Category Archives: Ontario Liberal Party
Heather Mallick ignores Andrea Horwath as the only party leader who rightly champions women’s rights, or sorry sister it’s hard out here for a Liberal shill like me
According to Heather Mallick in Today’s The Star:
But what he and Hudak and Harper should understand is that abortion is not a “chip” on a woman’s shoulder, it is her body and her life, her internal sanctity and her choice.
I am warning those who want Canadian women to lose their right to abortion that this will not be a skirmish. It lives in the hearts of girls and women. We will fight you on this.
Sweeet! We’re going “progressive” with this election. Only two questions Ms Mallick.
1. Why snub a sister like Andrea Horwath? She after all is one of those in whose heart lies the fight to preserve a woman’s right to choose. Secondly, she’s leader of the only unified, positive, and progressive political party out there.
2. Why would a feminist shill for an avowed Roman Catholic man? There are few symbols that conjure up the history of exclusion and systemic violence against women than the RC Church and powerful male politicians.
Lastly, a question for “progressives”. Is it possible that the latent, less obvious forms of sexism that well up occasionally from Liberals actually represents a more refined, opportunistic, and insidious form of discrimination -even if Liberals are more likely to “apologize” for their cock-ups??? Remember this???
Trivial or insidious sexism???
McGuinty all rhetoric on abortion, or how does an avowed Roman Catholic maintain any credibility on feminist issues?
The recent turn by Ontario Liberals to dredge up the abortion issue is quite fascinating. Is it out of sheer desperation to change the channel? Is it a suicide pact? A vain attempt to hold on to “progressives” they’ve manage to fool in the past?
Although McGuinty has done little of the talking, how could one fail to see the glaring contradiction in an avowed Roman Catholic posturing as a feminist? So speaking of “choice”, it seems to me a serious feminist Roman Catholic would have only two choices vis a vis this horribly stratified and perverse expression of Christianity, one which has been unfailingly misogynist and conservative.
Choice one: Claim Roman Catholicism but work tirelessly to reform it from within. As a “progressive” Christian, I have often asked some of my female RC friends how they find it possible to remain within such an oppressive, hierarchical structure, particularly an institution from which they are barred “full membership” (not having a right to ordination or to fully preside over the sacraments is not being able to be a full member.) A very compelling response from some of these friends has been 1) I stay because it is part of my story and I want to help change it into the institution is should be. 2) I stay because without me to show love and support, it would be an even worse place for women and the LGBT communities.
Choice two: Walk across the street to any number of truly progressive expressions of Christianity, such as that eminently Canadian institution, the United Church of Canada.
Thus, I’m only being a little facetious when I ask how can McGuinty confidently claim credibility on the “progressive” file, especially the feminist file?
As part of the Ontario Liberals’ suicide pact, I mean campaign to woo progressive voters we get this nasty example of hyperbole in the hopes of redirecting the coming election away from pocketbook issues towards “progressive” issues. Gritchik opens yesterday’s blog posting with this doozie.
“Since Dammit Janet! helped vault Hudak’s position on abortion into the internet stratosphere”
Just a tad overstated, no? I mean, Oslo bombing, US debt ceiling, Amy Winehouse’s death, and, of course, Hudak predictable stance on abortion? Or perhaps just desperately wishful thinking. Polling must be showing an even bleaker picture than already portrayed. Liberals now seem in a desperate fight to hold onto second place. Trending and recent history of the May election are certainly not on their side.
I’ve been canvassing in probably Ontario’s most progressive riding and not one person has brought up women’s reproductive rights at the door. Nor has one person mentioned Hudak’s stance on abortion. But I hope they do, since in the Liberals there is a caucus divided on the issue and in the NDP there is a caucus united around the issue.
What I don’t understand is why the Liberals think they are well positioned to capitalize on “progressive” issues. It clearly appears that to The NDP, as we saw in Canada’s most progressive province (i.e. Quebec), is overwhelmingly where progressives are turning.
