all pipelines in an attempt to combat Liberal and Conservative criticism that the NDP is anti-economic development. That might play well in other parts of Canada, including suburban Toronto, which is where the NDP must make gains in 2015.
The NDP’s Gift To Greens
But it hands the anti-Trans Mountain support over to the Green Party, which is now the last federal party standing which opposes the pipeline for numerous reasons, including tankers, dilbit spills and climate change impacts. And the Green Party is going to make hay with this – especially in ridings in Vancouver and on the Island which may be directly impacted by increased tanker traffic and attendant spills – and which are exactly the ridings which the Greens have been building a regional power base in.
Not only does it hand the Greens a local issue on which to oppose the NDP in B.C., but Mulcair’s reversal of the NDP’s position completely calls into question his Party’s stance on climate change. Now, I suspect that Mulcair is gambling that those nuances might be lost on voters who are concerned about this issue (particularly if Mulcair continues to tout Cap & Trade as a means of reducing carbon pollution), but those nuances aren’t going to be lost on environmental public opinion shapers. Within days of Mulcair’s reversal, there have been several critical documents published which do just that – claiming that the reversal clearly shows that the NDP doesn’t understand the depth of the climate crisis. These public opinion shapers will eventually have an impact on voters throughout the nation.
NDP Hypocrisy Exposed
Further, the reversal on Trans Mountain is internally inconsistent with the NDP’s so-called New Energy Vision – in which Mulcair laid out that the price of any pipeline exporting Canada’s oil resources would be jobs. Trans Mountain will export raw bitumen – and create no value-added jobs. This is exactly the sort of proposal which the NDP ought to be opposing if value-added is a real concern for that Party. That was one of the reasons that Dix and the NDP offered when opposition was announced in the first place.
I believe that the backlash to the NDP’s support of Trans Mountain will lead the NDP to reconsider this stance prior to the end of 2014. A lot of this backlash is going to come from the NDP’s own members and supporters in B.C., along with public opinion shapers who have long opposed Trans Mountain. The only question that I have is how much damage will the NDP do to itself before this position is again reversed?
On the Shrebrooke Declaration, the NDP has too much time and energy invested in propping up this policy loser – there will be no alteration of course on it. Both Shrebrooke and Trans Mountain are going to be big-time problems for the NDP in 2014.
The Liberal Party of Canada
What’s bad, of course, for the NDP is good for the Liberals. With the NDP’s dismal performance in 2013, the Liberals are at the tops of public opinion polls. Those of us who believed that Justin Trudeau would fall flat on his face in 2013 were proven wrong. If anything, Trudeau has had one of the strongest performances of any Leader in 2013, and hasn’t let a few bozo eruptions alter his course. Strong showings in 5 by-elections (with 3 wins – including the defeat of an incumbent in Labrador) have left the Liberals sitting pretty at the end of 2013.
Liberal Strength – or NDP Weakness?
2014, I believe, will prove to be an even stronger year for the Liberals, even as the Conservatives start to bounce back from 2013 lows. The good news for the Liberals is going to be Tom Mulcair and the NDP’s continued descent towards the high teens of public opinion.
Polling inroads will be made by the Liberals in the Atlantic provinces, B.C., Manitoba and (modestly) in Quebec. The Liberals will continue to face off against the Conservatives in Ontario – but with the exception of a handful of downtown Toronto ridings, urban and suburban Ontario is going to continue to make a pronounced shift in preference towards the Liberals. And these are exactly the ridings the Liberals need to win if they are going to reclaim the title of Official Opposition in 2015.
Again, for me, this isn’t so much of a question of how well the Liberals might be doing in 2014, but rather a question of how poorly the NDP might fare. I’ve obviously been surprised that the NDP has seemingly decided to sink its own ship – even as it tries to tack towards a populist course. It seems that Mulcair is helming the gang that can’t shoot straight – and the Liberals have, until this time, been the primary beneficiaries of NDP folly. With an increasing number of high-profile candidates ready to go to bat for Liberals across Canada, the fortunes of the Liberal Party will consolidate throughout the year – although potential breakthroughs in Alberta and parts of Quebec will continue to appear elusive at the end of the year.
The Green Party of Canada
Unquestionably, the Green Party had a good year in 2013 – but primarily for one reason only: that it doubled its caucus with the addition of former-NDP and Independent MP Bruce Hyer. Other than this one event (which I broadly predicted in 2012 by stating that there would be a new Green MP in place by the end of 2013), the fortunes of the Green Party appear to be somewhat mixed. The reality, however, is that the Green Party has really started to position itself for success in 2013 – and although I am a Green partisan – I also feel that I’m a realist when I write the Greens should not be under-estimated in 2014.
As I indicated above, the Green Party has been hard at work at building a regional power base in B.C., and our polling in that Province has never been higher (even with an interim Party Leader which the majority of British Columbians couldn’t pick out of a police line-up). With the election of Green MLA Andrew Weaver to B.C.’s provincial legislature in 2013, Greens continue to show that we can be competitive in a First Past the Post electoral environment. Look for the Greens to continue to build in B.C., especially when a (relatively) high-profile leadership contest gets underway (no date has been set yet, but one can imagine that the Greens will want to capitalize on momentum by holding a vote for Leader in the spring of 2015 – just months in advance of the fall federal election). Look for a well-known west coast environmentalist to throw their hat in the ring a la Elizabeth May to become Party Leader.
