Ontario’s Drummond Report set for Feb.15, but so what?

The much anticipated Drummond Report on Ontario’s public services and fiscal reforms is scheduled for release February 15. According to Adam Radwanski of The Globe and Mail, economist Don Drummond has pre-released some of his report’s key findings, including health reforms and criticism of education policies.

The Globe and Mail reportedly interviewed Drummond—a former TD bank economist—last month, during which he suggested that Ontario can only count on annual economic growth of 2 per cent. Which, of course, is much lower than the province’s rate of growth in the earlier years of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government.

More to the point, Drummond’s  prediction of modest growth, which is similar to a recent estimate by the Conference Board of Canada, is well below the rate of increases in the Ontario government’s spending, making past trends unsustainable.

With nearly a week left before the report is made generally available, pressure groups have already sounded the alarm, buoyed, I expect, by the premier’s tendency to cave-in to public pressure.

The Ontario Health Coalition, a public health advocacy group, claims that billions of dollars in health care cuts are being planned in the face of what it says are “urgent and unmet” health needs. The group also says that the report’s plans contain costing errors and inadequacies that put Ontario’s most vulnerable patients at risk.

This morning, Toronto Sun’s Christina Blizzard reported, “Don Drummond will propose axing the all-day school program for tots [kindergarten]….”

I’ll leave it to others to speculate on the report’s content. I’m not sure if we should even be taking the whole thing seriously.

Radwanski writes, “Mr. McGuinty has recently tried to put some distance between himself and the report, stressing that Mr. Drummond is only making recommendations.” This is just as I would have expected.

Frankly, I doubt McGuinty has the bottle for a serious attack on the province’s deficit financing. After all, he’s shown no political courage in the past and, so far, he hasn’t found a tax he hasn’t liked. The man doesn’t have the heart for tough cost-cutting decisions like those Drummond is apparently suggesting, and he’ll cave-in if there’s very much pushback.

The Drummond report is said to contain 362 recommendations, 59 of which propose ways to cut health spending. Be prepared for the toughest most effective of these never to see the light of day.

As Joanne at the Blue Like You blog put it today, “Dalton McGuinty doesn’t seem to have the political will to deGreece the public sector entitlements that have a choke-hold around private sector growth.”

Amen to that.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

We need more from Hudak

The Crux-of-the-Matter blog has an excellent post today titled, ON PC Leader Tim Hudak has to inspire—and soon! I like Sandy’s idea of not avoiding the Mike Harris record. The Common Sense Revolution was sound policy and good politics. We had too little of that in the last election.

Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak has allowed Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Grits to define and demonize him and the past record of the PC party.

Sandy Crux highlights some of the Harris record:

• “The Ontario PCs ruled the Province of Ontario uninterrupted from 1943 to 1985—a total of 42 years.
• “The Mike Harris Government did what had to be done. He reduced income taxes to 34% of the federal portion because they were at 58% under the NDP Rae Government (and are back to that level again).
• “Between 1995 and 1999, some 700,000 jobs were created and approximately 100,000 people got off of welfare.”

It’s time to stop ducking our past. Starting this weekend at the party’s AGM at Niagara Falls, Mr. Hudak needs to get out front and preach a positive message of change while attacking the rotten record of McGuinty.

It’s informative, is it not, that we PCs lead in the polls between elections and blow the lead during the campaigns? Has Mr. Hudak learnt anything from this?

The last campaign was the worst I’ve seen by Ontario PCs, but then I’ve only been following Ontario elections since 1955. Perhaps there was a worse one before that.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

NDP lacklustre leadership campaign: how relevant is it?

NDP’s Halifax leadership debate | CBC News screenshot

The New Democratic Party is in the late stages of a long leadership campaign, which ends in Toronto on March 24. Few Canadians, though, seem to care. When Stéphane Dion won the leadership of the federal Liberals in 2006, he beat a field comprised of several senior Liberals who had nationwide reputations and name recognition.