Finally Canadians realize that 1) Liberals are not Progressive and 2) It is possible to get out from under the tweeddle dee/ tweeddle dum, one party faux democracy under which we’ve been held hostage for so long.
So the Ontario Liberals want the coming provincial election to be about ethical issues such as women’s reproductive rights. Now I get the strategy. Distraught with their free falling in the polls, the Liberals are desperate to pander to their supposed base (i.e. progressives, women, progressive women) and thus have taken to publicly demonizing the Tim Hudak and the Conservatives. Now I also get that Hudak is pandering to his base and to women with his whole tough on crime shtick.
So in the past few days, the Ontario Liberals have attempted to undermine Hudak’s integrity with charges of waffling on issues, calling him a weasel, circulating pictures of of him next to a weasel, and dredging up his previous statements on abortion in an attempt to move the electorate to a deep foreboding over this horrible monster that is Tim Hudak. Isn’t it interesting to have two men, both of whom have questionable records on feminist issues fighting to see who is more feminist? Of course, the obvious feminist choice in the coming election is Andrea Horwath and the NDP. Some thoughts on this whole fiasco.
It’s smearing and and has no place in civilized politics. Intelligent voters want democracy based on issues and debate not character assassinations. Just because it’s effective, especially when done by an unscrupulous, well oiled and primed machine like the Harper regime, doesn’t mean it’s right. Btw, the OLP is not the CPC. The OLP’s smears will not be as effective and Liberals are underestimating the intelligence of the voter base they’re trying to solidify.
While I understand that it would be suicide for the OLP to laud its economic platform and achievements, trying to run a campaign right now on ethics/morality will just as likely lead to the decimation faced by the federal Liberals in May. And that pleases me. Actually secretly I’m quite pleased the OLP is deploying this strategy.
Canadians discovered many things in the May election. Foremost, the electorate discovered it has the freedom and license not to stick with the same old/ same old “two party system” (in truth we’ve endured a system that masquerades for the one party wantonly pro capitalism and pro big business system that it really is). So change is possible but not with either the Liberals or Conservatives. Related to this was the realization that for women, progressives, youth, the marginalized, workers, and the middle class, the far more authentic voice is the NDP and thus, the Liberals have essentially become redundant and irrelevant in the current political landscape.
This, of course, is why the Liberals are desperate to shore up want they traditionally have considered their base. At this point, I believe, the OLP has given up (and the polls certainly bear this out, indeed I wonder what the Liberals; own polls are showing) forming the next government, but they are desperate to hold on to what they can. But what they fail to see is that running on the moral high ground is disastrous for them right now, just as it was for Ignatieff to run as defender of democracy. Why?
First, the Liberals have squandered any and all moral capital they may ever have had. Liberals just don’t have any credibility on that front. McGuinty has been caught repeatedly in public treasury mismanagement from slush funds to ehealth to exorbitant salaries for senior public servants. McGuinty was part of what provinical ombudsman described as among the most flagrant civil rights abuses in Canadian history in the handling of the G20 protests. The use of diesel trains and the party of big Nuclear. McGuinty has continued the assault on organized labour launched by Mike Harris etc etc.
Second, the NDP has surfaced as the legitimate and powerful voice for progressives. While the NDP has always been considered as the party of conscience and defender of human rights and the environment, until recently the NDP was not always considered a credible alternative. May 02 changed that and the tarnished image left by Bob Rae is no longer in play as it once was. I look to the NDP to come up big in the coming election. So OLP keep pushing your base out your right and left door into the waiting arms o the Conserevatives and NDP respectively.
