Steve Paikin

Hanging Ernie Eves

Steve Paikin — Tue, 15 May 12 12:28:54 GMT

It's one of those traditions at Queen's Park where everybody is supposed to put his or her knives away and a spirit of non-partisanship fills the air.

For example, Premier Dalton McGuinty saw Mike Harris in the audience and warmly recognized him, despite the fact the two were bitter foes from 1996-2002, when Harris was premier, and McGuinty opposition leader.

Premier Dalton McGuinty welcomes everyone, including former Premier Mike Harris, to Queen's Park.

And then there's Ernie Eves, Ontario's 23rd premier, who never quite learned how to play by those informal rules.

Eves was at the Ontario Legislature last week, nearly 10 years after leaving the premier's office, to have his portrait unveiled and officially hung, as tradition dictates. And he used the occasion to roast nearly everyone sight.

Ontario's 23rd premier has a laugh, while waiting to see the unveiling of his portrait.

Eves replaced Harris as Ontario PC leader, but before that, he was a loyal second-in-command as Harris' finance minister. That didn't stop him from taking a friendly shot at his former boss, who at various times over the past decade, has worked at the same law firm as other ex-premiers David Peterson and Bob Rae.

"For a guy who cursed Liberals at virtually every cabinet meeting we attended, it sure is strange to see who his law partners have been," Eves cracked.

Ernie Eves didn't spare anyone from his barbs, including the current premier, sitting just a few feet away.

Then, after listening to a generous introduction from the current premier, and with the current opposition leader (Tim Hudak) in the audience, Eves continued to let 'er rip.

"That last budget that was brought in was one of the most tepid I've ever seen," he started, with McGuinty sitting three feet away from him. "Then my party voted against it without even reading it. And the NDP didn't even show up to vote for it even though they negotiated 'improvements' to it. Things sure have changed since I left here."

Lots of nervous laughter and people staring at their shoes after that one.

He took a long walk down memory lane, including sharing a story about attending former U.S. President Gerald Ford's annual golf tournament. "And I paid my own way to get there," Eves clarified. "We didn't fly down in any orange helicopters." Another zinger, and suddenly the smile was completely gone from Dalton McGuinty's face.

Queen's Park was awash in former ministers, including 87-year-old Bette Stephenson, one of Ontario's strongest education ministers.

But all jokes aside, Eves did remind the audience that even though his tenure as premier was short (April 2002 to October 2003), his government did face some challenges of epic proportions.

SARS (which killed 44 people), Ontario's first case of Mad Cow Disease, and the worst electricity blackout in history all happened on Eves' watch. Also, the province's finances were in desperate condition when Eves was finance minister. "And yet, Mike Harris trusted me to get the job done. He also knew I didn't want his job. Not every first minister and finance minister can say that," he added, with a not so thinly veiled reference to Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

In 1990, Mike Harris and Dianne Cunningham vied for the Ontario PC Party leadership. Today, they're all smiles.

Eves met Queen Elizabeth II three times and cherished every get together. He met Pope John Paul II and was told he could bring 12 others to the meeting. Despite intense lobbying from numerous Tory backroom donors, Eves says he told his social services minister to find 12 underprivileged children who would enjoy the visit. He says he took a lot of flack for that decision, but it was the right one.

Eves' time in public life, which started with a six-vote victory in 1981 in Parry Sound-Muskoka, will always be remembered for the time when he got the news of the tragic death of his son Justin, who perished in a car crash.

Justin was learning disabled, so Eves created a foundation in his son's name, to raise funds for other learning disabled kids.

Ontario's Lieutenant-Governor, David Onley, watches from the right, as Ernie Eves' portrait is unveiled.

Eventually, the key moment arrived when artist Bernard Poulin's work would be unveiled. Every former premier's portrait tells something important about the office holder. Bob Rae was captured with a laptop computer open on his desk, to remind everyone that Ontario moved into the digital age under his watch. David Peterson was the first premier ever painted without a jacket on, his tie loosened, to indicate his more casual style, and the end of a stolid, 42-year Tory dynasty. The background in William Davis' portrait shows beautiful Georgian Bay, where Ontario's 18th premier could get away from the stresses of the job at his cottage.

Ernie Eves' portrait shows him in the chamber of the legislature itself, where he said he always enjoyed the cut and thrust of question period. There are 10 documents on his desk with him, each reflecting an important moment in his political life.

While Eves admitted "getting hung in front of 300 people isn't my idea of a good time," leave it to the current premier to sum up the reality of the job.

"Every day, I walk out of my office and see portraits of my predecessors," Dalton McGuinty said. "And it's a constant reminder that we'll all be hanged some day."

Managing A Minority Parliament

Steve Paikin — Mon, 14 May 12 06:44:33 GMT

Ontario has been into some relatively uncharted territory since last October's provincial election.

For the first time in a quarter century, Ontarians elected a minority parliament. It's led to some strange goings-on at Queen's Park: a new tax on the super rich, attempts by the McGuinty Liberals to poach members off the opposition benches in hopes of getting closer to a majority government, and now possibly cozying up to the PCs to implement a wage freeze on public servants.

Marcel Wieder and John Mykytyshyn have decades of experience in politics behind the scenes. Wieder has worked for Liberal candidates and the Working Families group that was instrumental in keeping the PCs out of government. Mykytyshyn has worked for Conservative candidates and was a founding member of the group of Common Sense Revolutionaries that helped elect Mike Harris premier back in 1995.

Watch them candidly cross swords here:

Mental Health Q&A: Three Questions for Catherine Pringle

Steve Paikin — Fri, 11 May 12 16:26:08 GMT

Steve Paikin: I first met Catherine Pringle when she was former Ontario PC Leader John Tory’s press secretary. She was so competent at her job, I never had an inkling that she’d had a history with mental illness, until I saw her mother Valerie, the broadcaster, talk about it on television. So Catherine, tell us, when did you first notice something was amiss?

Catherine Pringle, with former Ontario PC Party Leader John Tory.

Catherine Pringle: Now that I look back on it, I think the signs had always been there, but it wasn't until I was in my first "real" job at age 23 that I had a really bad episode of anxiety and depression and decided to seek help. I had experienced many panic attacks over the years and as I got older they seemed to get progressively worse. For a long time I had no idea what it was. The episodes were usually in and around periods of high stress, such as exams. My parents thought that it was just "nerves," as did I, I suppose, and would try and calm my with comments like, "you'll be fine," and, "what's the worst that can happen?" While the "rational" side of my brain knew they were probably right, the side of my brain that was in control of my body at the time did not care. The episode I experienced during my first job was paralyzing. I would cry all day, every day, and experience panic attack after panic attack until I could not get out of bed. That was when my mum looked at me and said, "I think we should speak to a doctor about this."

SP: So that began your interaction with the “mental health care system.” How well did it react to your situation?

CP: I was certainly one of the lucky ones. I have a lovely, caring family doctor who really took the time to talk to me about treatment options - talk therapy and medication. In the beginning I was dead set against taking medication, but she really took the time to go over different options with me and make sure that I understood how the medication would affect me and that I didn't have to take it forever if I didn't want to. I was also able to speak with a psychiatrist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who suggested that I do Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, a type of treatment for anxiety disorders. The combination of the right medication and the right talk therapy made all the difference for me and has helped me to better manage my anxiety. Unfortunately, I know from having spoken to many, many Ontarians that navigating the "mental health care system" is not nearly as easy as this for most. That is why increased funding and greater accessibility is so important.

SP: Finally, Catherine, how much stigma have you had to deal with in your travels through the world of mental health? Any employers, friends, family, acquaintances who look at you differently, now that you’ve gone public with this?

CP: To be honest, I have tried my best not to think about what others might think. When I returned to my job after taking some time off for treatment I was really worried about what I should say to people. When I asked my dad what he thought he simply said, “tell the truth,” and so I did, although I was very nervous about it. The first person I told was the campaign manager (my boss), who told me that his wife had dealt with the same thing. From that moment I decided to be open about it because mental illness is something that touches everyone in one way or another. I decided that I wanted to work to get rid of the sigma that still surrounds mental illness and addiction, and I tried to do that by being open and honest about what I had gone through. The more I spoke about it, the more other people would open up to me about their struggles. There is no shame in it.

Mental Health Q&A: Three Questions for Michael Landsberg

Steve Paikin — Wed, 09 May 12 16:21:47 GMT

Steve Paikin: Michael, you and I have been friends for more than 30 years, and last year, you were kind enough to appear on The Agenda to talk about your own struggles with mental health issues. At that time, you told us that, after years of sort of living under a black cloud, you were finally able to identify and treat the problems you were having. Update us. How are you doing now?

Michael Landsberg: I'm doing great. I say it nine times. Then, once, I say, "I'm doing okay." I'm good nine out of 10 days. Which – considering where I was – is a huge blessing. You seldom "beat" depression. In my case I have tamed it into submission.

I've known Michael Landsberg since we were students at the University of Toronto in 1978. We then worked together at CHFI-FM.

During it all, I never knew he suffered from depression. As he told me, "I was good at hiding it."

We're pictured here with fellow former CHFI'ers Rob Davidson, Landsberg, Paul Cook, and yours truly.

SP: You spend much of your time, of course, in the world of sports, being the host of TSN's Off The Record. And the past couple of years have been tragic. Your friend Wade Belak, the former Maple Leaf, committed suicide. So did Rick Rypien, formerly of the Canucks and Jets. The suspicion is, both deaths were related to mental health issues. What impact do you think those tragedies have had on raising awareness about mental health in the pro sports world?

ML: Sadly, it takes tragedy to shake people's views out of their heads. The single biggest roadblock for mental illness is that people see it as weakness not illness. So when strong, tough, successful people suffer from it, it sends the message. People need to know depression is a serious – sometimes fatal – illness and, tragically, it takes the deaths of well known people to hammer that point home.

SP: One last thing: Tell us where you think stigmatizing people with mental health issues is these days. So many won't get help because of fears they'll be seen as unreliable at work, or dangerous at home, or in friendships. Where are we on this part of the story?

ML: We're still living in a world that sees mental illness somehow falling between physical illness and fantasy. Part of the problem is that few will admit they feel that way. It's like saying "I'm a bigot." Truth: The majority of Canadians believe that depression is a weakness and not an illness. Did you know Hippocrates wrote 2,500 years ago that "melancholia" was an imbalance? Yet all this time later, we still fall back on lines like "snap out of it," and "what do you have to be depressed about?" Have we made progress? Yes. Especially in the last few years. But are we near the end? Not a chance. We still live in a world where people will take their own lives before they will share their illness. Sad. Tragic. Avoidable.

Mental Health Q&A: Three Questions for Elaine Flis

Steve Paikin — Tue, 08 May 12 17:22:40 GMT

I've known Elaine Flis for probably 20 years. Her father Jesse was a respected member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park from 1979 to 1984, and again from 1988 to 1997. And Elaine always had plans to run some day herself – until some devastating mental health issues presented themselves in her life and made those plans impossible.

Steve Paikin: Elaine, when did you first notice something was amiss?

Elaine Flis: Thinking back, I've always felt something was wrong but didn't know what it was, and was afraid to talk about it because I didn't know what was happening with me. When I was 15, I tried to commit suicide but never sought help; I was just thankful I didn't succeed. In university, doctors queried clinical depression but I refused to believe it. I was first diagnosed with severe clinical depression after university. About five years ago, the medications stopped working and I was referred to a psychiatrist. After a few visits, she diagnosed me with bipolar disorder and it really was an "a-ha" moment for me. It finally all made sense.

Elaine Flis, flanked by former Prime Minister Paul Martin on the left, and her father, former MP Jesse Flis on the right.

SP: Did you feel the so-called "mental health system" treated you well?

EF: When I finally received treatment, yes. Although it took about six months to get in to see a psychiatrist, and over a year to get in to see a psychotherapist. The only reason I was able to find a psychotherapist is because I opened up to a friend who in turn referred me to someone he knew. I am still trying to find the right medications, and have tried numerous types of medication, but now I am lucky to have a great health care team in place, supporting me every step of the way.

SP: Glad to hear it. Elaine, your dream was to go into politics. Is that still an option?

EF: One thing my father taught me is "never say never" and "keep your options open" so for now, that's what I'll do. At this point, I am enjoying being an advocate for mental health.

A Tough Few Weeks for Tim Hudak

Steve Paikin — Fri, 04 May 12 15:26:59 GMT

It's been a tough few weeks for Ontario's Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Then again, it is the worst job in politics. It requires the office's occupant to be resolutely negative, which runs the risk of having you portrayed as "Doctor No," as William Davis so skillfully did to opposition leader Stuart Smith 30 years ago.