Here are the candidates who received votes on the first ballot at the Liberal party’s leadership convention at Montreal’s Palais des congrès in 2006: Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stéphane Dion, Gerard Kennedy, Ken Dryden, Scott Brison, Joe Volpe and Martha Hall Findlay.

Compare that list to the NDP’s current slate of leadership hopefuls: Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Paul Dewar, Thomas Mulcair, Peggy Nash, Romeo Saganash, Martin Singh and Brian Topp.

I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether the Dippers’ list stands up to that of the Liberals. I’ll say, however, that none of my friends and family that I quizzed could name more than three on the NDP list.

During the 2006 campaign, there was substantial buzz around the Grits’ contest. Blogs and the mainstream media debated regularly the merits and deficiencies of the contenders to replace Paul Martin. After all, the winner could very well have become our prime minister.

An Abacus Data poll in late January—about two months before the coming NDP convention—showed that 40 per cent of Canadians haven’t heard of any of the eight candidates in the NDP leadership race, and that a full 35 per cent of New Democrats could not recognize the candidates.

Thomas Mulcair (36 per cent) and Brian Topp (31 per cent) fared best with national name recognition, followed by Paul Dewar with 27 per cent and Peggy Nash with 23 per cent.

Do any of these sound like a prime minister in waiting?

And how many readers knew ahead of time that the NDP leadership hopefuls debated Sunday afternoon in Sudbury? I did not. There seemed very little pre- or post-event coverage. Moreover, I don’t believe the debate was televised (screenshot above was from the Halifax debate).

Frankly, I think I’m like a lot of Canadians—likely a majority—who see the Dippers as the official opposition in name only. The results of the 2011 election notwithstanding, we regard the Liberals as the real opposition and believe the next non-Conservative prime minister is more likely to come from that party.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

House denies Elizabeth May chance to speak

The Green Party sent its leader Elizabeth May to Ottawa, but did not give her enough seats for the Greens to have official party status. As a result, May sits as an independent and has only the rights and privileges accorded to other independent MPs.

On Monday, May rose in the House to make a few remarks about the late Czech president Vaclav Havel.  Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney, NDP foreign affair critic Hélène Laverdière, and Liberal interim leader Bob Rae had already offered words of their own.

She had just begun, however, when Speaker Andrew Scheer asked (see video) if she had the unanimous consent of the House to speak (as per the rules), whereupon at least a pair of “no” answers could be heard on the Conservative side of the floor. Accordingly, May was not allowed to complete her remarks.

Elizabeth May and her supporters believe, of course, exceptions should may and special treatment should be extended to her because she’s the leader of a party. Many Canadians, however, believe that the current system works well and that one must earn official party status before one is treated as a party leader in the House of Commons.

The Reform party started as a small regional movement and, operating under the first-past-the-post electoral system, rose to become the official opposition and finally, as Conservatives, won three consecutive elections—all in less time than it took the Greens to elect a single member.

The rules work: new parties can begin from scratch, flourish and gain power within a couple of decades. The Green party started before the Reform party did, but has not captured wide support. Under May’s leadership, the Green Party of Canada’s share of the popular vote dropped below 4 per cent in the 2011 federal election—its lowest level in eleven years. So now they want to have the rules changed?

Elizabeth May has to sit as an independent MP, because of her own ineptitude as leader of her party. If there is blame to be levelled, let it be levelled at her.

Read more here at iPolitics.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

Santorum’s sweep lengthens G.O.P. race

His triple victory on Tuesday begs the question of whether Rick Santorum is a serious enough candidate to overtake Newt Gingrich and become Mitt Romney’s main adversary. Last night’s results indeed provide some evidence that he, not Gingrich, is the “true” conservative alternative to Romney.

Gingrich was not on the ballot in Missouri—his campaign considers it merely a “beauty contest”—and he seemed to give up early on Colorado and Minnesota, choosing instead to spend Tuesday, voting day, in Ohio in preparation for Super Tuesday on March 6.

I’d say this was a serious setback for the former House speaker who fishes in the same pond of votes as does Santorum. Now Santorum can point to four victories to Gingrich’s single win in South Carolina.