Ontario Liberals in Free Fall: Desperate to make political hay resort to outsourcing derangement syndrome
In response to the outrage expressed by the handful of Ontario Liberals still hanging on to that sinking ship over the American photo gaffe by the NDP, I redirect you to the biggest such gaffe of them all: The Ontario Liberals outsourcing provincial flags to China. Procurement of the provincial flag, which as McGuinty admitted, “there’s nothing nearer and dearer to the soul of our province than the flag” was being outsourced to China, resulting in very little savings, lost Ontario jobs, and lesser quality flags. So Liberals before becoming unhinged by a little gaffe, re-read this piece from a couple of years back:
For crying out loud, even the Chinese consulate in Toronto doesn’t order its flags from China!Only the Province of Ontario would do such a thing to cannibalize its own workforce.It is disgraceful — although perhaps fitting Ontario now has its own provincial flag made in China, where the rest of the province’s jobs have been disappearing to for years.What’s next? We start ordering our takeout Chinese food from China!Don’t give them any ideas in a province that has already lost thousands of manufacturing jobs to a country that can find workers at a rate considerably less than what is expected to be paid here.
Meanwhile, as Ontario sells out its own workforce, the great Province of Quebec still gets its fleur-de-lys provincial flag made in Ontario.How about that! Run that news up a flagpole at Queen’s Park!And, as mentioned above, so does the Toronto Chinese consulate, which has a lot of official dinners here in Toronto and when you see that striking red Chinese flag on your table, you can be proud that it was made at Flying Colours right here in Parkdale.
Actually most of Canada’s provinces get their flags made here — as do other countries and U.S. states.“We make millions of flags every year,” says Edward McLean, of Flying Colours International. “And we make them for everybody.”Except, of course, for the Province of Ontario.Flying Colours has been making flags in an early 1900s factory on Sterling Rd. since 1926. But in 2007, the Province of Ontario rejected their latest bid of $18 a flag and they lost the $40,000 annual contract to a Chinese manufacturer who can make flags for less.“But it’s not that much less,” says McLean.“And our quality is of a different level.
“The colours in the Canadian and Ontario flags made in Toronto are second to none.“Our colours are richer. And the flags are to exact standard.”At this plant they also “unfortunately” make the Canadian flags for the caskets of the Canadian soldiers who come home from Afghanistan.So far, no one has made any suggestion about outsourcing those. Again, don’t give them any ideas.“But I do worry that we could have soldiers over in a war zone — somebody fighting for a flag that was made in China,” says McLean.
“A flag is not a pen or a book. A flag is a symbol.” Here are more symbols: Carmen, Savi, Edna, Larisa, Savitra, Bosina, Daisy and Ivy. These are just some of the women on sewing machines we met, who could lose their jobs if the trend set by your province continues.These are Canadian employees — about 100, some of whom hail originally from China. They all want to keep as much work here as they can. Although companies like Flying Colours are holdouts, many are succumbing to the economic pressure.
“There are no guarantees” that these jobs will stay here forever, McLean says.They certainly won’t if others follow the lead of Ontario and send the work abroad.“If this keeps up in Canada we won’t have manufacturing anymore,” adds McLean, who as he shakes his head says, “all to save a couple of pennies on a flag.”Since 1926 Flying Colours has resisted the lure of offshore mega-profits and stayed right at home. “It’s a small family-owned company and for us it’s about more than just making profit,” he says.“It’s about a community. All of our people live in the city and we love them. The average employee has been here 17 years.”
Loyalty. On both sides. Companies who outsource have abandoned that principal and traded it for fat coffers while ambitious bean counters cheer them on.Of course how can you blame them when this very province encourages business arrangements with China.“This was an exciting trip that showed just how much potential there is for Ontario to develop partnerships in China that will lead to jobs and opportunity for our province,” said Premier Dalton McGuinty after a 2005 trip there — one of many.He ought to drop by Flying Colours and take a look at a top-flight Ontario manufacturer and its fine workers facing extinction.And I would love to do a column on how many Ontario jobs have been created from his China trips. Please, point me in that direction.
For all my railing against this Liberal government, I’ve never done so under the illusion or pretense that it would matter very much. I do it not only because I can, but primarily because I see it as part of my social responsibility. I do it because it is right to confront and demand accountability from reckless and arrogant governments and the disingenuous machinery that propels them forward.