B.C. Momentum
The momentum for the Green Party coming out of B.C. might start to rub-off on other constituencies as well. If a provincial election is held in Ontario (and I have predicted one won’t be) and Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner is elected in Guelph (which I predicted he would be were an election held), it is conceivable that other Southwestern Ontario ridings could be in play for Greens come 2015. Historically, Greens have had decent showings in Buce-Grey-Owen Sound and Dufferin County.
Bruce Hyer
Bruce Hyer’s profile is going to loom larger in the public realm throughout 2014. Hyer and the Greens know that holding on to the Thunder Bay-Superior North riding is going to be tricky come 2015, but Hyer’s reputation as a strong constituency representative will only be enhanced by his higher profile in the Green Party. Already, Hyer is off on an international trade mission to Taiwan as the Green Party’s representative.
Will May and Hyer be joined by any other Greens in the House in 2014? It’s within the realm of possibility that a by-election might come along in 2014 in a location where a strong Green campaign can develop. As for additions to the Party from current Members – I’m doubtful. I think that the Greens are going to have to wait to 2015 to see an increase to caucus. But the signs are pointing in the right direction, in my opinion, particularly if the NDP sticks to its guns on its Trans Mountain reversal – a policy decision which will really upset a lot of NDP supporters in Vancouver and on the Island.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
2014 Crystal Ball Gazing - Political Predictions, Part 2: Provincial Politics
Ontario
There are two big political questions about the Province of Ontario – the first is, will there be a provincial election in 2014? The second is, if so, what will the results be? Trying to answer either of these questions is a fool’s game, but this fool is game to try. So here goes nothing.
There will be no provincial election in Ontario in 2013. Despite my prediction from last year (where I indicated that there would be a provincial election in 2012), I don’t think that the stars are going to align for an election in 2013 – which I know goes against conventional wisdom, along with my own gut feelings which I experienced throughout a majority of 2013. My view is that the Liberals are in seriously trouble, thanks to the gas plant and ORNGE scandals primarily – but also in part to the lack of aggressiveness on the part of the Wynne government to tackle much of anything in terms of issues throughout 2013. Finance Minister Charles Sousa has been a real disappointment to me in 2013.
Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives
Despite Ontario’s general malaise with the Liberals, polls suggest that they would still be returned to a minority government if an election were held today. That really says a lot more about their chief opponents than it does Kathleen Wynne’s government. The Progressive Conservatives appear to be mired in the politics of confrontation – and completely lacking in direction, other than expressing their desire to steer Ontario towards serious confrontations with both public and private sector unions. I can’t believe that PC Leader Tim Hudak thinks that this is a winning strategy for his Party – but nevertheless, Hudak’s hard-right turn appears to be on offer from the PC’s. Many in Hudak’s own party are growing increasingly worried that this isn’t going to be a winning strategy for the PC’s – and I agree with them.
Rural Ontario
That being said, Hudak is sure to pick up a good number of seats in Ontario – especially in rural areas, where his party is dominant. For Southern Ontario rural voters, the perception has been that they’ve been abandoned by both the NDP and the Liberals – and I think that there’s a lot of merit to that perception. Only the Green Party really offers an alternative direction for rural voters in Southern Ontario right now – and let’s face it, the Greens just aren’t as organized as they could be to take advantage of this situation. Nevertheless, the Greens One School Board policy is sure to resonate with rural voters – if the Greens play it up.
Northern Ontario
In Northern Ontario, the Liberals are done like dinner – thanks to the perception of an indifferent and at times actively hostile Queens Park (thanks in part to the Liberal’s decision to sell off Ontario Northland). Look to the NDP to capture those last remaining Liberal-held Northern ridings, including my own Sudbury riding – if an election is held.
NDP – Won’t Pull the Plug
But I don’t think we’ll have a provincial election, because the NDP’s polling elsewhere in the province leaves a lot to be desired. Although the NDP’s Leader, Andrea Horwath, is personally quite popular, her party remains mired in the low 20s in opinion polls. With little chance for growth in rural Southern Ontario, the NDP’s best bets are to take on the Liberals in certain key urban areas – and winning any of them are going to be difficult for the NDP – especially if Ontarians are forced to pick between a Wynne and Hudak government. It’s that vote-collapsing nightmare scenario for the NDP which will likely stay Horwath’s hand throughout 2014.
But If There Is an Election…
So, my answer to question No. 1 is No. But let’s ignore that for a moment and explore question No. 2 – if there were an election, who might win? First, I’ll answer a related question: I believe that the PC’s would gain the largest share of the popular vote – this because they can count on rural support to a greater degree than any other party. However, in our archaic First-Past-the-Post electoral system, getting the most votes doesn’t mean that you get to govern.
The Liberals: Taxes and Transit
2014 is going to be a critical year for Kathleen Wynne. She’s either going to start making a decent impression with voters (after wasting 2013) on issues like pension reform –or she and the Liberals are going to fall flat on their faces (which might not necessarily translate into a significant loss of support, given the popularity – or lack thereof – of the other two parties). I think that it’s going to be the latter, because Wynne seems intent on trying to climb the hill to electoral success by championing a tax increase.
Late in 2013, a report came out which suggested that transit improvements in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) could be funded by an increase to gas taxes between five and ten cents per litre, and potentially an increase to the HST. The report indicated that for the sake of equity, these tax increases should be applied to all of Ontario, and not just to the GTHA. Buried in the report was the notion that municipalities outside of the GTHA would receive their “fair share” (based on population – not necessarily on the amount of tax collected) for their own local transit needs. The Liberals, acknowledging that not all areas outside of the GTHA supported public transit, were quick to point out that local areas could use the additional tax revenue to fund other infrastructure projects. All in all, the roll-out of the Liberal’s key messaging has been a disaster – the PC’s have done an effective job of scaring Ontarians in rural and Northern areas into believing that a ten cent per litre hike to gas taxes is going to go towards funding transit in Toronto.