Time will tell, however, if the former senator for Pennsylvania can garner enough new support to bring in the all important contributions to fuel his campaign.

We’ll also need to see how well he weathers the inevitable onslaught of negative ads from his rivals and especially the resource-rich Romney campaign.

Polls continue to show that Republicans have not warmed to their field of candidates—turnout among Republican registrants and identifiers is down about 10 per cent from 2008. And a significant number of them certainly seem lukewarm towards the frontrunner, Romney. Here is a quote from the New York Times which nicely summarizes his challenge:

Mr. Romney has had deep problems so far with the Republican base, going 1-for-4 in caucus states where turnout is dominated by highly conservative voters. Mr. Romney is 0-for-3 so far in the Midwest, a region that is often decisive in the general election. He had tepid support among major blocks of Republican voters like evangelicals and Tea Party supporters, those voters making under $50,000 per year, and those in rural areas.

By weakening Gingrich’s base of support and casting doubt on Romney’s electability among evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans, Santorum has effectively lengthened the G.O.P. race.

Santorum’s base is too narrow, however, to be a real threat to Barack Obama’s re-election and the majority of Republicans know this.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

China dilemma

The question many Canadians ask whenever one of our leaders visits China is: Should we raise human rights abuses in public, in private or at all? The Liberals—especially under Jean Chrétien—used to downplay any public criticism at all of China, but now they criticize the prime minister for not doing enough of it.

The Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper have apparently pivoted from initially not engaging much with China because of concerns over that nation’s appalling human rights record, and because of Conservative support for Taiwan and Tibet. Readers may remember the rebukes the prime minister received from Chinese officials and the state-controlled media when he visited China in 2009.

Now the Tories seem more inclined to emphasize trade and other bilateral economic considerations and avoid or minimize the other issues—at least in public utterances.

Either way, of course, the Conservatives will attract criticism from the opposition and their friends in the media. (See The Iceman’s comments regarding Evan Solomon’s Power & Politics show on the CBC.) But which strategy best suits Canada’s national interests?

Can a nation like Canada—which needs world markets for its abundant national resources, high-tech-manufactured goods and technical knowhow—afford to pick and choose its trading partners? Or is it best to ignore or supress moral qualms and engage with all nations? I believe we should adopt trading policies based largely on the latter.

Such a policy should not preclude discussions of human rights and other foreign policy issues, however. It only means such discussions should be made on a person-to-person basis and not in public statements designed to embarrass either party.

This seems to be the course Australia has charted for itself vis-à-vis its relationship with China. Australia-China trade has quadrupled over the past five years—if imports are factored in, trade between the countries is $80-billion a year. More importantly, Australia enjoys a three-to-one trade imbalance with China.

Belatedly though it may be, I believe the Tories are correct to follow their new course and embrace trade with China with few moral preconditions.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

 

The crash you heard was the gravy train being derailed

There has long been a suspicion that some United States lawmakers leave office a lot richer than when they enter. Perhaps that suspicion was confirmed when the Senate voted this past Thursday to strengthen insider-trading bans for its members. House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, indicated he will call for a vote on the STOCK Act in the next few weeks.

The Washington Times writes:

Focused on transparency, the STOCK Act … mandates stricter disclosure requirements for members of Congress, requiring them to reveal their sales and purchases of stocks within 30 days instead of once a year. …

The upper chamber extended the 30-day requirement to federal employees and exempted mutual funds from the requirement, because owners don’t control those trades. Senators also agreed by voice vote to broaden mortgage disclosure requirements for members of Congress and some executive employees and to expand the possibility for members of Congress to lose their federal pension if convicted of a felony.

It seems sad that such legislation is necessary—i.e., that the American people have to be protected form their politicians.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

Canada’s equalization system unconstitutional, Study finds

An equalization expert, Peter Gusen said in a new study that Canada’s equalization system is unconstitutional. His 41-page paper, according to the Toronto Star, will be released Monday by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto.

According to Gusen, “If equalization continues to ignore differences in expenditure need it will not be treating provinces fairly and it will not be fulfilling its constitutional mandate.”