Politicians like to sell hope – hard to do when day after day, you remind people how awful things are and how we're going to hell in a handcart with the other guys in charge.

So Tim Hudak and his team had a difficult challenge, when the PC leader took to the stage of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre earlier this week. In the audience were 1,400 interested onlookers, all curious to see how Hudak would bounce back from what's been a particularly challenging last few weeks.

And since tickets were going for $1,200 to $1,500 a pop, you could say expectations were high.

Hudak hasn't been able to catch a break lately. Sometimes, it's been his fault, but sometimes it hasn't.

He took a hammering over his immediate rejection of the Liberal government's budget. Critics noted NDP Leader Andrea Horwath played hard to get, negotiated with the premier over a few weeks (thereby keeping her name in the headlines), and, ultimately, got some significant changes to the budget which many of her supporters no doubt liked.

And all the while, Tim Hudak was seen as not a "player," because he was waiting on the sidelines for the McGuinty-Horwath show to be over.

And remember: all of this comes less than a year after Tories became convinced they were moving back onto the government side of the legislature. Team Hudak had a 15-point lead on the Liberals last summer, and the conventional wisdom was, the public couldn't wait to get rid of Dalton McGuinty.

But it didn't turn out that way. The election of 2011 was Hudak's to lose, and he lost it, albeit improving the Tories' fortunes significantly.

Then this week, the coup de grace: 22-year veteran and former deputy premier Elizabeth Witmer announced out of the blue that she was quitting to become the new chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. People asked: is that something you do if you think you're going to be back on the government side of the House soon? Answer: no.

So all of that was percolating through the hall this week as Hudak gave the keynote speech at the Leader's Dinner.

In fairness, Hudak's team took some risks which made the presentation more interesting to watch. The leader spoke without a lectern and copy of the speech in his hands. He paced a large stage, glancing occasionally at the teleprompter on the floor in front of him, while flanked by a backdrop of "ordinary Ontarians."

And Hudak got through the speech just fine. If he wanted to convey an air of steely calm – that none of the pitfalls of the past year have got to him – then he succeeded.

But I spoke to dozens of Tory supporters in the hall that night and asked for their feedback, and, to a person, they were underwhelmed.

Some wanted more fire and brimstone, some red meat they could sink their teeth into, that would have brought the crowd to its feet. That never happened.

Others wanted to hear something fresh and original on why the PCs deserve to be back in government. They were left disappointed. Much of the optimism that was in the air when Hudak was elected Tory leader almost three years ago seems to have dissipated.

I would merely observe the following:

1. In the summer of 1984, David Peterson's career looked sunk. Four important members of his caucus quit on him, so they could run federally. Politically, he was a dead man walking. A year later, Peterson was sworn in as Ontario's 20th premier.

2. In the summer of 1990, NDP Leader Bob Rae pondered what he was going to do in the fall, after he lost his third consecutive election. However, in October, Rae was sworn in as Ontario's 21st premier.

3. In the summer of 1995, Liberals were licking their chops at the prospect of returning to government, so sure were they that the NDP was finished, and the third place PCs were out of the game. The Liberals had a 20-point lead going into the election that year. In June, PC Leader Mike Harris became Ontario's 22nd premier.

There is a tendency in politics to assume that a week, a month, even a year's worth of bad headlines means "Game Over."

It just isn't so.

Stay tuned ...

The Insiders: David Herle

Steve Paikin — Thu, 03 May 12 11:29:42 GMT

David Herle's worst political nightmare was coming true.

It was 2004, and the expectations for Paul Martin's first campaign as the new Liberal leader were sky high. Predictions of 200 seats will buzzing around Ottawa. But the campaign got off to a disastrous start, and as national co-chair, that made it David Herle's problem.

All the focus groups and polling were coming back with the same message: it's time for a change. It's time to punish the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal. (And a new health care levy brought in by Martin's provincial cousins in Ontario wasn't helping.)

Liberal insider David Herle, speaking about his role on the 2004 federal Liberal election campaign.

Liberal votes were bleeding to the Conservatives' Stephen Harper on a daily basis.

Then the Liberal brain trust was presented with an ad simply called "The Multi-scene Manifesto." It was tough. Really tough. It described a Canada that Canadians wouldn't recognize if Harper were to become prime minister.

"The reaction from focus groups was strong and clear," Herle told the Canadian Club on Monday. "People thought the ad was aggressive and shocking. They told us if we had any integrity, we'd focus on our positives, not on the negatives about the Conservatives." But Herle also noticed that these voters all suddenly indicated they wouldn't vote Conservative anymore. The ad made them concerned about Harper's agenda. They were switching back to the Liberals.

"I felt we needed to run that ad and that it would change the campaign," Herle recalled. "Others strongly advised against it. We warned our candidates it was coming, then released it."

The effect? Support for the Conservatives stopped. Concerns about what Harper might do to health care rose. Concerns about the sponsorship scandal fell. Voters moved away from their flirtation with the Conservatives. "Certain defeat became kind of a win," is how Herle put the election result – a Paul Martin minority government.

"I've made a lot of mistakes in my political career," Herle said. "I've learned a lot. But on this one, I was on the inside and I was right."

The Insiders: Kathleen Monk

Steve Paikin — Wed, 02 May 12 12:44:07 GMT

Kathleen Monk had a huge problem.

It was just after the 2011 federal election and the late Jack Layton, the former NDP leader, had just handed her a huge pile of lemons and told her to make lemonade out of them.

The problem: the sharks were out for the blood of a new NDP Member of Parliament named Ruth Ellen Brosseau, better known as "Vegas."

She got that nickname because in the middle of the campaign, she went to Las Vegas for a previously planned vacation. But it was worse. She was running in an overwhelmingly Francophone riding, and her French was lousy. And if that weren't insulting enough, she didn't spend one day in the riding during the campaign. She didn't knock on a single door.

And she won by 6,000 votes and promises to run again in 2015.

Official Ottawa was in a tizzy. They said she was illegitimate. They wanted her to resign. The media staked out NDP headquarters looking for her. They staked out her parents' home. They wanted at this rookie who had the temerity to win on Layton's coattails.

Layton's challenge to Monk: make sure Brosseau was treated fairly. And make this story go away.

Kathleen Monk, NDP Insider, speaks to the Canadian Club about a task Jack Layton gave her a year ago.

"I knew it was wrong for Ruth Ellen to resign," Monk told the Canadian Club on Monday. "It would only fuel calls for others to resign. And it would lead to a feeding frenzy. So we had to fight back and not let them cannibalize this woman."

So Monk sat the new MP down and got her story. And it was a good one. Somewhat sympathetic in fact. The party had asked her to run in that riding, knowing she had no particular connection to it. She was a single mother. She represented a demographc that had very little representation in Parliament.

Monk had to work with her and on her. She needed to get Brosseau to improve her French. She had to get her to dress more appropriately and get her hair done just so. And most important, "we had to keep her under wraps until she could make a great first impression."

The national media desperately wanted the story. Monk said forget it. After awhile, Brosseau gave interviews to local media, but only local media.

"Now she's an MP worth watching," Monk said. "She's deputy agriculture critic. She's got a strong riding association. She asks solid questions in the House. The local mayors love her. And we need people with diverse backgrounds, in diverse stages of their lives, in Parliament. Now she is really un vrai vedette.

"She's gone from crisis and controversy, to confidence," Monk said.

Tomorrow: David Herle's biggest challenge, during the 2004 federal election campaign.

Sorry To Ruin A Good Story, But K-W Won't Mean A McGuinty Majority

Steve Paikin — Tue, 01 May 12 12:25:22 GMT

Rarely has the resignation of one member of the Ontario Legislature been watched with such fascination.

Elizabeth Witmer, in the Legislature, where she's served since 1990. Thornhill MPP Peter Shurman sits beside her in this shot.

But such is the case with Elizabeth Witmer's surprising announcement last week that she's leaving her job as MPP for Kitchener-Waterloo after 22 years, making her the longest-serving female member of the legislature ever.

From the Progressive Conservative Party's standpoint, the resignation is hugely problematic. Witmer was one of the increasingly fewer voices on the progressive side of the party. Her departure also suggests (although everyone's denying it) a lack of confidence that leader Tim Hudak can get the PCs back on the other side of the House.

Witmer's departure is tough news for PC Leader Tim Hudak

Furthermore, Witmer's seat really was Witmer's seat --- it wasn't a conservative seat. So it's possible with her gone, that constituency is up for grabs.

Queen's Park watchers are salivating at the possibility that if the Liberals win back K-W, they'll effectively have a majority government. Here's how they come to that conclusion:

The Liberals currently have 52 seats, but the combined forces of the PC and NDP opposition have 53. So, if the Liberals win the ensuing byelection, it's a tie, with the Speaker of the Legislature voting with the government, essentially giving it a majority. Right?

Wrong.

Former speaker Chris Stockwell and I have been emailing back and forth on this. He knows the rules as well as anyone. And he says even if the Grits win, it's no majority:

"The Speaker will always vote in favour of a bill at first and second reading, to continue debate. But when it gets to third reading the Speaker will vote against any bill by precedent," Stockwell clarifies. "The Speaker will never make laws, so he will vote nay."

Bottom line: the Liberals will still need cooperation from the opposition to get their programs through the House, even if they do win the K-W byelection.

Even with one more MPP in the Liberal caucus, it won't be a majority government

How about a vote of confidence? The Speaker would vote to keep the current government alive under those circumstances, right?

Stockwell answers: "Correct, but the speaker will not allow the government to claim all votes are confidence votes. Because the speaker would believe he is being co-oped into being a de facto member of the Liberals."

So what's the conclusion Chris?

"All this blather they will have a majority is just blather."

So there you have it. Yes, this upcoming byelection will be important because it will get the McGuinty Liberals one step closer to a majority. But that's all it is.

The Insiders: Jaime Watt

Steve Paikin — Mon, 30 Apr 12 21:42:40 GMT

"What do you call someone who predicted the Alberta Progressive Conservatives would win 61 seats on election day?" Jaime Watt, the PC "Insider" asked the audience at the Canadian Club.

Answer: "A liar."

Many so called "experts" were asking this question after Alison Redford won the Alberta election on April 23, 2012.

Watt, and many others, have been trying to figure out how so many of the "experts" got the Alberta election story so wrong. For days leading up to E-day, it looked as if Wildrose was going to run away with a victory, ending 41 consecutive years of PC reign. In fact, the exact opposite happened, and the Tory dynasty continues.

How come, Watt asks? A few reasons.

"Too many commentators wanted to tell the great 'end of a dynasty' story," he says. They also failed to realize that the face of Alberta today isn't Ralph Klein, the former good-old-boy redneck mayor of Calgary, but rather Naheed Nenshi, the new urbane, Muslim mayor of Calgary.

Polling companies also let the public down. On April 17, the Wildrose Party was way ahead. On April 19, both main parties were essentially tied. On April 21, the PCs were up by 5 points. Too many public opinion agencies had already stopped polling, but the voters hadn't stopped moving.

"It's like having cameras at a busy intersection," Watt said. "If you're only taking pictures every 20 minutes, you can get the impression nothing dramatic is happening. But in fact, a serious accident may have happened and been moved aside while the cameras weren't watching. The same thing happened here. It's so true that polling is only a snapshot of a moment in time."

Progressive Conservative "Insider" Jaime Watt

"Finally, money is incredibly smart," Watt added. "Money poured into the PC campaign on their website, unsolicited."

"All media organizations want polling but they have no money to pay for it," added David Herle, who ran campaigns for former prime minister Paul Martin. "So it's all superficial. You don't pick up any of the internal dynamics."

Add it all up, and far too many experts missed the story badly. Ultimately, it was a contest between the Wildrose's "firewall" and the PCs' "bridge" campaigns.

Most Albertans opted for the bridge.

Next time, we'll focus on one of former NDP strategist Kathleen Monk's most challenging moments in political life.

Some Days, It's Tough to Be the Mayor

Steve Paikin — Thu, 26 Apr 12 15:57:27 GMT

An interview with Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt, whose very full plate includes the standoff with Aboriginal-Canadians in Caledonia, the shuttering of the coal-fired generating station in Nanticoke, and soon-to-arrive windmills which many residents oppose.

Guest Post: A Dissenter's View on the Constitution At 30

Steve Paikin — Wed, 25 Apr 12 17:08:33 GMT

By William Gairdner, author of "The Trouble With Canada...Still!"

The invention of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a backward step that returned Canadians to the kind of political condition they endured under their British masters during the colonial period.