Even without the cynical PC scare-tactics, a hike to gasoline taxes (and the HST!) would be a tough sell. Wynne believes that Ontarians are ready to have an adult conversation about how transit can be paid for (at least, she believes that Ontarians in ridings which might vote Liberal are ready for that conversation). While it’s an admirable sentiment, I’m not certain that I agree with her.
The NDP – Populism Run Rampant
The NDP has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to gas taxes. For a long while now, the NDP’s position has been that it won’t raise taxes on gasoline – it believes that such a tax is “regressive” and hurts low income earners. The NDP has got it all backwards, that’s for sure – gas taxes aren’t regressive in the same way that taxes on food and shelter are. Low-income earners tend to spend far less of their monthly expenditures on gasoline, given that many don’t own personal vehicles. But the NDP likes to insist that as a percentage of income, higher gas prices effect the poor more substantially than they do the rich. While this might be so for middle-income wage earners, it’s not universal. The biggest factor at play is the availability of public transit – but the NDP likes to stick to its anti-gas tax guns.
Interestingly, the NDP has in the past suggested putting a cap on gasoline prices – in a cynical move to woo motoring voters. I say “cynical” because a gas price cap as proposed by the NDP will simply allow motorists to continue doing what they’ve been doing – burn fossil fuels – while passing along expenses to the next generation in the form of climate debt. Further, the biggest winners in the gas-cap sweepstakes will be the rich – as the impetus to drive less is removed due to the price cap.
Nevertheless, it’s easier to tell voters that there won’t be any new taxes on gas, and promise them to cap prices. Nevermind that the NDP’s economic plan to fund transit by raising corporate taxes is incredibly lacking – it will go over well with voters when contrasted to that of Wynne’s plan to hike taxes. For the NDP, Wynne’s choice to live and die on the Gas Tax hill will prove to be a winfall in those urban ridings where the NDP needs to make inroads. As a result, we could look to a slow rise in the NDP’s popularity throughout 2014 – I just don’t think it would be enough to for Horwath to roll the dice and pull the plug on Wynne. The longer Horwath waits, the better the NDP’s odds might be of winning an election – especially if the global economy tanks (which I don’t believe it will in 2014).
Hudak Slighted
So, if an election was to happen, what might the outcome be? I predict that Tim Hudak’s PC’s might win the most seats – but that they will not form a minority government. Hudak’s ultra-right-wing promises will scare the NDP and the Liberals into forming a united front against the PC’s – probably not in the form of a coalition government – but more likely in the form of the Accord between Bob Rae and David Peterson back in the ‘80s, which allowed the Liberals to govern with the NDP’s support on confidence matters – even though the PC’s had the largest number of seats.
Only this time, the roles of the two parties will be reversed and Ontario will be led by an NDP government with Andrea Horwath as Premier supported by the leaderless Liberals (Wynne will resign on election night) and the Greens (Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner will take the Guelph riding to become Canada’s second Green to be elected to a provincial legislature).
Quebec
I really dislike making predictions about Quebec, but it’s going to be super-hard to ignore what’s going on in Quebec throughout 2014. I believe that there will be a provincial election, fought largely on Pauline Marois’ Charter of Quebec Values. Marois and the PQ’s will be returned Quebec’s National Assembly with a larger mandate (but still a minority). The Liberals will be the biggest winners, picking up seats formerly held by the Coalition Avenir de Quebec (CAQ) which appears to be in free-fall and unable to stake out any unique territory for itself.
Look for modest, if minor gains by Quebec’s fourth party, Quebec Solidaire, as the left-wing progressive urban vote rallies around this party which currently has 2 seats in the National Assembly. Quebec Solidaire may not gain any new seats, but I do expect it to double its vote total this time out. The relative success (or failure) of this small, fourth-place party is important nationally, as the federal NDP have decided that they will open up a provincial wing of the Party in Quebec after the next provincial election. Quebec Solidaire evolved out of the former provincial wing of the NDP after it was disowned by the federal party for its support of sovereignty.
What may not be realized by many voters is that the NDP has a strict policy in place that you can’t just be a member of the federal or provincial party – you must be a member of both. With this in mind, it’s always very interesting to see the dynamics in play between provincial and federal NDP parties, especially where Party Leaders might have slightly different takes on certain issues. Quebec is the only province which does not currently have a provincial NDP wing. Given the NDP’s massive success in Quebec federally in 2011, it stands to reason why the NDP has been thinking about re-entering the provincial scene in Quebec – but Quebec Solidaire’s success has appeared to stand in its way – and may continue to do so in 2014. Cautious left-wingers must be very concerned about a new provincial NDP splitting the vote, and leading to the election of other parties. Ultimately, I think that the federal NDP will decide it’s not worth the resources to plunge into Quebec’s provincial politics, even should Quebec Solidaire stumble (and I don’t think it will).
New Brunswick
New Brunswickers will head to the polls on September 22nd, as per that province’s fixed election laws. Look for Premier David Alward’s government to go down to defeat at the hands of the New Brunswick Liberals. Despite anti-fracking protests which have rocked parts of rural New Brunswick throughout 2013, the fracking issue will have little impact on the election’s outcome.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
There are two big political questions about the Province of Ontario – the first is, will there be a provincial election in 2014? The second is, if so, what will the results be? Trying to answer either of these questions is a fool’s game, but this fool is game to try. So here goes nothing.