As someone who takes language very seriously, I thought I should defend my use of the term nefarious to describe this Liberal government. This government was not only largely ineffectual. Worse, it was recklessly arrogant, unscrupulous, dishonest, and at times utterly reprehensible. This government was elected to bring in sweeping change. It was given, under the current electoral system, what amounted to absolute power at Queen’s Park and it was accompanied, for the most part, by a very buoyant and robust economy. Moreover, the overwhelming majority with which this government was entrusted only led to the most acrimonious and inhospitable parliament I’ve witnessed. Queen’s Park was permeated with a sense of entitlement and arrogance that only absolute power can create. Question period has become a complete circus (those who argue against MMP because it would undermine the consensus that happens under First Past the Post should recognize that currently we have the most divisive and pettily partisan legislatures imaginable).
Mr. Urquhart: Liberals are NOT nice, they are nefarious, btw where are the blogging dippers during this campaign?
When partisan hacks like Cherniak or washed up smear apologists like Kinsella scurrilously demean what it means to think and to write (or even to treat others with dignity), I tend not to worry. I may react, but I don’t necessarily worry because I know that, for now at least, the dissemination of information is still largely in the hands of “professionals”. Now I’m under no delusions that journalists are objective and unbiased reporters of “the truth”, but being professionals, they are at least to some extent accountable.
The problem for McGuinty is that he is uncomfortable “going negative” himself.
Sorry, Mr. Urquhart, McGuinty and his henchmen have no problems going negative and you above most people should know that. After all, you covered the Parkdale High Park by-election. When an entire provincial government maliciously gangs up on a United Church minister, whose biggest mistake is that she wants to serve her community under the wrong political banner, that’s not a reluctance to going negative. And need I say, negative in the extreme.
By-election gets down and dirty
Sep. 13, 2006. 01:00 AM
On the surface, it would appear that the New Democrats are well positioned to win tomorrow’s provincial by-election in the west-end Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park, formerly occupied by Gerard Kennedy.
It is, after all, a riding that has gone to the NDP before — in 1990 provincially and as recently as this year federally, with the election of Peggy Nash.
And it is a by-election, which New Democrats are very good at winning. By-elections allow them to concentrate their formidable organizing resources and to invite the electorate to lodge a cost-free protest vote.
NDP canvassers in Parkdale-High Park are coached to remind voters at the doorstep that their ballots “will not defeat the government.”
Nevertheless, the Liberals want desperately to hold onto the riding, apparently at any cost.
Kennedy won Parkdale-High Park in 2003 by a whopping 42 percentage points — the sixth widest margin in the province — before quitting as education minister earlier this year to run for the federal Liberal leadership.
To replace Kennedy, the Liberals are running Sylvia Watson, a humourless one-term city councillor and former city bureaucrat. Suffice it to say that she ain’t no Gerard Kennedy.
So she is getting help, plenty of it. This week, Premier Dalton McGuinty made his fourth campaign appearance in the riding — an unusual number of visits by a premier in a by-election.
As well, 11 cabinet ministers were dragooned into the campaign this week for an event in a Bloor St. W. café and subsequent canvassing.
“I’m very confident we’re going to win this by-election,” said an unconvincing Finance Minister Greg Sorbara.
Yesterday, Kennedy himself and former New Democratic premier Bob Rae (who lives in the riding) took time out from fighting each other in the federal Liberal leadership race to campaign for her.
It is not these high-profile interventions that are raising eyebrows at Queen’s Park, however. Rather, it is the smear campaign being waged against the NDP candidate, Cheri DiNovo, a 56-year-old United Church minister.
At first, the smears — including references to her youthful indiscretions and carefully edited excerpts from her sermons — appeared only in blogs and anonymous flyers. That made it easy for the Watson campaign to deny any connection to them.