Let me explain. At that time those who governed the separate colonies in what was to become Canada were officials of the British Crown and were not responsible to the people but to the legislators, judges, and courts of Great Britain. So for decades Canadians fought hard to bring about “responsible government” - a term which in Canadian political history came to mean that government must be responsible to the elected representatives of the people. They were granted bits of this by the mid-1840s, and by Confederation in 1867 the principle of fully responsible government was institutionalized in Canada.

Accordingly, the laws made by their representatives in Canada’s Parliament were considered an expression of the will of the people and hence the supreme law of the land. (It bears noting, however, that the founders both of Canada and the United States of America considered even the will of their elected representatives supreme only with respect to new statute laws; to their minds, even statute laws were subordinate to the inherited legal rights, customs and traditions of the English speaking people since Magna Carta).

But this happy 115-year tradition was radically altered in 1982 with the introduction of a Charter that was declared “the supreme law of Canada,” and thus a law over and above the laws of Parliament and all other inherited and customary forms of law . The result has been that since then the will of the Canadian people as expressed in Parliament has been subordinated to and must now conform to interpretations of the law of the Charter. In short, the ultimate authority over the meaning of all existing laws and especially over any new laws made by Canada’s legislators is once again, as in colonial times, held by officials the people did not elect, who cannot be removed by the people, and who are not responsible to the people in any direct way.

In response to this charge, Canada’s judges maintain that parliamentarians still hold the ultimate authority because they can make and re-make laws. However, any balanced scrutiny of the record since 1982 will show an abdication, if not a judicial suppression of legislative freedom and responsibility: Parliamentarians are so fettered by the threat of actual or potential Charter scrutiny that they repeatedly defer to past court decisions or to anticipated Charter rulings prior to creating new legislation. The emphasis since 1982 has shifted from the question of what laws the people wish their elected representatives to make, to the question of what laws their judges will allow them to make.

Should The McGuinty Government Have Been Defeated?

Steve Paikin — Wed, 25 Apr 12 10:27:56 GMT

The conventional wisdom is, Ontarians and their politicians are breathing a sigh of relief today, thanks to a budget deal between the Liberals and New Democrats.

What if conventional wisdom is wrong? Is there another argument out there that suggests the McGuinty government should have been defeated?

Some very bullish Liberals think, yes. They were licking their chops at the possibility that a budget deal might not be reached and we'd be back to the polls for the second time in six months.

For example, Warren Kinsella, who's run the Liberal war room in previous elections, was quite gung-ho on going back to the polls. Here's what he sent in an email to some friends:

"Speaking for me, myself and I, an election would’ve been quite acceptable. We would have won a majority, and the Ontario PCs would have been reduced to third-party status. Also, I enjoy elections. I think they’re fun. The Premier, however, is more sensible than me. He did what people are always calling for: leaders who put principles before politics. And so we will all live to fight another day."

Another political backroom type emailed me the following:

"Who says it [an election] is 'unnecessary'? Myself, ad agencies, television stations, newspapers, pollsters, printers and many others could all use the work. The economic stimulus of an election is very significant and since all the money is spent in the province this would create jobs and help the economy."

While the coffers of all the political parties are empty right now, the Liberals, I'm told, were absolutely ready to go back to the polls if necessary. In fact, they had a leader's tour all planned and ready to go.

And what about the new "tax the rich" provision that, at the end of the day, solidified a Liberal-NDP deal on the budget?

I've been in touch with one of this province's most successful businessmen, who for obvious reasons, didn't want his name mentioned. While the politics of adding another surtax on those earning more than half a million dollars a year is irresistable, what in fact will be the likely outcome of said tax?

Here's what he told me:

"... for these evil creators of jobs — they will now be paying $49,200 in tax instead of $46,000 in taxes on each extra $100,000 of income over $500,000 — which is not an insignificant increase — a person earning $1 million will pay an extra $17,000 dollars in tax. The real problem is the key victims here are not the super evil rich people — but the charities they support — I have talked to a number of people — and they all intend to do two things — find new legal ways of avoiding tax and reducing pledges to charities — at the end of the day — it was just a PR ploy for Liberals and NDP — they needed a scapegoat."

The Liberals hope the new surtax will bring in more than $300 million. Today, the government said the budget deal would result in the deficit declining from $15.3 billion to $15 billion because of the surtax. The above comment suggests that's unlikely to happen, or if it does, others (namely charities) will feel the loss.

It's the other side of the story we tend not to hear too much about.

Celebrating 100 Years of Fenway Park: Part II

Steve Paikin — Mon, 23 Apr 12 22:25:21 GMT

Last Friday, on the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park, I posted this history of America's most beloved ball park.

Larry and Steve Paikin, on their first trip to Fenway Park, July 1978.

We continue the celebration of Fenway's 100th today by pulling out some of my old scrap books. My love for this ball park goes back three-and-a-half decades.

When I graduated from high school, my father offered to take me on a road trip. Without a second's hesitation, I said: "Let's go to Fenway Park."

Sox catcher Carlton Fisk returns to the dugout. He and Yankees' catcher Thurman Munson were great rivals.

And so we did. It was July 1978. The Red Sox swept the Baltimore Orioles. What kind of team did the Sox have that year? Unstoppable, or so I thought. Every single player in the starting nine was hitting over .300, and when we left Boston, the Sox had a 14-game lead over the second place (hated) New York Yankees.

Pitcher Luis Tiant and centre fielder Fred Lynn coming off the field. Lynn was sensational, winning MVP and Rookie of the Year in his first season in the majors in 1975.

We felt confident the Sox were well on their way to ending The Curse of the Bambino, the excuse New Englanders gave to explain why the team had come oh so close but had never won a championship since they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees, after winning the World Series in 1918.

We bumped into the Orioles at our hotel, here with Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer ...

... and again with another Hall of Famer, first baseman Eddie Murray.

A return trip to Fenway Park in the mid-1980s.

Baseball fans will remember 1978 as the year the Sox collapsed, the Yanks found their mojo, and both teams were tied after 162 games. A 163rd sudden death playoff game was played at Fenway Park to see who would go on to post-season play. In that game, "Bucky F-----g Dent" (as he's now referred to by Red Sox Nation) hit an improbable homer over the Green Monster to give the Yanks the win.

Standing outside the stadium beside the statue of Ted Williams, my favourite player ever. I'm wearing his #9 jersey, and named one of my kids "Teddy" after him.

It was a good lesson for yours truly that much more suffering would be required before we Sox fans could celebrate a championship.

That happened in 2004 --- the club's first in 86 years --- and again in 2007.

The most popular Red Sox player today: designated hitter "Big Papi" David Ortiz.

With my son Henry, the third generation of Paikin Red Sox fans, in the summer of 2007.

My most recent trip to Fenway: June 2010, celebrating my 50th birthday with my mom Marnie.

We saw Daniel Nava hit a grand slam homer on the first pitch he ever saw in the majors. That had only happened once before in Major League history.

Red Sox Captain, catcher Jason Varitek, who has caught four no-hitters during his career. No one else has ever done that.

Pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka, on whom the Sox spent $50 million just so he'd leave Japan.

Second baseman Dustin Pedroia, another of the Sox most popular (and best) players.

Can there possibly be a more beautiful place to watch baseball than 100-year-old Fenway Park? I say no.

The Election is Off

Steve Paikin — Mon, 23 Apr 12 16:11:10 GMT

So, the election is off. Despite weeks of sabre-rattling by all three parties at Queen's Park, the NDP confirmed today they will not vote to "plunge this province into another election," just six months after the last one.

The McGuinty Government lives to fight another day.

What should we conclude from the past few weeks of Ontario's first minority government since 1985?

1. Despite public rancor on all sides, minority government worked. Everyone knew the public would severely punish whomever was perceived as being responsible for sending us back to the polls this soon. So the Liberals and New Democrats put some water in their wine and found an acceptable compromise.

2. The Liberals and New Democrats are seen as the big winners here. The Liberals survive as a government. Their spending cap stays firm. Whatever additional expenditures they agreed to in exchange for NDP support will be financed by savings elsewhere. And Andrea Horwath, channeling her former federal leader Jack Layton in 2005, can show her supporters tangible evidence that her decision to delay supporting the budget was the right one. The rich will do less well. The disabled and daycare centres will do better. Frankly, both the Liberals and New Democrats can be content with that outcome.

3. The Progressive Conservatives, in the short run, seem to have taken one on the chin. By announcing on budget day that his entire caucus would vote against the budget, PC leader Tim Hudak essentially removed himself from the conversation. That immediate "nay" vote may have pleased his base which hates any accommodation with McGuinty, but it allowed the spotlight to shift to Hudak's NDP opponent as "a player" at the legislature.

4. For three consecutive elections, the Liberals have promised not to raise taxes. And for the third consecutive time, the Liberals will go back on that promise. After the 2003 campaign, they brought in a new health tax, despite promising not to, when they signed the Ontario Taxpayers' Federation pledge. After the 2007 campaign, they brought in the Harmonized Sales Tax, which will realize significantly more revenue than the previous Retail Sales Tax did. And this time, the government has agreed to a new 2% surtax on those earning more than $500,000 annually.

Liberals read the polls as well as any government, and recent numbers suggested 80% of Ontarians favoured a "tax on the rich." Frankly, my shock was that only 80% support such a measure, since taxing that income group won't affect probably 99.5% of Ontarians.

So, exhale everyone. The good news is, we're not going to blow $100 million on an unnecessary, unwanted election.

The Liberals will stay on the right side of the speaker, where the government members sit. No election in the offing.

Remembering Randy Starkman

Steve Paikin — Fri, 20 Apr 12 16:28:07 GMT

As strange as it is to say, it was a great funeral.

Randy Starkman's worlds all came together at a memorial service for him yesterday (April 19, 2012) in Toronto. Friends. Family. Journalists. Olympic athletes such as Marnie McBean, Mark Tewksbury, and Curt Harnett were there.

"If Randy were here, he'd be the first person to discount all this fuss over him," said his brother Laurie, in a wonderful eulogy that seamlessly moved from heartfelt to hilarious.

The two brothers were intensely competitive growing up in Toronto. "Ali-Frazier had nothing on the Starkman brothers," Laurie said of their neighbourhood hockey games. "Our friends kept waiting for the big blow up to happen and we never let them down."

Randy Starkman's death shocked Canada's journalistic and sporting worlds. He had been suffering from a sore throat, and by the time he checked into hospital, strep throat, pneumonia and then a superbug overcame him. He was just 51-years-old, and was looking forward to covering his 13th Olympic Games in London this summer.

He met the woman who would become his wife at United Press Canada where they both worked three decades ago. Randy and Mary Hynes would travel the world together, covering amateur sports and reporting those stories back to Canada.

"Nobody covered those events like Starkman-Hynes," said Laurie. "Then he got his dream job at The Toronto Star and became the pre-eminent amateur sports writer in the country."

That's not just brotherly pride talking. Randy was just that, winning two national newspaper awards over his career.

How did he propose to Mary? With sweet icing on her birthday cake.

"Will you marry me?" the writing on the cake said. "Please say yes. Reuv."

I was fortunate to have known Randy for two decades. His wife Mary and I were the original co-hosts of TVO's "Studio 2," the network's first ever nightly current affairs program which ran from 1994-2006. As the pictures below show, we were huge Star Trek fans too.

She used to call her husband "Tall, Dark, and Starkman." I called him "Groovy Roovey," a takeoff on his Hebrew name Reuven. They truly were a dynamic duo.

Here they were a couple of years ago at my 50th birthday party, and yes, every time I saw them together, they were this happy.

Laurie said Randy wanted nothing more in life than to be a parent "because he was a big kid. And when Ella was born, he had someone to play with."

Ella, now a teenager, also spoke at Randy's funeral, and was simply astonishing. Poised, funny, and a wonderful story-teller, she reminded the packed hall that her father left covering the Atlanta Olympic Games to see her birth, "which was the only thing that could have got him to leave those games," she joked.

Ella described a father who made her chocolate chip pancakes for breakfast every day. "And I'm a little worried about what kind of breakfast I'm going to have now. My mom's not a great cook."

While I was delighted to see such a powerful show of support for Randy and his family, I confess I am still furious. Furious that this good man was taken from us at such a young age. Saddened that he had so much more to write about and contribute to the world. Outraged that with all of our advances in health care, no one was able to save him from the ravages of a virulent super bug. And absolutely heartsick for my friend Mary, who should not be a widow at such a young age, and for Ella, who should have had so many more years to enjoy her doting father's company.

Randy, it was a magnificent funeral. The tributes were amazing. The hall was packed.

But it shouldn't have happened for several more decades.

Rest in peace, my friend.