There will be no provincial election in Ontario in 2013. Despite my prediction from last year (where I indicated that there would be a provincial election in 2012), I don’t think that the stars are going to align for an election in 2013 – which I know goes against conventional wisdom, along with my own gut feelings which I experienced throughout a majority of 2013. My view is that the Liberals are in seriously trouble, thanks to the gas plant and ORNGE scandals primarily – but also in part to the lack of aggressiveness on the part of the Wynne government to tackle much of anything in terms of issues throughout 2013. Finance Minister Charles Sousa has been a real disappointment to me in 2013.
Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives
Despite Ontario’s general malaise with the Liberals, polls suggest that they would still be returned to a minority government if an election were held today. That really says a lot more about their chief opponents than it does Kathleen Wynne’s government. The Progressive Conservatives appear to be mired in the politics of confrontation – and completely lacking in direction, other than expressing their desire to steer Ontario towards serious confrontations with both public and private sector unions. I can’t believe that PC Leader Tim Hudak thinks that this is a winning strategy for his Party – but nevertheless, Hudak’s hard-right turn appears to be on offer from the PC’s. Many in Hudak’s own party are growing increasingly worried that this isn’t going to be a winning strategy for the PC’s – and I agree with them.
Rural Ontario
That being said, Hudak is sure to pick up a good number of seats in Ontario – especially in rural areas, where his party is dominant. For Southern Ontario rural voters, the perception has been that they’ve been abandoned by both the NDP and the Liberals – and I think that there’s a lot of merit to that perception. Only the Green Party really offers an alternative direction for rural voters in Southern Ontario right now – and let’s face it, the Greens just aren’t as organized as they could be to take advantage of this situation. Nevertheless, the Greens One School Board policy is sure to resonate with rural voters – if the Greens play it up.
Northern Ontario
In Northern Ontario, the Liberals are done like dinner – thanks to the perception of an indifferent and at times actively hostile Queens Park (thanks in part to the Liberal’s decision to sell off Ontario Northland). Look to the NDP to capture those last remaining Liberal-held Northern ridings, including my own Sudbury riding – if an election is held.
NDP – Won’t Pull the Plug
But I don’t think we’ll have a provincial election, because the NDP’s polling elsewhere in the province leaves a lot to be desired. Although the NDP’s Leader, Andrea Horwath, is personally quite popular, her party remains mired in the low 20s in opinion polls. With little chance for growth in rural Southern Ontario, the NDP’s best bets are to take on the Liberals in certain key urban areas – and winning any of them are going to be difficult for the NDP – especially if Ontarians are forced to pick between a Wynne and Hudak government. It’s that vote-collapsing nightmare scenario for the NDP which will likely stay Horwath’s hand throughout 2014.
But If There Is an Election…
So, my answer to question No. 1 is No. But let’s ignore that for a moment and explore question No. 2 – if there were an election, who might win? First, I’ll answer a related question: I believe that the PC’s would gain the largest share of the popular vote – this because they can count on rural support to a greater degree than any other party. However, in our archaic First-Past-the-Post electoral system, getting the most votes doesn’t mean that you get to govern.
The Liberals: Taxes and Transit
2014 is going to be a critical year for Kathleen Wynne. She’s either going to start making a decent impression with voters (after wasting 2013) on issues like pension reform –or she and the Liberals are going to fall flat on their faces (which might not necessarily translate into a significant loss of support, given the popularity – or lack thereof – of the other two parties). I think that it’s going to be the latter, because Wynne seems intent on trying to climb the hill to electoral success by championing a tax increase.
Late in 2013, a report came out which suggested that transit improvements in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) could be funded by an increase to gas taxes between five and ten cents per litre, and potentially an increase to the HST. The report indicated that for the sake of equity, these tax increases should be applied to all of Ontario, and not just to the GTHA. Buried in the report was the notion that municipalities outside of the GTHA would receive their “fair share” (based on population – not necessarily on the amount of tax collected) for their own local transit needs. The Liberals, acknowledging that not all areas outside of the GTHA supported public transit, were quick to point out that local areas could use the additional tax revenue to fund other infrastructure projects. All in all, the roll-out of the Liberal’s key messaging has been a disaster – the PC’s have done an effective job of scaring Ontarians in rural and Northern areas into believing that a ten cent per litre hike to gas taxes is going to go towards funding transit in Toronto.
Even without the cynical PC scare-tactics, a hike to gasoline taxes (and the HST!) would be a tough sell. Wynne believes that Ontarians are ready to have an adult conversation about how transit can be paid for (at least, she believes that Ontarians in ridings which might vote Liberal are ready for that conversation). While it’s an admirable sentiment, I’m not certain that I agree with her.
The NDP – Populism Run Rampant
The NDP has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to gas taxes. For a long while now, the NDP’s position has been that it won’t raise taxes on gasoline – it believes that such a tax is “regressive” and hurts low income earners. The NDP has got it all backwards, that’s for sure – gas taxes aren’t regressive in the same way that taxes on food and shelter are. Low-income earners tend to spend far less of their monthly expenditures on gasoline, given that many don’t own personal vehicles. But the NDP likes to insist that as a percentage of income, higher gas prices effect the poor more substantially than they do the rich. While this might be so for middle-income wage earners, it’s not universal. The biggest factor at play is the availability of public transit – but the NDP likes to stick to its anti-gas tax guns.