If “need” were factored into the equalization formula, the study suggests, Ontario’s share would have been $822-million more from Ottawa’s taxpayer-funded $15.4-billion pool in 2008-09; British Columbia would have received an additional $879-million. Apparently, even Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland would have been richer by $526-million, $332-million and $310-million respectively. The big loser would have been Quebec, which would have received $3.11-billion less that year.

Quebec gets twice Ontario’s payout: $7.6-billion versus $3.7-billion, and is by far the largest equalization recipient. The current system does seem to lack basic fairness, doesn’t it? And, especially, when considering Quebec is providing its residents $7-a-day childcare, something unheard of in Ontario.

Very worrying too is this Toronto Star report:

“Gusen is former director of federal-provincial relations at the federal finance department and the author of Ottawa’s 2006 equalization study that the government tried to suppress with 27 redactions in 67 pages.”

Ontario’s Finance Minister Dwight Duncan was understandably furious when he found out that Gusen’s earlier report had revealed that in the late 1990s and the early 2000s Ontario was short-changed by $4.56-billion while Quebec was over-funded by $6.39-billion to provide the same level of services.

I suppose one might write this discrepancy off to the cost of having a united Canada. And it could very well be that, on balance, it’s worth it.

It does seem to me, however, that our government needs to be more frank with the rest of Canada about its strategy regarding equalization payments, and tell us why Quebec receives so much more than it apparently needs.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

Clint Eastwood ad during the Super Bowl

The Clint Eastwood ad during the Super Bowl is causing quite a stir on the Internet. I think the ad is a terrific bit of marketing and I see it as being above the political tribalism that’s all too prevalent in America these days. It is not a political message; it is an example of American exceptionalism and a great bit of marketing.

Did the ad contain political overtones? They were their for those who wanted to find them. I prefer to believe they were coincidental to Chrysler’s message. But what if “Halftime in America” is a rallying call for a second term for President Barack Obama? He earned it when he went ahead with a bailout of Chrysler and General Motors while many of us conservatives objected.

Why not try pulling together; the hyper-partisan stuff isn’t working out so well.

Here’s a link to the ad.

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

Queen Elizabeth II marks her Diamond Jubilee

The 85-year-old Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, marked her Diamond Jubilee on Monday, Feb. 6. She thanked those who supported her during her 60-year reign and reaffirmed her dedication to serving the British people. The Queen ascended the throne when her father, George VI, died on this day in 1952.

The monarch wrote in a letter to her subjects:

I am writing to thank you for the wonderful support and encouragement that you have given to me and Prince Phillip over these years. In this special year, as I dedicate myself anew to your service, I hope that we will all be reminded of the power of togetherness and the convening strength of family, friendship and good neighbourliness, examples of which I have been fortunate to see throughout my reign.

The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee will be celebrated with a series of events at home and abroad throughout 2012. Her grandson Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, and his wife Catherine (a.k.a., Kate) will travel to several Commonwealth countries including Canada, Jamaica and Belize in honour of her 60-year reign. The Queen and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, will be touring the U.K. from March to July.

The 2012 Diamond Jubilee weekend will be held later this year from June 2-5.

I am no a monarchist by any stretch of the imagination. I do, however, have a great deal of respect for Queen Elizabeth and wish her long life and happiness. And I’ll reserve my criticism of the institution of the monarchy ‘till another time.

Long may she reign over us!

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell

Bob Marley, son of St. Ann

Today is Robert Nesta “Bob” Marley’s birthday—or would have been if he were still alive. Marley died over thirty years ago. His music lives on, though, as if he were still with us. My favourite is, One Love, a classic Bob Marley & The Wailers song.

Bob Marley (February 6, 1945 – May 11, 1981) was born on the Island of Jamaica in the mountains of St. Ann parish. I grew up a few miles away in the parish capital, St. Ann’s Bay, also the birthplace of  Black Nationalist, Marcus Garvey.

“One Love” was chosen as the best music of Jamaica over the last 50 years and was named song of the millennium by the BBC.

 

Except video, © 2012 Russell G. Campbell