Celebrating 100 Years of Baseball's Most Beloved Ballpark

Steve Paikin — Fri, 20 Apr 12 10:23:30 GMT

We don't normally talk about baseball or baseball stadiums in this space.

But today is no normal day.

It's the 100th anniversary of what is quite frankly one of the most beautiful places on earth. It's certainly, in my view, the most glorious place in the world to watch a baseball game.

Fenway Park in Boston looks nothing today like it did 100 years ago. As Glenn Stout describes in his wonderful book "Fenway 1912," the park is no longer the same shape or size it once was. The outfield dimensions are different. There was no "Green Monster," that absurdly high wall in left field that seems to be just a few metres behind shortstop. That nickname wouldn't show up 'til the 1970s.

Capacity was 14,000 fewer back then. The floor wasn't concrete as it is today. It was dirt (or more accurately, mud as it often was on rainy days). And the lights wouldn't be installed until 1947 meaning no night games for the first three and a half decades.

There's also a Canadian connection here. James McLaughlin was the 37-year-old architect who designed the park. He was born in Halifax.

Fenway's first ever game was actually not a Major League game. It was an exhibition game on April 9, between the Red Sox and Harvard University's baseball team. Just 3,000 people turned out to see the home team win 2-0.

Fenway's opening should have been the biggest story in New England. But of course, it wasn't. New Englanders were as obsessed with the story of an unsinkable ship going down off the coast of Newfoundland as anyone.

Opening Day was, in typical Boston fashion, rained out. But on April 20, 1912, four-and-a-half months and $600,000 later, Fenway Park opened for business.

The left field wall in Fenway Park has been affectionately known since the 1970s as "The Green Monster."

Who threw out the first pitch? It was future President John F. Kennedy's grandfather --- John "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald, the mayor of Boston. And the good guys beat the New York Yankees 7-6 before 24,000 fans. Sadly for Sox fans, that outcome wouldn't happen nearly enough over the ensuing 100 years.

The greatest pitching matchup of Fenway's first season: Boston's 23-year-old phenom "Smokey" Joe Wood against the Washington Senators' legendary veteran Walter Johnson, who although only a year older, had already won 100 games and would eventually win 417 over a magnificent 21 season career.

In 1912, Wood went went an astonishing 30-4 for the Sox. He pitched 344 innings (nowadays, pitchers are considered sturdy if they pitch 250).

Johnson merely notched a 29-10 record. A Wood-Johnson pitching matchup may have been, pure and simply, the greatest of all time.

One of Fenway's signature delights: the hand-operated scoreboard at the base of The Green Monster

New England's economy was firing on all cylinders in 1912. And the owners of the park quickly learned their new facility was too small. Fans actually stood on the field, in foul territory, or in some cases, in the outfield itself. So nearly another 12,000 seats were added, bringing capacity to 38,600, in time for the World Series.

The 1912 World Series featured the Red Sox and National League champion New York Giants. The Sox won the series in dramatic fashion, capturing game seven by a 3-2 score. That Sox team won 109 games, a record that still stands a century later. And the last living member of that team? Smokey Joe Wood, who died in 1985 at age 95.

The 1912 championship trophy is on display at Fenway Park today.

While Fenway Park's inaugural season ended in glorious fashion, baseball fans will know the future wasn't as kind to the Beantowners. The Red Sox traded their star pitcher/outfielder Babe Ruth to the Yankees after winning the 1918 World Series, and for the next 86 years, the Bosox often came close, but never won it all. That drought was nicknamed "The Curse of the Bambino."

Wonderful renovations to Fenway include these banners to the all-time greats.

But things turned around in March, 2002, when the current Red Sox ownership group led by John Henry and Tom Werner purchased the team and the park for $286 million. They poured millions into recapturing Fenway's nostalgic beauty and succeeded brilliantly.

The Sox pay tribute to several of their all-time greats with their retired numbers on the right field wall facing.

1 - Bobby Doerr. 4 - Joe Cronin. 6 - Johnny Pesky. 8 - Carl Yastrzemski. 9 - Ted Williams. 14 - Jim Rice. 27 - Carlton Fisk

(Number 42 is retired in every major league ball park for Jackie Robinson, the majors' first ever black player.)

The Red Sox broke the Bambino's curse in 2004 and 2007, winning both World Series in four straight games, and the team is easily worth north of a billion dollars today.

This sculpture rests outside the ball park, honouring Ted Williams, Johnny Pesky, Bobby Doerr, and Dom DiMaggio.

In my next blog post, I'll share some personal memories of America's Most Beloved Ballpark, so named by its owners for one very good reason.

Because it is.

Guest Post: Was Quebec Represented Or Not?

Steve Paikin — Tue, 17 Apr 12 16:51:54 GMT

A Constitutional follow-up from Jennifer Wallner, professor in the School of Political Studies, at the University of Ottawa.

So, Andrew Coyne and others have made the argument that 72 of the 75 federal Members of Parliament from Quebec agreed to patriation. Hence, ipso facto, Quebec agreed and everyone should get over it.

There are two problems with this argument.

First, Quebecers voted for Trudeau and the Liberals on the campaign commitment to patriate the Constitution with adjustments that reflected Quebec's distinct status within the country – as the second of two nations that came together to forge Canada's federation. However, the subsequent agreement that was reached (save for one exclusion on minority language) did not reflect Quebec's position and so while the federal Quebec MPs voted in favour of it (largely due to party discipline) the province rejected it. Among other things the lasting legacy of this betrayal, if you will, has been the depletion of the federal Liberal vote in the province. Moreover, whenever another federal party – i.e., the Conservatives with the Parliamentary Declaration or the NDP with the Sherbrooke Declaration – signal a willingness to re-open the Constitution, Quebecers tend to vote for them. Consequently, it seems clear that Quebec – and its citizens – remains isolated from the Constitution.

Second – the argument ignores the fact that as a federation, Canadians have two types of representatives – those they vote for to represent their interests in Ottawa (federal MP) and those they vote to represent their provincial interests (MPP in ON, MLAs in other provinces). During patriation, it was the provincial representatives from the Parti Quebecois in Quebec that were representing the interests of the province – defending its powers, defending its priorities. Consequently, the argument that the 72 federal MPs agreed hence Quebec agreed entirely misses the federal principle of the division of powers between two orders of government.

The Three Amigos of The Constitution: Thirty Years Later

Steve Paikin — Tue, 17 Apr 12 16:29:43 GMT

The Three Amigos of the Constitution, together again.

Thirty years ago today, Canada's repatriated its Constitution with an amending formula and accompanying Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

History will record that one of the possible breakthroughs to making that agreement come to pass took place in a kitchenette in the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa. The Three Amigos of the Constitution, as they've come to be called, knew each other well, despite all being from different backgrounds, different provinces, and different parties.

But then Justice Minister Jean Chretien, and then attorneys-general Roy McMurtry and Roy Romanow, found the beginnings of a compromise that resulted in the Queen signing our new Constitution on April 17, 1982 on a rainy day in Ottawa.

The Three Amigos gathered in our TVO studios today to go over the events of that time, and tackle some lingering questions:

* Quebec didn't sign off on the deal. Was it impossible to believe that the separatist premier Rene Levesque would have signed off on any agreement?

* Could Pierre Trudeau rightly claim that Quebec was happy with the agreement, given that 72 of his MPs from Quebec were representated at the table, as was the prime minister and the justice minister?

The two Roys: McMurtry and Romanow, attorneys-general of Ontario and Saskatchewan respectively 30 years ago.

* Would it have been better for Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to have acted unilaterally, without any provincial support, thereby not allowing Quebec to see itself as isolated or humiliated?

* Did Ontario Premier William Davis's late night call to Pierre Trudeau really break the logjam and get the prime minister to compromise?

* And perhaps less ominously, what swear word did Jean Chretien utter when signing the Constitution that got the Queen to smile?

All asked and answered during our conversation, which will air tomorrow night (Wednesday, April 18, 2012) at 8 and 11 p.m. on TVO.

Canada's 20th prime minister, Jean Chretien, in the makeup room before today's taping.

We add this one just for fun. That's our producer, one-year-old Allison Buchan-Terrell, on Jean Chretien's lap 26 years ago...and again today.

Thirty Years Ago Tomorrow, Canada Got Its Own Constitution

Steve Paikin — Mon, 16 Apr 12 12:24:15 GMT

Thirty years ago tomorrow, Queen Elizabeth II visited Parliament Hill to sign the most important political document in Canadian history.

Pierre Trudeau looks on as Queen Elizabeth II signs the new Constitution Act, April 17, 1982.

Photo Credit: Library and Archives Canada/e008300499

Until that moment, Canada's Constitution consisted of an act of the British Parliament, passed in 1867. If we wanted it amended, we had to ask Britain to do so.

Several attempts had been made to rectify this situation, but none succeeded.

But a series of events began to unfold, starting in 1979, that eventually led to the Queen's visit on the rainy day that was April 17, 1982.

* PC Prime Minister Joe Clark lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons in late 1979, sending Canadians back to the polls after just nine months.

* Pierre Trudeau, after announcing he was stepping down as Liberal leader, was suddenly back in 24 Sussex Drive, having won the ensuing 1980 election.

* Quebec had its first referendum on sovereignty after that election. The separatist government of Rene Levesque lost badly, 59-41%.

* As part of his referendum campaign, Trudeau promised to relaunch constitutional negotiations.

* In November, 1981, all the first ministers gathered at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa to embark on those negotiations.

* Just when things seemed hopeless, three attorneys-general (Jean Chretien of Canada, Roy McMurtry of Ontario, and Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan) met in a kitchenette of the hotel and hammered out the beginnings of a compromise.

The Three Amigos of the Constitution: McMurtry, Chretien, and Romanow

* Trudeau got his charter of rights and freedoms, the provinces got their "notwithstanding clause" enabling them to override judicial decisions they opposed, but only for a fixed period of time. And ten of eleven first ministers agreed on an amending formula as well.

The one sour note: Rene Levesque left the proceedings, meaning Quebec's "signature" wasn't on the constitution (although Quebec was still bound by it).

We'll do two programs on this: tonight with four legal scholars and "The Last Act" author Ron Graham on how it all came together, and the ramifications of Quebec's being left out.

And then on Wednesday night, reminiscing with Jean Chretien, Roy McMurtry, and Roy Rowmanow about the agreement they worked out in the kitchen.

Getting Long Term Care Right in Ontario - Part II

Steve Paikin — Thu, 12 Apr 12 15:27:34 GMT

Last time, we outlined some of the issues facing the long-term care sector in Ontario.

Don Drummond, who headed the task force recommending how to get to a balanced budget, predicted the strain on our long-term care sector "is going to be incredible."

Guests at a conference mounted by the Ontario Long Term Care Association insist we need a more mature discussion about the end of life.

Something that other countries have begun to do, that critics say we're way behind on, is having the so-called "adult conversation about the end of life." A recent conference held by the Ontario Long Term Care Association didn't shy away from the issue.

"We need to have a broader dialogue about ageing," says Shirley Sharkey of St. Elizabeth Health Care, a non-profit organization. "The key is to feel more empowered about the end of your life. Your treatment. Your experience. Deciding on the kind of death you want should be a normal conversation. Right now, it's horrible."

Tom Closson, former head of the Ontario Hospital Association, and Shirley Sharkey, president and CEO of St. Elizabeth Health Care

Here's the math: 1% of our population uses 50% of our health care resources, according to Tom Closson, former head of the Ontario Hospital Association.

"And most of that happens close to the end of life," Closson says. "We have to do a better job making it a more pleasant experience."

And then Closson added the kicker: "The majority of the population agrees with euthanasia. It's the politicians that don't."

Closson recalled one case from Sunnybrook Hospital that ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. A patient was in the final stages of life, suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, curled up in a ball, completely non-responsive.

Sharkey with Don Drummond, former chief economist at the TD Bank and head of the special task force to balance Ontario's budget.

"The family insisted on keeping the patient hooked up to all sorts of stuff," Closson recalled. "It's a total misuse of resources."

"We got here because of the power of technology," adds Ron Sapsford, Ontario's former deputy minister of health, now the head of the Ontario Medical Association.

"It seems that death is not an option. Well, the health care system needs to lead a debate about this. Polticians can't."

Closson points out the obvious obstacle to any discussion about changing the way we treat patients at the end of their lives.

The recently retired head of the OHA, Tom Closson

"Twenty-five per cent of all hospital funding goes to Roman Catholic hospitals," he says. "They'd be totally opposed."

And so, the math continues to scream at us: Ontario has an aging population, doesn't spend enough of its health care resources keeping people well (as opposed to treating them after they're sick), and the last Ontario budget insists it'll hold health care spending increases to 2.1%, after typically increasing funding by anywhere from 5 to 10% per year for decades.