Interestingly, the NDP has in the past suggested putting a cap on gasoline prices – in a cynical move to woo motoring voters. I say “cynical” because a gas price cap as proposed by the NDP will simply allow motorists to continue doing what they’ve been doing – burn fossil fuels – while passing along expenses to the next generation in the form of climate debt. Further, the biggest winners in the gas-cap sweepstakes will be the rich – as the impetus to drive less is removed due to the price cap.
Nevertheless, it’s easier to tell voters that there won’t be any new taxes on gas, and promise them to cap prices. Nevermind that the NDP’s economic plan to fund transit by raising corporate taxes is incredibly lacking – it will go over well with voters when contrasted to that of Wynne’s plan to hike taxes. For the NDP, Wynne’s choice to live and die on the Gas Tax hill will prove to be a winfall in those urban ridings where the NDP needs to make inroads. As a result, we could look to a slow rise in the NDP’s popularity throughout 2014 – I just don’t think it would be enough to for Horwath to roll the dice and pull the plug on Wynne. The longer Horwath waits, the better the NDP’s odds might be of winning an election – especially if the global economy tanks (which I don’t believe it will in 2014).
Hudak Slighted
So, if an election was to happen, what might the outcome be? I predict that Tim Hudak’s PC’s might win the most seats – but that they will not form a minority government. Hudak’s ultra-right-wing promises will scare the NDP and the Liberals into forming a united front against the PC’s – probably not in the form of a coalition government – but more likely in the form of the Accord between Bob Rae and David Peterson back in the ‘80s, which allowed the Liberals to govern with the NDP’s support on confidence matters – even though the PC’s had the largest number of seats.
Only this time, the roles of the two parties will be reversed and Ontario will be led by an NDP government with Andrea Horwath as Premier supported by the leaderless Liberals (Wynne will resign on election night) and the Greens (Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner will take the Guelph riding to become Canada’s second Green to be elected to a provincial legislature).
Quebec
I really dislike making predictions about Quebec, but it’s going to be super-hard to ignore what’s going on in Quebec throughout 2014. I believe that there will be a provincial election, fought largely on Pauline Marois’ Charter of Quebec Values. Marois and the PQ’s will be returned Quebec’s National Assembly with a larger mandate (but still a minority). The Liberals will be the biggest winners, picking up seats formerly held by the Coalition Avenir de Quebec (CAQ) which appears to be in free-fall and unable to stake out any unique territory for itself.
Look for modest, if minor gains by Quebec’s fourth party, Quebec Solidaire, as the left-wing progressive urban vote rallies around this party which currently has 2 seats in the National Assembly. Quebec Solidaire may not gain any new seats, but I do expect it to double its vote total this time out. The relative success (or failure) of this small, fourth-place party is important nationally, as the federal NDP have decided that they will open up a provincial wing of the Party in Quebec after the next provincial election. Quebec Solidaire evolved out of the former provincial wing of the NDP after it was disowned by the federal party for its support of sovereignty.
What may not be realized by many voters is that the NDP has a strict policy in place that you can’t just be a member of the federal or provincial party – you must be a member of both. With this in mind, it’s always very interesting to see the dynamics in play between provincial and federal NDP parties, especially where Party Leaders might have slightly different takes on certain issues. Quebec is the only province which does not currently have a provincial NDP wing. Given the NDP’s massive success in Quebec federally in 2011, it stands to reason why the NDP has been thinking about re-entering the provincial scene in Quebec – but Quebec Solidaire’s success has appeared to stand in its way – and may continue to do so in 2014. Cautious left-wingers must be very concerned about a new provincial NDP splitting the vote, and leading to the election of other parties. Ultimately, I think that the federal NDP will decide it’s not worth the resources to plunge into Quebec’s provincial politics, even should Quebec Solidaire stumble (and I don’t think it will).
New Brunswick
New Brunswickers will head to the polls on September 22nd, as per that province’s fixed election laws. Look for Premier David Alward’s government to go down to defeat at the hands of the New Brunswick Liberals. Despite anti-fracking protests which have rocked parts of rural New Brunswick throughout 2013, the fracking issue will have little impact on the election’s outcome.
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Monday, December 30, 2013
2014 Crystal Ball Gazing - Political Predictions, Part 1: Municipal Predictions
In the years that I’ve been blogging, I have tried to make end-of-the-year predictions regarding what I think we here in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada can expect in the new year. Mostly, I do this because it’s fun – but it’s also become a bit of an ego-kill for me when I review my previous year’s predictions against the reality of the year in question. 2013 was no exception.
On the one hand, I might be able to forgive myself for missing some of the biggest stories of the year. I was certainly in good company for not predicting the Senate scandal and the attendant drop in the popularity of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. I was in excellent company in not predicting a majority government mandate for Christy Clark’s Liberals from the voters in British Columbia. And regarding Rob Ford? Well, I think we’re all still in a state of disbelief about that.
Although my track record left a lot to be desired, I’m nevertheless going to continue with my yearly predictions – although I will try to tone it down to fewer than six parts this year.
City of Greater Sudbury
With municipal elections scheduled for all of Ontario in October of 2014, let me first turn my attention to what I see shaping up here in Greater Sudbury, where it’s sure to be a really interesting municipal election, thanks to some very questionable decisions made by our municipal council over the past few years.