But this week the Watson campaign handed out a press release, on Liberal party letterhead, that dredged up a year-old sermon in which DiNovo allegedly said that the media treatment of child-killer Karla Homolka was “comparable to the persecution of Jesus Christ.”
DiNovo said the remark was taken entirely out of context by the Liberals and suggested she might sue them over it.
But the press release almost immediately backfired by putting the Liberals, not the New Democrats, on the defensive.
At an all-candidates’ meeting Monday night, even the Conservative candidate, former city councillor David Hutcheon, castigated the Liberals for trying to “assassinate the character” of their NDP opponent.
“This is not fair,” Hutcheon told the 100-plus in attendance. “It is not the Canadian way … They (the Liberals) have lost their moral compass.”
(An aside: Although the Conservatives ran second in the 2003 provincial election, party insiders admit that they are long shots to win tomorrow. It would be a nice consolation prize for the Conservatives, however, if DiNovo were to knock off the Liberals.)
The negative reaction clearly threw McGuinty for a loop. Pestered by the press on the smearing of DiNovo, the best response he could muster was: “Look, it’s a tough by-election for us.”
As for Watson, the candidate, she tried to distance herself from the smear. “It wasn’t my idea,” she told me, while declining to say whose it was.
The opposition parties are pointing their fingers at Warren Kinsella, the lobbyist who ran the Liberal war room in the last provincial election.
As evidence, they noted that his blog yesterday included an attack on DiNovo (whom he referred to as “DiNutso”) and a link to Waton’s web site.
But Kinsella denied any involvement in the Watson campaign. “I’ve never met or even spoken to her (Watson),” he said in an e-mail response.
Of his shot at DiNovo, Kinsella said: “I’m entitled to an opinion about her candidacy.” As for the link to the Watson web site, he explained it as an automatic function of a Google advertising program to which he subscribes.
I’m predicting that we haven’t heard the last of this.
What some of the media suggested going into last weekend (that Howard Hampton and John Tory were the winners after the first week of campaigning) must have also shown up on the Liberals’ own polling numbers. How else to explain Ian Urquhart’s column today in the Toronto Star? While Mr. Urquhart has no obligation to be NDP friendly, and while I usually find him one of the more balanced and sober writers at The Star, this piece will be used to deflect valid criticism of the Liberal record on taxation. Is it really a reality check that Liberals imposed a levy rather than a tax? Is it really a reality check that depending on how one calculates things the Liberals may not have imposed the largest tax hikes in Ontario history?A 24% tax hike regressively applied on average income earning Ontarians still ranks up there.
Ontario Liberals’ record on poverty has been appalling. Period. Made worse still by their attempts to deceive the public that they have made any significant progress in this area. Most recently, McGuinty has defended his record on child poverty as “real” progress. Bullshit! A Conservative with a poverty agenda is contradictory. A Liberal with a poverty agenda is pure artifice and ruse.
Of all the back pedaling and broken promises of this government, McGuinty’s refusal to end the clawback of the national child supplement is among the most egregious. In 2003, McGuinty ran on ending what he argued was a wrong and unjust clawback. Yet, when he became Premier, he refused to stop taking away $1500 per year away from the poorest children in the province. For four years, the Ontario Liberals have continued to rob the poorest children in this province of $1500 earmarked for them. And we know child poverty is only getting worse.
In this year’s budget McGuinty announced with great fanfare that his government was finally phasing out the clawback and phasing in a child benefit over five years. The child benefit for this year was a paltry $250, and if I recall, one of the remarks around Queen’s Park was that the announced child benefit was less than the cost of the shoes worn by Greg Sorbara when he made the announcement. Regrettably, the clawback has not ended and we’ll have to re-elect this government if we want to see it eventually phased out in the next few years. I’m sorry, this is not a record on which to stand. McGuinty ran in 2003 to end the clawback, and he might as well be running on it again because shamefully he’s yet to end clawing back money set aside for needy families.