Without significantly changing the way we do business, it's hard to see how we avoid the looming crisis of trying to appropriately treat our parents and grandparents towards the end of their lives.

(PS: Our Sandra Gionas, who produces most of our health care programs, is pulling something together on this subject. Watch for it in the weeks ahead).

Getting Long Term Care Right in Ontario - Part I

Steve Paikin — Wed, 11 Apr 12 10:06:01 GMT

First up, full disclosure.

My wife, who's a health policy consultant, wrote an op-ed piece for the Toronto Star, about spending smarter in our long term health care system.

Then, I attended a conference put on by Ontario's Long Term Care Association dealing with the same issues. And here's what I learned there.

* The Ontario Government wants to hold health care spending increases to 2.1% this year.

* Inflation will eat up at least 2% of that.

* Our ageing/graying population will eat up another 2% in cost increases.

* Our growing population will cost another 1%.

So, as you can see, a 2.1% increase in health spending won't begin to cover the exigencies of the current situation. Which means we've simply got to do things differently, if we want to have a fighting chance at giving older Ontarians the care they expect to have going forward.

Are we doing the big picture things that need doing to meet that challenge?

Not according to the folks in the audience I spoke to. Those people say the government today is far more focused on "silly regulations, like how big the scoop of potatoes has to be on each client's plate," rather than overall service outcomes.

Former Deputy Minister of Health Ron Sapsford (right), and Don Drummond

When former deputy minister of health Ron Sapsford, now the head of the Ontario Medical Assciation suggested "there's no standard on the scoop of potatoes in the Ontario Ministry of Health," he was shouted down by many members of the crowd who shot back, "Oh yes there is!"

Although it sounds trite to say it, experts say there really is only one, overarching way to make all of the above math work out.

"We've got to focus on keeping people healthy," says Tom Closson, the just retired head of the Ontario Hospital Association.

"We're spending $192 billion a year on health care in Canada," adds Don Drummond, author of the most discussed task force report for the Ontario Government in decades. "And we're not getting our money's worth."

Drummond pointed out that Denmark has not needed to increase the number of long term care facilities in that country since 1987, "Because doctors are keeping people out of them."

Danes are apparently healthy longer than we are, and oftentimes when seniors have to go into long term care facilities, they get such good care that their condition improves, and they can leave, moving back home.

Former OHA President Tom Closson, Shirley Sharkee of St. Elizabeth Health Care, Don Drummond, and Ron Sapsford.

Shirley Sharkee, CEO of St. Elizabeth Health Care, a non-profit charitable home care organization, says we have to figure out how to keep people in the community longer. "We need a broader dialogue about ageing," she says.

Drummond adds the current system produces more doctors to look after the young than the old, even though older Ontarians are the fastest-growing demographic. "That makes no sense," he says.

And we, ourselves, aren't preparing for old age at all. Drummond says the average Canadian has $35,000 in his or her registered retirement savings plan, and even the top 20% of Canadians only have an average of $110,000 in their plan --- not nearly adequate to deal with a population whose citizens now routinely live into their 80s and beyond.

"The strain on the long term care sector is going to be incredible," Drummond says. "We've got to get people in, get 'em better, and get 'em out. Long term care facilities don't have to be places to go to die."

Next time, we'll talk about something this group of experts says too few of us want to discuss --- but we should.

The right to die.

A Memorable Day for Autism Awareness

Steve Paikin — Wed, 04 Apr 12 09:48:39 GMT

Every year, Conservative MP Mike Lake from Edmonton makes a speech in Parliament about his teenaged son Jaden. Jaden has autism.

This year's speech, on Monday, April 2, 2012, was unforgettable.

So, I think, was this interview we did with Mike and Jaden in our studios the following day. Have a look.

The End of a Very Sad Life

Steve Paikin — Tue, 03 Apr 12 20:51:02 GMT

Back in 2000, a Canadian named William Sampson was falsely accused of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. He was detained and tortured for nearly three years. Canadian authorities did next to nothing to help him.

His tragic life came to a premature end last week, when Sampson died of a heart attack in England, just three weeks shy of his 53rd birthday.

He chronicled his harrowing experience in "Confessions of an Innocent Man: Torture and Survival in a Saudi Prison."

I interviewed Sampson for Studio 2.

Getting More Civility into Politics

Steve Paikin — Fri, 30 Mar 12 17:09:15 GMT

If you're a political junkie, we've got the show for you tonight.

Four former speakers of the Ontario Legislature will be on to discuss the lack of civility in public life these days, and whether we can make any improvements.

The speakers are David Warner, Alvin Curling, Gary Carr, and Steve Peters.

When Peters was speaker (2007-2011), he commissioned a study to see what could be done about the appalling lack of civility in politics. His report is reproduced below:

Steve Peters, photographed with the artist who will paint his portrait to be hung in the Legislature in June.

* * *

The Speaker's Challenge:

Order in the House

Procedure, Problems, Perceptions and Possible Solutions

Briefing Notes prepared for Speaker Steve Peters

Notes prepared by the Journals and Procedural Research Branch

October 2011

Note

The issue of order and decorum (or lack thereof ) in the House is quite topical, and has been here in Canada for at least the past decade. While there is ample literature available on the topic, one thing becomes quickly apparent: the discussion almost always focuses on one aspect of the Parliamentary day - Question Period. There is rarely any discussion of lack of decorum as being problematic outside of Question Period. This is certainly true in the literature focusing on Canada, but is also the prevalent theme elsewhere. In Australia and New Zealand, it is Question Time that is the focus. In the UK, it is Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs).*

The argument that Question Period is the most indecorous part of the Parliamentary day is certainly supported by evidence here in Ontario. During Speaker Peters' tenure as Speaker, 80% of the Members he named were named during Oral Questions. While the most serious breach of decorum during his tenure occurred during Members' Statements (the Murdoch-Hillier incident of 30 November - 1 December 2009), this does not change the fact that outside of Oral Questions, order and decorum wasn't much of an issue during other daily House Business.

Consequently, the information herein also focuses the issue primarily on Question Period.

______________

*In the United Kingdom, the focus is always on the weekly half-hour PMQs. There is almost no discussion of the daily Oral Questions to Ministers, which are normally conducted in a very decorous, respectful way by all Members present. PMQs is the "show" equivalent of Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons and the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

1. Procedural Aspects

a) The Standing Orders

The Standing Orders give the Speaker responsibility for preserving order and decorum

The Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario state that the Speaker "shall preserve order and decorum"[1] and provide a long list of grounds on which a Member may be called to order.[2] Some are quite specific, others less so.
Unparliamentary language - very broad umbrella term since it includes anything that causes disorder in the House.
Obvious forms of unparliamentary language: the use of abusive, insulting or threatening language. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language, words and gestures.
Sometimes less obvious. There is no fixed list of unparliamentary terms. Often, when dealing with unparliamentary language, the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking greatly affect how the Speaker will rule. The Speaker will also consider to whom the unparliamentary language was directed and whether the remarks caused disorder in the House. Because of this, something ruled unparliamentary one day might not be deemed unparliamentary the next day. General remarks, which would otherwise be unparliamentary, may be allowed if they are not directed at a particular Member.

b) The Role of the Speaker

The Speaker must assess the mood of the House on a day to day basis
The Speaker must be impartial: Speaker Milliken writes that he or she must function as adjudicator, even peacemaker and vigorously defend the rights and privileges of all Members without exception; be respectful of the role of leaders and whips and know how to deal with them; make efforts to remind the House regularly that he or she is there to serve all Members and to enforce only those rules decided upon by the Members themselves. "The toleration of some indecorous behaviour is preferable to creating the impression that the Speaker is intervening in a partial or partisan fashion."[3]
The Speaker needs to be media-savvy, available for interviews, to be able to explain to the media why he or she ruled in a certain way
It helps to have a sense of humour

2. Research Conducted on the Issue or that Touches on the Subject

a) New Zealand

Restoring Public Confidence in Parliament: A Report from The Committee of Former Speakers of the House to the Association of Former Members of Parliament (New Zealand, May 1998)[4]

Report came about due to concerns re: the "extremely low public perceptions of the performance and relevance of the House of Representatives" because "it indicates that the public not only feels contempt for the Parliament, but has also become cynical about the whole democratic process."
Was the resounding message in the submissions received - obvious connection between the low esteem in which the public holds MPs and the behaviour of MPs in the Chamber;
Declining respect attributed to (among many other things): failure of some MPs to treat formal work of Parliament and committees as a serious matter - very evident during Question Time and much debating time - constant barrage of background interjection rather than the reasonable interjection made at the appropriate moment. "Members have a compulsion to exert dominance over their opponents by putting them down, which encourages personality politics. Few members have the skill to do this without causing offense and retaliation. Incentives reinforce this - members get press coverage for confrontational conduct and approval from fellow MPs for point-scoring in debate."

b) Canada

MP, Interrupted: Heckling in the House of Commons (Mackenzie Grisdale, Parliamentary Intern 2010-2011, June 2011)[5]

This is a comprehensive analysis of heckling in the Canadian House of Commons (near the end of the 40^th Parliament). While it purports to look at heckling throughout all items of House Business, it focuses primarily on Question Period, which is when heckling is far more prevalent
MPs who responded to the survey said heckling takes place frequently (63%) or continuously (18%) and far more likely to occur during Question Period than at any other time in a typical sitting day (p. 5)
Most MPs do think heckling is problematic (60%) (p. 8) and also agree it is a fact of life in the House (61%) (p.9)
MPs also overwhelmingly (95%) believe that the public views heckling and MPs who heckle with disdain (p. 9)
Over a third (36.7%) of MPs indicated that heckling caused them to reduce their participation at least occasionally.
Comments from MPs who said heckling discourages them from participating include: "Disrespect demotivates," "I turn my earpiece off and also escape to the lounge whenever possible," "I usually attend Question Period, debates etc. but choose to just tune out the discussion and work on constituent emails, letters etc," "I find I lose my concentration,” and "Why participate in Q+A or in debate if someone just disregards your position and tries to belittle you."
MPs also noted more conspicuous effects of heckling. Several pointed out that the noise makes it difficult to concentrate. One NDP MP described "a private member's statement that I made that was completely drowned out by heckles made in reference to another party's private member's statement... An indication of the level of volume was …the request by the Hansard office for the text of my statement as they could barely hear it." In such cases, heckling presents a very practical challenge to the business of the House.

c) "It's My Party": Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered (The MP Exit Interview Reports #3 by Samara and the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, 2011)[6]

Following Samara's first two reports, The Accidental Citizen? and Welcome to Parliament: A Job With No Description, this report highlights the frustrations that former MPs felt about the way politics is practiced in Parliament. Not specifically about the issue of lack of decorum in the House, but the subject is raised by the MPs interviewed, particularly in relation to Question Period and the roles the parties play in staging the "show".
Most MPs claimed to be embarrassed by their colleagues' behaviour during Question Period. They insisted repeatedly that it misrepresented the daily work of a Parliamentarian, and recognized that, as the primary window into Parliament for most Canadians, Question Period stained the public’s perception of politics and those who practice it. (p.7)
"The unfortunate thing is that Question Period is used as the barometer of what goes on in Ottawa. And unfortunately it is really a zoo. It's theatre," said one MP. "I think that Question Period has become the greatest embarrassment and one of the reasons politicians are frowned upon," admitted another.
When the MPs discussed their work in Ottawa, they said it was only as they moved away from public scrutiny—and the dictates of their party—that they were able to pursue constructive politics. It was in the less publicized venue of committees and the private space of caucus that they said they were able to transcend the partisanship on display on TV, engage in vigorous debates, advance policy issues, work within and across parties to improve legislation, and influence their party leadership.

3. Decorum in the House - How Prevalent a Problem is It?

The issue of decorum (or rather, lack thereof) in the House had been a relatively dominant one in recent years
This is true not only in Ontario, but in other jurisdictions, including Ottawa, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. It has received substantial media attention, and the perception that most politicians behave boorishly in their respective legislative bodies is said by some to be a contributing factor to declining voter participation rates simply because it alienates people from the political process. (see bibliography for complete list of articles accessed)
It is important to assess if this perception of worsening lack of decorum is based on actual fact, and if it is, how widespread is the problem.
A quick survey of media coverage on the subject from Canada, the UK and Australia illustrate one important fact: the focus is almost exclusively on Question Period, or Prime Minister's Questions or Question Time. There is rarely any mention of decorum issues outside of this one parliamentary proceeding.
It is worth asking then, is there a real, widespread problem of decorum in the House, or is this a problem that is largely limited to one parliamentary proceeding, that being Oral Questions?