Voter Turn-Out & Store Hours Referendum
First, Greater Sudbury will buck the municipal trend of declining voter turn-out. I’m positive that a greater number of Sudburians will cast their ballots in 2014 than those that did in 2010, due to two factors: motivation to either save or dismiss current incumbents; and the store hours referendum which will appear on the ballot.
About that referendum. Greater Sudbury, I’m told, is the only city in all of Ontario which still requires businesses of a certain size to be closed on statutory holidays such as Boxing Day and Labour Day. Further, store operating hours are regulated by the City, and special permission is needed for stores to be open late or open early. Although the Mayor of Greater Sudbury, Marianne Matichuk, ran in 2010 on a platform to overturn the by-law, Council booted a decision on the by-law to a referendum question. I predict that Sudburians will vote by a two-thirds majority to overturn the by-law in 2014 – and in such numbers as to make the referendum legally binding (50% of voters are needed to do so).
Ward Races
While the focus of municipal elections is often on who occupies the Mayor’s chair, this election in Greater Sudbury is going to be different. That’s not to suggest that the race for Mayor will be a foregone conclusion (it will be anything but), but it is to suggest that ward council races are going to be just as heated – if not more – in 2014. Speculation throughout the City has been on which of the 12 ward councillors will vacate their seats – either to retire from municipal politics, or to take a run for the Mayor’s chair. I predict that most of our current municipal councillors will leave their wards open for a challenge in 2014. I predict (based on no knowledge – only on hunches) that only Councillors Belli (Ward 8), Landry-Altman (Ward 12), Barbeau (Ward 2), Rivet (Ward 6) and Berthiaume (Ward 3) will make a play for their wards in the next election – which leaves 7 wards vacant for new candidates.
I further predict that only Councillors Belli and Rivet will be returned – although if Councillors Kilgour (Ward 7), Dupuis (Ward 5) and Dutrisac (Ward 4) decide to run again, I predict that they will be returned. But I think that Kilgour and Dutrisac have likely had enough of municipal politics at this time, and will be stepping down, along with Councillors Caldarelli (Ward 10) and Craig (Ward 9). Councillor Cimino (Ward 1) will opt to focus his energies on provincial politics, whether a provincial election is held in 2014 or not. And Councillors Dupuis (Ward 5) and Kett (Ward 11) may take a run for the Mayor’s position.
The Campaign for Mayor
Look for a strong race for the Mayor’s chair in 2014. Our current Mayor ran a masterful come-from-behind campaign in 2010 to seize the position, seemingly out of nowhere. This time, Matichuk is the incumbent, and carries some of the baggage from the past four years. With the public perception being that the current Council has been a flop, Matichuk will have to try to make the case that the blame for a lack of success needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the other 12 members of Council, and not hers.
At the end of 2013, only one other known candidate for Mayor has stepped forward – in fact, former Greater Sudbury Mayor John Rodriguez had let it be known in the closing days of 2012 that he would be mounting a campaign to return to the Mayor’s chair in 2015.
We can probably expect one or two other high-profile campaigns – possibly from Councillors Dupuis and/or Kett. I think that Dupuis might be better positioned to mount a successful campaign, as he has weathered the anti-Council storm better than Kett, and his ward (comprised of both inner- and outer-City components) puts him in a better position to make a play for all voters, rather than a particular constituency.
That being said, money really is the biggest factor which will help determine who eventually throws their hat in the ring for Mayor. If Kett or Dupuis (or even Rodriguez for that matter) feel that they can’t raise $100,000, there might not be any point for them to step forward to challenge for that position. Despite the baggage now carried by Matichuk, I believe that most voters will be sympathetic and opt to give her another mandate.
Will another high-profile candidate step forward? It’s possible, I suppose. Prominent citizen Gerry Lougheed’s name keeps coming up – as does former PC candidate Gerry Labelle’s. Either could conceivably raise the $100,000 plus needed to make a run for the Council Chair, but I think that both will opt to sit this one out – the situation is just too volatile – unless Councillors Dupuis and Kett make clear indications that they will not run for Mayor in 2014. At this time, both have been very coy about their future plans.
Money and Winning
There will also be a number of others making the run for the Mayor’s Chair. Although many will offer bold and compelling visions for the City, as with all elections, messaging won’t count – and money does. I know that sounds very cynical (heck, it IS very cynical), but that does appear to be our electoral reality. To those who think that this might be a good election to at least get out there and have themselves and their issues get noticed by running for Mayor, I strongly believe that the opposite will be true. Ink will not be spilt on any campaign which raises less than $50,000 – and that means that your messages, ideas, and you yourself will be lost in the media – written off as “also rans” even before the race really gets underway.
Instead of pursuing the Mayor’s chair, why not make a bid at becoming a municipal councillor, where spending limits are considerably lower (about $15,000) and playing fields therefore more levelled. Of course, exposure for candidates running for Council is usually a lot lower than normal – nevertheless, this election might offer some creative opportunities, given the heat which is sure to be on in ward races. Social media, grassroots media, and even earned media from the mainstream media outlets are certainly routes for candidates to exploit.
Party Politics at the Municipal Level
Those ward races might be dominated by so-called “independents”, but the reality will be anything but. It’s been no secret that both the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association (which is really just the Conservative Party at the municipal level) and the NDP have both been active in recruiting candidates whom will run well-financed campaigns for ward councils. I predict that many of them will be successful, but a couple of truly independent-minded councillors might also be elected. Wards 9 and 11 and 12 (and maybe 1) will be the wards to really watch this time around (as Wards 8 and 11 were in 2010).