4. Question Period, PMQs, Question Time: the real problem?

In virtually every parliamentary jurisdiction, oral questions is the most reported on and watched parliamentary proceeding. It is one of the rare times when the Chamber will be full, and is the only item of House Business to receive any regular coverage on nightly newscast, in newspapers, etc.

Question period is what most people see, if they see any coverage of their legislative body, because it is what the media covers. And it is the boorish behaviour of Members in Question period which gives the impression that lack of decorum is rampant in parliament.

What coverage there is in the media, and in particular, on television, of the Canadian House of Commons or provincial assembly will focus almost exclusively on Question Period; in the UK, it is the weekly PMQs, not the daily questions to specific ministries which gets the most coverage; in Australia, the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) carries the first hour of Question Time live every afternoon (interrupting it at 3:00 to cut to another program - the Australian Question Time is 90 minutes long).

Some statistics:

In 2005, the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC)'s viewership of Question Period during the sponsorship scandal, when Question Period was quite boisterous, dropped from 70,000 viewers a minute to 14,000;[7]
In 2007, a research report commissioned by the federal government on Canada's democratic institutions found that quite a number of forum participants called for more decorum, substance and cooperation among Members speaking in Question Period[8]
A poll conducted by Nanos for Policy Options in September 2010 found that the lack of decorum during Question Period left a negative impression on Canadians and undermined the perception of the effectiveness of the House. 64% of those surveyed thought improved behaviour in Question Period would have a positive impact on Parliament. The survey also found that 50% of respondents said they got most of their information on the House of Commons from television[9]
Another survey, also from September 2010, this one by Pollarama for the Public Policy Forum, found that 56% thought less of our system of government when they see scenes from Question Period[10]

On the one hand, the nature of Question Period is meant to be adversarial, with the Opposition seeking to hold the government to account. Boisterous, vigorous debate is to be expected, and indeed, encouraged. The problem is that it has devolved into a forum for seeking political advantage, point scoring.

What will make the news is not the most reasonable, well thought out question, but the most strident, cheap, outrageous accusation or behaviour. In essence, the media will reward lack of decorum over respectful behaviour.[11]

Speaker Milliken stated in an interview with Policy Options that he thought TV had affected the House significantly, and it does so because people (the MPs) want to get on the news:

"It's one thing to be on CPAC, but it's another to get on the news, and what seems to attract media coverage of Question Period or debate in the House is the use of insulting language or something that's fairly offensive. Those are the parts that get played, not what I would call more serious parts of the debate."[12]

Former New Zealand Speaker Margaret Wilson stated in a 2008 speech that the NZ Parliament decided to proceed with the broadcasting of its proceedings on a free to air channel in 2007 largely so citizens could decide for themselves what was happening in Parliament. The edited highlights on the news programmes often did not give a balanced view and naturally concentrated on the sensational incidents that were few but were presented as the norm.[13]

This is reflecting in Speaker Peters' own experience. In his four years as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario he named a total of 15 Members. All but three - 80% - were named during Question Period.

UK House of Commons Speaker John Bercow recognized the negative impression PMQs left with the public in a speech at Sheffield Hallam University on 6 April 2011:[14]

The paradox, of course, is while the outside of Parliament is the object of almost universal recognition and considerable respect, what happens inside is a matter of considerably more measured enthusiasm. (…) I am well aware that much of the public believes that Members of Parliament turn up in numbers only once a week for Prime Minister’s Questions when they behave in a manner which would earn you an ASBO if you were to do the same thing in a Sheffield street (the noise in the chamber is actually, I will tell you privately, even worse when you sit in that chair in the chamber than it might seem on television). Apart from that, the public has firmly concluded from other snapshots of the House of Commons in action, virtually no one is in the chamber so MPs must be off enjoying themselves and presumably at public expense. And, besides which, parliamentarians enjoy holidays of a length that make even university academics look like Third World sweatshop labourers.

Now none of this is true, I should hasten to confirm, but that does not mean that the impression does not exist (it does), is not deeply embedded (it is) and does not become another reason to abandon any idealism about politics or faith in our parliamentary system (a scepticism which elements of the media desperate to insist that politicians are “all the same” and better still “all on the take”, has fanned). The end result is the paradox to which I referred at the outset. At no point in human history can any building be as revered on the outside and maligned on the inside as the contemporary Palace of Westminster.

5. Is the Media the Source of the Problem?

The issue of serious, pervasive lack of decorum is largely limited to Question Period - other business tends to be much more orderly. This is true in Ontario and appears to be similar in other jurisdictions - most criticisms of lack of decorum appear to be related to behaviour of Members during Oral Questions (CAN)/PMQs (UK)/Question Time (AUS)/Question Time (NZ)

This raises an interesting point: in all of these jurisdictions, Oral Questions/PMQs is the one part of the parliamentary day that gets any real, extensive media coverage - ordinary debates and other House Business is largely ignored, or at least, not reported on extensively or live (reporters will usually use the written record). Other proceedings of the House (at least in ON, Ottawa, Westminster) tend to be very sedate, courteous (and sparsely attended) affairs - is this because the media isn't watching, so there is no need (or less need) to "score points" or does the media not bother with these other proceedings because they're staid and boring compared to Oral Questions?

This leads to another chicken/egg relationship with media - Question Period is really the only part of the parliamentary day which gets any press coverage and while the media will frequently deplore MPs behaviour during Question Period, when Question Period is conducted in a more respectful, civilized way, the media will be very critical of that as well.

Media coverage is often contradictory - on the one hand, many reporters, commentators, will be highly critical of the boorish behaviour observed during proceedings (mostly oral questions), but when Question period or PMQs, etc., transpire in a respectful, orderly, way, the media will then complain about that as well - too boring. Some examples of this are provided here.

The United Kingdom

In the UK, particularly quiet/respectful PMQs are berated by the journalists in the UK media who regularly cover the weekly event. For example, the 7 July 2010 edition of PMQs was one such quiet, respectful edition and was described thusly:

Lloyd Evans (The Spectator) in "Bercow's screech" described the proceedings thusly:[15]

"We watched the dullest PMQs of the year. Perhaps for several years."

"The PM is perfectly entitled to stray off-piste and chivvy up his troops by taking some cheap shots at the opposition. It brightens our Wednesdays up." (After the Speaker stopped PM Cameron from quoting from Alastair Campbell's memoirs)

"The house is there to examine the mettle of its leaders under conditions of maximum stress. This means shouting. It means insults. Sometimes it means mayhem too. So be it. This is what politics is - civil war refined into rhetoric. We need to see it in its natural condition."

"[Speaker] Bercow's interfering pedantry threatens to destroy PMQs. (…) If he succeeds in sucking the combative energies out of the chamber and transforming PMQs into a Cheltenham tea-party the viewers will tune out."

Quentin Letts (Daily Mail) in "Squeaker Bercow is talking balls. Really, the man is the most perfect fool":[16]

"We had the most lifeless, least illuminating Prime Minister's Questions I have known since starting in this sketchwriting lark 20 years ago."

Another equally sedate and respectful PMQs occurred on 2 February 2011. Here is some of the media reaction.

Simon Hoggart (The Guardian) in "You cannot be serious, Mr. Cameron": [17]

"It was a shocking experience - the first nice prime minister's questions I can recall. This was a huge disappointment for everyone in the public, press and peers' gallery and for MPs themselves."

"the Commons almost went mad this afternoon. The whole session (…) was conducted in a manner as calm and emollient as the weekend singalong at an old folks' home."

"This is how bad it got. While David Cameron spoke, MPs were talking among themselves. Not barracking, not trying to score points, but chatting to each other because their private conversations were more interesting than anything he might be saying."

"PMQs is our weekly fun. Don't spoil it."

Lloyd Evans (the Spectator) wrote in "As the oldest parliament yawned, the oldest civilisation erupted":[18]

"One yawn every minute. That's how PMQs felt today."

"The mother of parliaments had already put up her feet and was enjoying a sneaky catnap. The clerks yawned. The backbenchers dozed. Lady members twiddled their manicured thumbs. Ministers discreetly scratched their hair transplants."

James Forsyth (The Spectator) in "Consensus reigns over PMQs": [19]

"I must say that the exchanges were a reminder of just how dull PMQs would be it was not confrontational."

The BBC's Justing Parkinson quoted BBC reporter Ben Wright in "The Full Story: PM's Questions" (BBC liveblog):

"So was that a refreshing change or utterly dull?"[20]

Canada (House of Commons)

Media reaction in Canada isn't any different. When the new session of the Canadian House of Commons started up following the 2 May 2011 election, and the NDP pledged to maintain greater respect and decorum during Question Period, the media reacted thusly:

Bryn Weese (Sun News) in "Polite question period is boring as sin" (6 June 2011): [21]

"While Canadians, legislators and the media have been calling for a more respectful question period, just one day into the more demure House of Commons and already some reporters were yearning for the bloodsport of parliaments past.

Turns out question period without heckling is like chicken wings without hot sauce - meaty but bland.

Some parliamentary reporters lamented the boring exchanges as "lifeless", "muted" and "lacklustre" on Twitter Monday."

John Ibbitson (Globe and Mail) wrote in"Will somnolent decorum give way to signs of life, or 69¢ tuna, in the House?" (10 June 2011): [22]

"And through all of this, in the background, there was silence, which is already starting to drive people crazy."

"the painful truth is that, while the theatrics of Question Period in the past may have debased the House of Commons, they enlivened it as well, generating heat if not often much light. This week QP mostly generated a refreshing afternoon nap."

Similarly, when the Reform party tried to make QP more civil and productive in 1993 by asking substantive and genuinely information-seeking questions on the issues of the day, even giving ministers advance notice of the questions they planned to ask to allow them time to prepare substantive answers, they were unsuccessful. Most ministers carried on as usual and the English-language media was very harsh, charging them naivetÃ©, stupidity and ineffectiveness. Even their own supporters began to complain that the Reform MPs were never seen on TV.[23]

This is not to imply that there are no breaches of decorum during other proceedings, but the fact remains that most disorder issues occur during the most public part of the parliamentary day - oral questions.

Most serious incident of disorder during Speaker Peters' tenure occurred during Members' Statements in November-December 2009, when Murdoch and Hillier were both named but refused to leave the chamber, and that continued during the next day's morning session, leading to Question Period effectively being cancelled.[24]

6. Other Possible Aggravating Factors

Heavily scripted proceedings - no freedom for individual MPs to ask questions they want to ask or that are pertinent to people in their constituencies. Overly controlled by party leadership and whips (see the Samara report cited earlier)

Overall frustration with other parliamentary proceedings - use of time allocation motions and other means of curtailing debate - Question Period only real forum in which MPs can vent

Fixed-election dates. There are some suggestions that the move to fixed election dates is a contributing factor. Fixed election date legislation was supposed to even the playing field by removing the advantage the governing party had since it alone knew when it would call an election. However, because all Members know exactly when the next election will be, all parties start unofficial campaigns well in advance. In the Ontario legislature, this was clearly evident. Speaker Peters on record in Hansard on 18 Oct 2010 (almost a full year before the Oct 2011 election) admonishing MPPs:

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm a little disappointed as to the tone within the Legislature today. Yes, I too, like everyone else, recognize that there is an election taking place in a year. But at the same time, this is a place where one can ask questions and answer questions. It is a place for debating. The debate is healthy and it's a part of our democratic process. Bringing things down to a personal level—personal attacks on one another—is not helpful for any of us and, quite honestly, brings down the level of all of the good things that this chamber is supposed to do.[25]

New Brunswick had its first election under fixed election date legislation in 2010, and political observer Don Desserud who had previously strongly supported adopting fixed election legislation, called this phenomenon the "phony campaign" in an article for the CBC last fall:

The long, phoney campaign has had other negative effects. Most people (except political junkies like me) find even a four-week campaign tedious. An election campaign that drags on for four months is interminable. I think many people have become so sick of the electioneering that they've tuned it out completely and I am worried they won't tune back in and show up to vote. Neither have I seen any evidence that the quality of the debate has improved, now that opposition parties have more time to build their policy platforms. If anything, the phoney campaign has dropped the level of debate to new lows.[26]

Increasingly partisan attacks and negative campaigning during election campaigns - some of that spills over into the House after the campaign (and in the lead-up to the election). Case in point in Ottawa, the use of Members' Statements by Conservative MPs to attack the Leader of the Official Opposition. Also, the attack ads and websites run by the Conservative party attacking both Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff as soon as they took over the leadership of the Liberal party - done outside of an election campaign.