Who Will Occupy the Mayor’s Chair?
I predict that Marianne Matichuk will be returned as Mayor in 2014 – and she will be joined by a majority of new councillors – many of whom will be firmly affixed to either the right or the left side of the political spectrum. While the balance between left and right will almost assuredly be different in 2014 than it is today, I predict that Council will, if anything, become more polarized along political lines than ever before. This polarization (and the rise of political party involvement at the municipal level) is a direct result of extending the municipal mandate to four years. Party politics is already playing havoc with municipal councils in larger cities (such as Toronto, London and Ottawa) – smaller centres like Greater Sudbury have started to feel the impacts, but they’ve largely been tempered by more independent-minded incumbents. As those incumbents retire or are removed, partisans are sure to take their place in increasing numbers. We’ll see that happen here in Greater Sudbury.
Toronto
I won’t spend much time on this – suffice it to say that the only question about Toronto which is on the top of mind for Ontarians (and all Canadians, for that matter) is whether Rob Ford will be returned as Mayor. With several other credible campaigns expected (not least of which from the NDP’s Olivia Chow), it seems unlikely that Ford can hold on to his Chair (or what’s left it now that Council has stripped him of so many of his duties). John Tory continues to dither about whether he’ll run. Karen Stintz and David Socknacki, both sitting Councillors who occupy the right-side of the political spectrum, have already announced their intention to run – and maybe that’s why Tory continues to dither.
Expect a few more high-profile individuals to contemplate a run. They will be centrists or right-wingers, however, as Chow’s entrance in the race will almost certainly keep all other left-wingers at bay. I predict that with Chow’s ability to consolidate the left-wing vote throughout the City, she will become Toronto’s next Mayor in 2014.
Other Municipalities
Some other key municipal races to watch include the City of Mississauga (where forever-Mayor Hazel McCallion will, at the age of 92, finally surrender the Mayor’s chair in 2014 – she’s already vowed not to run again); the scandal-plagued City of London (where Mayor Joe Fontana and his partisan gang on Council have brought national disrepute to London through their continual flaunting of the Municipal Act, along with the Mayor’s fraud charges); the City of Ottawa (which always offers has lively political offerings on tap) and my hometown: the City of Brampton (where Mayor Susan Fennell really should opt not to run again after spending and charity-related scandals – but she probably will run – and go down in defeat).
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
On the one hand, I might be able to forgive myself for missing some of the biggest stories of the year. I was certainly in good company for not predicting the Senate scandal and the attendant drop in the popularity of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. I was in excellent company in not predicting a majority government mandate for Christy Clark’s Liberals from the voters in British Columbia. And regarding Rob Ford? Well, I think we’re all still in a state of disbelief about that.
Although my track record left a lot to be desired, I’m nevertheless going to continue with my yearly predictions – although I will try to tone it down to fewer than six parts this year.
City of Greater Sudbury
With municipal elections scheduled for all of Ontario in October of 2014, let me first turn my attention to what I see shaping up here in Greater Sudbury, where it’s sure to be a really interesting municipal election, thanks to some very questionable decisions made by our municipal council over the past few years.
Voter Turn-Out & Store Hours Referendum
First, Greater Sudbury will buck the municipal trend of declining voter turn-out. I’m positive that a greater number of Sudburians will cast their ballots in 2014 than those that did in 2010, due to two factors: motivation to either save or dismiss current incumbents; and the store hours referendum which will appear on the ballot.
About that referendum. Greater Sudbury, I’m told, is the only city in all of Ontario which still requires businesses of a certain size to be closed on statutory holidays such as Boxing Day and Labour Day. Further, store operating hours are regulated by the City, and special permission is needed for stores to be open late or open early. Although the Mayor of Greater Sudbury, Marianne Matichuk, ran in 2010 on a platform to overturn the by-law, Council booted a decision on the by-law to a referendum question. I predict that Sudburians will vote by a two-thirds majority to overturn the by-law in 2014 – and in such numbers as to make the referendum legally binding (50% of voters are needed to do so).
Ward Races
While the focus of municipal elections is often on who occupies the Mayor’s chair, this election in Greater Sudbury is going to be different. That’s not to suggest that the race for Mayor will be a foregone conclusion (it will be anything but), but it is to suggest that ward council races are going to be just as heated – if not more – in 2014. Speculation throughout the City has been on which of the 12 ward councillors will vacate their seats – either to retire from municipal politics, or to take a run for the Mayor’s chair. I predict that most of our current municipal councillors will leave their wards open for a challenge in 2014. I predict (based on no knowledge – only on hunches) that only Councillors Belli (Ward 8), Landry-Altman (Ward 12), Barbeau (Ward 2), Rivet (Ward 6) and Berthiaume (Ward 3) will make a play for their wards in the next election – which leaves 7 wards vacant for new candidates.
I further predict that only Councillors Belli and Rivet will be returned – although if Councillors Kilgour (Ward 7), Dupuis (Ward 5) and Dutrisac (Ward 4) decide to run again, I predict that they will be returned. But I think that Kilgour and Dutrisac have likely had enough of municipal politics at this time, and will be stepping down, along with Councillors Caldarelli (Ward 10) and Craig (Ward 9). Councillor Cimino (Ward 1) will opt to focus his energies on provincial politics, whether a provincial election is held in 2014 or not. And Councillors Dupuis (Ward 5) and Kett (Ward 11) may take a run for the Mayor’s position.
The Campaign for Mayor
Look for a strong race for the Mayor’s chair in 2014. Our current Mayor ran a masterful come-from-behind campaign in 2010 to seize the position, seemingly out of nowhere. This time, Matichuk is the incumbent, and carries some of the baggage from the past four years. With the public perception being that the current Council has been a flop, Matichuk will have to try to make the case that the blame for a lack of success needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the other 12 members of Council, and not hers.
At the end of 2013, only one other known candidate for Mayor has stepped forward – in fact, former Greater Sudbury Mayor John Rodriguez had let it be known in the closing days of 2012 that he would be mounting a campaign to return to the Mayor’s chair in 2015.
We can probably expect one or two other high-profile campaigns – possibly from Councillors Dupuis and/or Kett. I think that Dupuis might be better positioned to mount a successful campaign, as he has weathered the anti-Council storm better than Kett, and his ward (comprised of both inner- and outer-City components) puts him in a better position to make a play for all voters, rather than a particular constituency.
That being said, money really is the biggest factor which will help determine who eventually throws their hat in the ring for Mayor. If Kett or Dupuis (or even Rodriguez for that matter) feel that they can’t raise $100,000, there might not be any point for them to step forward to challenge for that position. Despite the baggage now carried by Matichuk, I believe that most voters will be sympathetic and opt to give her another mandate.
Will another high-profile candidate step forward? It’s possible, I suppose. Prominent citizen Gerry Lougheed’s name keeps coming up – as does former PC candidate Gerry Labelle’s. Either could conceivably raise the $100,000 plus needed to make a run for the Council Chair, but I think that both will opt to sit this one out – the situation is just too volatile – unless Councillors Dupuis and Kett make clear indications that they will not run for Mayor in 2014. At this time, both have been very coy about their future plans.
Money and Winning
There will also be a number of others making the run for the Mayor’s Chair. Although many will offer bold and compelling visions for the City, as with all elections, messaging won’t count – and money does. I know that sounds very cynical (heck, it IS very cynical), but that does appear to be our electoral reality. To those who think that this might be a good election to at least get out there and have themselves and their issues get noticed by running for Mayor, I strongly believe that the opposite will be true. Ink will not be spilt on any campaign which raises less than $50,000 – and that means that your messages, ideas, and you yourself will be lost in the media – written off as “also rans” even before the race really gets underway.
Instead of pursuing the Mayor’s chair, why not make a bid at becoming a municipal councillor, where spending limits are considerably lower (about $15,000) and playing fields therefore more levelled. Of course, exposure for candidates running for Council is usually a lot lower than normal – nevertheless, this election might offer some creative opportunities, given the heat which is sure to be on in ward races. Social media, grassroots media, and even earned media from the mainstream media outlets are certainly routes for candidates to exploit.
Party Politics at the Municipal Level
Those ward races might be dominated by so-called “independents”, but the reality will be anything but. It’s been no secret that both the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association (which is really just the Conservative Party at the municipal level) and the NDP have both been active in recruiting candidates whom will run well-financed campaigns for ward councils. I predict that many of them will be successful, but a couple of truly independent-minded councillors might also be elected. Wards 9 and 11 and 12 (and maybe 1) will be the wards to really watch this time around (as Wards 8 and 11 were in 2010).
Who Will Occupy the Mayor’s Chair?
I predict that Marianne Matichuk will be returned as Mayor in 2014 – and she will be joined by a majority of new councillors – many of whom will be firmly affixed to either the right or the left side of the political spectrum. While the balance between left and right will almost assuredly be different in 2014 than it is today, I predict that Council will, if anything, become more polarized along political lines than ever before. This polarization (and the rise of political party involvement at the municipal level) is a direct result of extending the municipal mandate to four years. Party politics is already playing havoc with municipal councils in larger cities (such as Toronto, London and Ottawa) – smaller centres like Greater Sudbury have started to feel the impacts, but they’ve largely been tempered by more independent-minded incumbents. As those incumbents retire or are removed, partisans are sure to take their place in increasing numbers. We’ll see that happen here in Greater Sudbury.
Toronto
I won’t spend much time on this – suffice it to say that the only question about Toronto which is on the top of mind for Ontarians (and all Canadians, for that matter) is whether Rob Ford will be returned as Mayor. With several other credible campaigns expected (not least of which from the NDP’s Olivia Chow), it seems unlikely that Ford can hold on to his Chair (or what’s left it now that Council has stripped him of so many of his duties). John Tory continues to dither about whether he’ll run. Karen Stintz and David Socknacki, both sitting Councillors who occupy the right-side of the political spectrum, have already announced their intention to run – and maybe that’s why Tory continues to dither.
Expect a few more high-profile individuals to contemplate a run. They will be centrists or right-wingers, however, as Chow’s entrance in the race will almost certainly keep all other left-wingers at bay. I predict that with Chow’s ability to consolidate the left-wing vote throughout the City, she will become Toronto’s next Mayor in 2014.
Other Municipalities
Some other key municipal races to watch include the City of Mississauga (where forever-Mayor Hazel McCallion will, at the age of 92, finally surrender the Mayor’s chair in 2014 – she’s already vowed not to run again); the scandal-plagued City of London (where Mayor Joe Fontana and his partisan gang on Council have brought national disrepute to London through their continual flaunting of the Municipal Act, along with the Mayor’s fraud charges); the City of Ottawa (which always offers has lively political offerings on tap) and my hometown: the City of Brampton (where Mayor Susan Fennell really should opt not to run again after spending and charity-related scandals – but she probably will run – and go down in defeat).
(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Party of Canada)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)