Minority government. Speaker Milliken pinpoints 2004 and start of minority governments in Ottawa as turning point for decline in decorum in the House - more procedural games being played, MPs try to use rules to their advantage. Minority government also means MPs are in constant electioneering mode since government might fall at any time. Increases the need to score points and dominate the day's nightly newscasts.

7. Possible solutions: Can anything be done to "fix" this situation to improve decorum?

1. "Fixing" the very nature of Question Period

In Canada there have been calls for reform of Question Period in Ottawa and Queen's Park, proposing to model it more after the format used in the UK (Michael Chong in Ottawa, Steve Clark at Queen's Park)

Michael Chong's proposals include: give the Speaker a stronger mandate to impose discipline on MPs who behave badly; lengthen the time limit for questions and answers; allocate half the questions each day to MPs who are randomly selected (rather than chosen by the caucus leadership); require ministers to answer the questions directed at them; limit the PM's appearance to one day a week (similar to weekly PMQs in the UK)[27]

At Queen's Park, the PCs proposed something similar: dedicating one day a week for questions to the Premier only and the rest of the week aimed at other ministers.[28]

Would this change anything?

UK format more accountable and productive and daily Questions to departments usually very decorous (albeit far less well attended than PMQs - though this will very depending on which ministry is up that day);
A different ministry is questioned for an hour each day, according to a pre-determined rotation. Smaller ministries/agencies are grouped together (2-4) and share the allotted time. Only the minister and parliamentary secretaries from that department are present to answer the questions, which are submitted to them three days beforehand to allow them time to prepare comprehensive answers. Ministers cannot refuse to answer questions or refer them to some other minister from a different department as commonly occurs in Canada. There is no time limit on questions or the answers, but there is a quota. For a single ministry having the full hour, they attempt to fit in 25 questions (this compares to an average of over 40 questions asked in 45 minutes in Ottawa where the time limit is 35 seconds for both questions and answers). The last 10-15 minutes is reserved for "topical" questions - i.e. questions not pre-submitted to the department.
This format is supplemented by the frequent use of Urgent Questions and Ministerial statements, where unlike here, the minister delivers actual useful information (not PR for some government policy or event such as national literacy day etc.), and takes questions from MPs following his or her statement. The statements are actual briefs/updates to the House on on-going government policy or events (i.e. economic updates, updates on the mission in Afghanistan, results of a public consultation process, etc.). For example, in July, at the height of the phone hacking scandal, Prime Minister Cameron delivered a statement to the House on the issue and then took 136 questions from MPs on the matter. Some days in the House of Commons have seen that day's scheduled Questions to whichever ministry followed by an Urgent Question and 3-4 ministerial statements, meaning 4-5 hours were devoted to MPs questioning various ministers.

2. Need for more wide-ranging reforms

In a 2008 speech, New Zealand Speaker Wilson attributed the lack of decorum to: long hours, sessions that go on for an indeterminate time, increased use by the executive of guillotine motions to shorten or avoid opposition scrutiny - leaves opposition feeling increasingly frustrated.

need for larger-scale reforms beyond QP to strengthen the legislature vis a vis the executive, give greater role to backbenchers?
UK implemented many reforms near the end of the previous parliament and more in the current parliament that have done much to strengthen the role and independence of the legislature vis Ã vis the executive. These changes include: committee chairs are elected by their fellow MPs, committee members are elected by their respective party caucuses, thus neither chairs nor members are beholden to party whips for their position on the committees; they created a Backbench Business committee which decides on business of interest to backbench Members that will be debated on certain days; the Coalition government has promised to set up a House Business Committee by 2013 which would determine the Order of Business to be debated in the House (rather than the Government); the Speaker is allowing far more Urgent Questions than previous Speakers (over 60 in the first year); Ministerial statements in the UK are more useful than their Canadian/Ontarian variations - Ministers actually inform the House about an on-going situation (the economy, wars, etc.) and take questions afterwards), etc.

3. Get rid of TV cameras?

Yaroslav Baran, a former senior communications advisor to Stephen Harper and chief of staff to Jay Hill, proposed in Policy Options to ban TV cameras and force reporters to attend in person so that their final reporting is more contextualized account and analysis of the underlying issues. He also notes that reporters who liveblog QP has tended to provide far more context than 15-second QP clips which make the nightly news.[29]

Speaker Milliken also suggested that the situation re: order and decorum during Question Period might be enhanced if the media covered "intelligent questions and answers" rather than focusing on boorish behaviour: "I think that if they played a question and response that were good once a week or twice a week, Members would compete to get on, and I think that would have a significant effect on the type of question that gets asked and the type of response that's given. I think that playing to that would become something that Member would want to do, and it would change the temperature a bit in Question Period for sure and possibly the demeanour as well."[30]

Alternatively, let the cameras show reaction shots. In the ON Legislature and in Ottawa, the camera remains fixed on the person speaking only. If the cameras were allowed to show wider shots, including MPs who were heckling and jeering, that might force some of them to behave more decorously. In the UK, the camera does not remain fixed on the person speaking and viewers do see the reactions of the other MPs. Would this change MPs behaviour? The introduction of cameras into the House of Commons has been cited as the driving force behind ending the desk banging that used to be so prevalent.

4. Relax party discipline

Ultimately, the parties themselves could simply order their caucus to stop the boorish behaviour. The Samara report identified political parties as the cause of much so-called parliamentary dysfunction. Party leadership will dictate which of their Members will participate and how, etc.

Too much focus of questions on scandal, making the other party look bad rather than issues urgent public importance

5. The Sin Bin: an alternative to Naming?

The main disciplinary tool the Speaker has at his or her disposal to use against Members who persist in disorderly conduct is naming. However, this is really a last resort. Speaker Miliken was often criticised for not more aggressively enforcing the rules and naming disruptive MPs. The problem with naming Members, as Speaker Miliken points out, is that it almost rewards bad behaviour because the expelled Member runs to the lobby and TV cameras and ends up getting more air time than Members who are behaving more responsibly. This is why Miliken was loathe to name MPs during QP. Also more problematic during minority government situation since it could mean missing important votes and ultimately increase tension in the House.

A possible solution to that might be a variation of Australia's "sin bin"[31]

Australia's House of Representatives has a standing order [94(a)] which provides that the Speaker may direct a Member who is being disorderly to leave the Chamber for an hour. This is seen as an alternative to naming a Member, which bars the Member for the remainder of the parliamentary day. This rule, commonly known as "sin binning", was introduced in 1994 and is seen as a means of removing a sources of disorder, rather than a punishment, enabling a situation to be defused before it deteriorates and without disrupting procedures more than necessary. A Member who is sin binned may not enter the Chamber galleries or the room in which main committee meets. It is the parliamentary equivalent of being sent to a penalty box – or a time-out corner.

In Conclusion

Most of the above are all changes that are beyond the Speaker's remit and power. These are changes the legislature itself would have to want to investigate and implement.

While the Speaker can't change the structure of QP, he or she could take one initiative to at least prompt discussion. In 1992, House of Commons Speaker Fraser convened an unofficial advisory committee to study the problem of heckling and decorum in the House. While nothing came of that report - the House never debated the committee's recommendations – another legislature might be more receptive.

It is clear, however, that the Speaker does have a role to play. A survey conducted found that the 40^th Parliament in Ottawa ended with many MPs wanting a more interventionist Speaker, and that Speaker Milliken's wariness to fully enforce existing rules of decorum was cited by many MPs as part of the problem.[32] Indeed, new Speaker Scheer in his first address to the House upon his election promised that he would make certain that "members who refuse to follow the rules of debate will not b allowed to speak until they have demonstrated the respect deserved by an institution as important as the House of Commons."[33]

Speaker Bercow in the United Kingdom has been actively campaigning to restore more order to PMQs:[34]

As far as most of the public is concerned, Prime Minister's Questions is the shop window of the House of Commons. The media coverage of that thirty minute slot dominates all other proceedings in Parliament during the rest of the week. If the country comes to an adverse conclusion about the House because of what it witnesses in those exchanges, then the noble work of a dozen Select Committees will pale into insignificance by comparison. If we are serious about enhancing the standing of the House in the eyes of those whom we serve then we cannot ignore the seriously impaired impression which PMQs has been and is leaving on the electorate. It is the elephant in the green room.

There will be some of my colleagues who I expect, very sincerely, to disagree with me. They argue that PMQs is splendid theatre, that it is secretly loved by those watching on television and that it is even therapeutic for parliamentarians to let their lungs loose on a weekly basis. I have to say that I find this argument utterly unconvincing. On the basis of its logic, bear-baiting and cock-fighting would still be legal activities. To my mind, the last nail in the coffin of the case for PMQs as it occurs today was hammered in by the leaders’ debates during the general election campaign. The rules for those encounters included, you may recall, a prohibition on cheering or chanting from the audience. Does anyone plausibly contend that the cut and thrust of debate between messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg suffered as a consequence? Did anybody at home feel short-changed by the absence of cat-calling? (…)

All of which leaves us with the PMQs seen in the last Parliament. We reached the point where almost nothing was deemed beyond the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day, where the party leaders were responsible for a third of all the questions asked (and often more like 50 to 60% of the total time consumed) all set against a background of noise which makes the vuvuzela trumpets of the South African World Cup appear but distant whispers by comparison. If it is scrutiny at all, then it is scrutiny by screetch which is a very strange concept to my mind. The academic analysis does not make for enjoyable reading either. A survey by the Regulatory Policy Institute of all PMQs posed in 2009 concluded that the Prime Minister had answered only 56 per cent of all questions asked of him. If it seems harsh to cite Gordon Brown in this fashion then it should be observed that the same survey determined that only 56 per cent of the questions asked of him were actually genuine questions in the first place. What the detailed exercise revealed, depressingly, was that PMQs had become a litany of attacks, soundbites and planted questions from across the spectrum. It was emphatically not an act of scrutiny conducted in a civilised manner. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the House of Commons has allowed to be placed in what I repeat is the shop window.

Bercow's suggestions for improving the situation are:

Address the culture of PMQs, which he admits only the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition can do - to agree on a common understanding of behaviour, "one which offered teeth to our existing code of conduct". "A compact between the party leaders, endorsed by the Whips, would allow Speakers present and future to enforce order far more vigorously with the parliamentary equivalent of Yellow and Red Cards available at their disposal if that were to prove absolutely necessary."
Shift the focus back to backbenchers. Does the leader of the Opposition really need as many as six questions? That allocation would be more acceptable if the session was 45 or even 60 minutes long.
The content of PMQs - is it the right device for ensuring effective scrutiny? Should it be supplemented by other institutions? Are open questions posed in an attempt to catch the PM out actually the best means of inquiry?

Bibliography

Newspaper/media articles

Ontario

Coyle, Jim. "Some answers for question period." The Hamilton Spectator. 23 April 2008.

Coyle, Jim. "Disgraceful show put on by PC caucus". Toronto Star. 2 December 2009.

Radwanski, Adam. "The questionable value of Question Period." Globe and Mail. 28 February 2011.

Talaga, Tanya. "Tories mull US-style recall power in Ontario." Toronto Star. 10 March 2011.

Canada

Beardsley, Keith. "House of Commons Decorum". The Huffington Post (Canada). 30 May 2011.

Bell, Sonya. "Exit Interview: Peter Milliken and the decline of decorum." iPolitics.ca. 26 May 2011.

Delacourt, Susan. "Common(s) behaviour". Toronto Star. 26 October 2009.

Desserud, Don. "Fixed election dates a failure". CBC News. 5 September 2010.

Heartfield, Kate. "Don't wish for a return to the monkey house." Ottawa Citizen. 18 June 2011.

Hebert, Chantal. "Question Period noise drowns out deeper well of respect". Toronto Star. 20 September 2010.

Ibbitson, John. "Will somnolent decorum give way to signs of life, or 69¢ tuna, in the House?" Globe and Mail. 10 June 2011.

Kennedy, Mark. "Canadians give Parliament's question period 2 thumbs down". Postmedia News. 15 September 2010.

Kennedy, Mark. "Tory MP renews crusade for dignity and decorum in the Commons." Postmedia News. 5 October 2011.

Manning, Preston. "The answer to our unruly Question Period?" Globe and Mail. 21 March 2010.

Murphy, Rex. "Until Canadian politicians grow up, Question Period can't be saved". National Post. 27 September 2010.

O'Connor, Fiona. "Civility in the House and on the Campaign Trail". Samaracanada.com.

Thompson, Elizabeth. "The Speaker". Canadian Lawyer Magazine. July 2011.

Weese, Bryn. "Polite question period is boring as sin". Sun News. 6 June 2011.

Wells, Paul. "Stop the madness". Macleans.ca. 5 June 2009.

Wherry, Aaron. "A plea for decency". Macleans.ca. 14 December 2010.

Australia

Dale, Iain. "Viewpoint: Australia's incredible parliament". BBC News. 1 June 2011.

Hudson, Philip. "Speaker says what's on his mind". Herald Sun. 15 September 2011.

Parliament of Australia. "A look at Question Time and the general discussion of parliamentary behaviour". Transcript from "Ring the Bells" (radio program). 5 May 1989.

Wilson, Jason. "Iain Dale's whinge about Australia's Parliament", Restless Capital. 2 June 2011.

United Kingdom

Evans, Lloyd. "Bercow's screech". The Spectator. 7 July 2010.

Evans, Lloyd. "As the oldest parliament yawned, the oldest civilisation erupted". The Spectator. 2 February 2011.

Forsyth, James. "Consensus reigns over PMQs". The Spectator. 2 February 2011.

Hoggart, Simon. "You cannot be serious, Mr. Cameron". The Guardian. 3 February 2011.

Letts, Quentin. "Squeaker Bercow is talking balls. Really, the man is the most perfect fool". Daily Mail. 8 July 2010.

Parkinson, Justin. "The Full Story: PM's Questions". BBC News. 2 February 2011.

Wintour, Patrick. "John Bercow: parliament has rediscovered its 'balls'". The Guardian. 22 July 2011.

Speeches

Bercow, Rt. Hon. John. "Review of Prime Minister's Questions". Speech to the Centre for Parliamentary Studies. 6 July 2010.

Bercow, Rt. Hon. John. "Taking Parliament to the People - the Next Steps". Speech at Sheffiedl Hallam University. 6 April 2011.

Harris, Ian. "Canadian Influences on the Constitutional and Procedural Development of the Australian House of Representatives". Presentation for the Canadian Clerks-at-the-Table annual Professional Development Seminar, Whitehorse, Yukon, 31 July - 4 August 2006.

Scheer, Hon. Andrew. Remarks to the House of Commons following election as Speaker. Debates, 2 June 2011.

Wilson, Hon. Margaret. "Keeping Order and Fostering Decorum - A New Zealand Perspective". Speech to Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers. 3 January 2008.

Journal Articles and Reports

Baran, Yaroslav and Fox, Graham. "Fixing Parliament, From Committees to QP: A Conversation about Parliamentary Reform". Policy Options, pp. 43-49. September 2010.

Cargill, Ken. Question Time: Questionable Questioning with Few Answers. Democratic Audit of Australia. November 2002.

Committee of Former Speakers of the House. "Restoring Public Confidence in Parliament". Report to the Association of Former Members of Parliament. May 1998.

Conley, Richard S. "The Transformation of Question Period". Canadian Parliamentary Review, pp. 46-51. Autumn 2011.

Grisdale, Mackenzie. MP, Interrupted: Heckling in the House of Commons. Parliamentary Internship Programme. 20 June 2011.

Harris, Ian. "Question time: impartial Speakers and dissent from rulings. Some comments on the House of Representatives' experience". Democratic Audit of Australia. March 2006.

"It's My Party": Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered". Samaracanada.org. The MP Exit Interview Reports #3.

MacDonald, L. Ian. "A conversation with the Speaker". Policy Options, pp. 12-16. September 2010.

Milliken, Peter. "Reflections on the Speakership". Canadian Parliamentary Reviews. Vol. 34, no. 3, 2011.

Nanos, Nik. "Canadians Tuned-out and Turned-off with the House of Commons". Policy Options, pp. 1-4. Spetember 2010.

Ryan, Frances H. "Can Question Period be Reformed?" Canadian Parliamentary Review, pp. 18-22. Autumn 2009.

[1] Standing Order 13(a).

[2] Standing Order 23.

[3] P. Milliken, "Reflections on the Speakership", Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 34, no. 3, 2011, pp. 1-3. www.revparl.ca/34/3/34n3_11e_Milliken.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2011.

[4] Restoring Public Confidence in Parliament, New Zealand 1998. http://www.mdl.co.nz/site/mckinley/files/Former%20Speakers%20Report.pdf. Accessed 16 October 2011. (see pages i, 6-7)

[5] M. Grisdale, MP, Interrupted: Heckling in the House of Commons, June 2011. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=205&art=1447. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[6] Samara, "It's My Party": Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered, 2011. http://www.samaracanada.com/Report3_Context. Accessed online 13 October 2011.

[7] F. Ryan, "Can Question Period be Reformed?" (Canadian Parliamentary Review, Autumn 2009) p. 18. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=195&art=1344. Accessed online 13 October 2011.

[8] Ibid. p. 18.

[9] N. Nanos, "Canadians Tuned-out and Turned-off with the House of Commons" (Policy Options, September 2010), pp. 1-4. www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep10/nanos.pdf. Accessed online October 12 2011.

[10] M. Kennedy, "Canadians give Parliament's question period 2 thumbs down", Postmedia News, September 15, 2010. http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians+give+Parliament+question+period+thumbs+down/3530096/story.html. Accessed online 13 October 2011.

[11] K. Beardsley, "House of Commons Decorum", Huffington Post Canada, 30 May 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/keith-beardsley/parliament-rules_b_868093.html. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[12] P. Milliken as quoted in "A Conservation with the Speaker", Policy Options, September 2010, p. 13. http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep10/milliken.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2011.

[13] Speech by the Hon. Margaret Wilson, MP, Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives to the Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers, 3 January 2008. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/Speaker/Speeches/7/3/0/00SpeakSpeech030120081-Keeping-order-and-fostering-decorum-a-New-Zealand.htm. Accessed online 16 October 2011.

[14] Speaker Bercow, "Taking Parliament to the People - The Next Steps", speech at Sheffield Hallam University, 6 April 2011. http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/taking-parliament-to-the-people---the-next-steps/. Accessed online 13 October 2010.

[15] Lloyd Evans, "Bercow's screech", The Spectator, 7 July 2010. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6127973/bercows-screech.thtml. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[16] Q. Letts, "Squeaker Bercow is talking balls. Really, the man is the most perfect fool", Daily Mail, 8 July 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292903/QUENTIN-LETTS-Squeaker-Bercow-talking-balls-Really-man-perfect-fool.html. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[17] S. Hoggart, "You cannot be serious, Mr. Cameron", The Guardian, 3 February 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/03/cameron-simon-hoggart-sketch. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[18] Lloyd Evans, "As the oldest parliament yawned, the oldest civilisation erupted," The Spectator, 2 February 2011. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6666383/as-the-oldest-parliament-yawned-the-oldest-civilisation-erupted.thtml. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[19] James Forsyth, "Consensus reigns over PMQs", The Spectator, 2 February 2011. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6666073/consensus-reigns-over-pmqs.thtml. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[20] Justing Parkinson quoting Ben Wright in "The Full Story: PM's Questions", BBC News liveblog, 2 February 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/9384950.stm. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[21] Bryn Weese, "Polite question period is boring as sin," Sun News, 6 June 2011. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2011/06/20110606-174830.html. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[22] John Ibbitson, ", The Globe and Mail, 10 June 2011. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/will-somnolent-decorum-give-way-to-signs-of-life-or-69-tuna-in-the-house/article2055238/?service=mobile. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[23] Preston Manning, "The answer to our unruly Question Period?", The Globe and Mail, 21 May 2010. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-answer-to-our-unruly-question-period/article1575998/. Accessed online 14 October 2011.

[24] See Debates, 30 November 2009, pp 8923-5; Debates, 1 December 2009, pp. 8943-6. See also "Disgraceful show put on by PC caucus" by Jim Coyle, Toronto Star, 2 December 2009. http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/733359--coyle-disgraceful-show-put-on-by-pc-caucus. Accessed online 14 October 2011.

[25] Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Debates, 18 October 2010, p. 2693. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2010-10-18&Parl=39&Sess=2&locale=en. Accessed online 17 October 2010.

[26] D. Desserud, "Fixed election dates a failure," CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nbvotes2010/story/2010/09/04/nbvotes-analysis-don-desserud-fixed-election-dates.html. Accessed online 17 October 2010.

[27] M. Kennedy, "Tory MP renews crusade for dignity and decorum in the Commons", Postmedia News, 5 October 2011. http://www.canada.com/life/Tory+renews+crusade+dignity+decorum+Commons/5507530/story.html. Accessed online 12 October 2011.

[28] T. Talaga, "Tories mull US-style recall power in Ontario", Toronto Star, 10 March 2011. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/952228--tories-mull-u-s-style-recall-power-in-ontario. Accessed online 14 October 2011.

[29] Y. Baran and G. Fox, "Fixing Parliament, from Committees to QP: A Conversation about Parliamentary Reform", Policy Options, September 2010. www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep10/baran.pdf. Accessed online 14 October 2011.

[30] "A Conversation with the Speaker", Policy Options, September 2010. www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep10/milliken.pdf. Accessed online 14 October 2011.

[31] I. Harris, "Canadian Influences on the Constitutional and Procedural Development of the Australian House of Representatives", 2006. www.parliamentarystudies.anu.edu.au/pdf/harris_cats.pdf. Accessed online on 13 October 2011.

[32] M. Grisdale, MP, Interrupted: Heckling in the House of Commons, Op. cit., p. 13.

[33] House of Commons, Debates, 2 June 2011, p. 7.

[34] Speaker Bercow, "Review of Prime Minister's Question", Speech to the Centre for Parliamentary Studies, 6 July 2010. http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/speech-to-the-centre-for-parliamentary-studies/. Accessed online 13 October 2011.

A Beast of a Budget

Steve Paikin — Tue, 27 Mar 12 19:34:20 GMT

Some behind the scenes shots from today's Ontario budget lockup:

Dwight Duncan called today's budget "the most sweeping in Ontario history."

Duncan accuses the Conservatives of wanting another election just five months after the last one.

"Voting against the government's budget shows a lack of confidence in the government," Duncan says. "It means they want another election right away. If they get it, we'll happily campaign on this budget."

Tory finance critic Peter Shurman (PC Thornhill) says if there is an election, "it's on Dalton McGuinty's head" for refusing any of the PCs' suggestions in the budget.

Opposition Leader Tim Hudak says every single PC MPP will show up in the legislature to vote against this budget whenever the vote is called.

In other words, he says, none of his MPPs will get a "24-hour flu" at the last minute to allow the government to survive.

Hudak says one of the worst aspects of this budget is the government's refusal to continue cutting corporate income taxes. The government is freezing the rate at 11.5%.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, in some respects, has the future of this parliament in her hands. And she wasn't tipping her hand today.

Horwath says she needs to consult the public to see whether they want this budget to pass or to be voted down.

Flanked by her finance critic Michael Prue (NDP Beaches-East York), Horwath will hold a news conference tomorrow morning to explain how she will consult Ontarians.

It'll probably be four more weeks before the legislature votes on this budget. It still has to go through all-party debate in the legislature.

George Smitherman Defends His Record on ORNGE

Steve Paikin — Sun, 25 Mar 12 22:38:32 GMT

How much of ORNGE's problems are George Smitherman's responsibility?

Is the government of which he was once the deputy premier hanging him out to dry to deflect attention from their inaction?

Answers to these and other questions are below in a wide-ranging interview with Ontario's second longest-serving minister of health.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Anatomy of a Convention: The First Press Conference

Steve Paikin — Sun, 25 Mar 12 13:44:51 GMT

12:35 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto, and Thomas Mulcair has just met the NDP caucus for the first time as new leader.

Asked what he planned to do when the Conservatives begin the attack ads against him, Mulcair suggested "the Canadian people are tired of these secondary school tactics."

He predicts they'll be open to a more serious politics, absent the usual shenanigans.

Mulcair seemed to go out of his way to be calm and distinguished at his news conference, as if to prove he's not the hot head his critics accuse him of being.

Mulcair says job one is to continue to reach out to Canadians, particularly those who didn't vote in the last election, with a modern, more competent New Democratic Party.

Will a Mulcair-led NDP change the party's traditional economic policy positions? Yes, Mulcair says. The party "constantly adapts."

For example, he says he won't engage in kneejerk criticism of the oil sands (which he didn't call the "tar sands.")

Mulcair says he's most proud of the fact that the NDP jumped from 1,600 to 15,000 members in the province of Quebec, in the leadup to the leadership convention.

Mulcair had nothing but praise for his chief rival, Brian Topp, whom he said did "an extraordinary job."

Mulcair and Libby Davies were both co-deputy leaders under Nycole Turmel. Mulcair now says Davies will remain deputy leader for now. Bigger changes in personnel will await the fall sitting.

And with that, he was off...

Anatomy of a Convention: Four Ballots to Victory

Steve Paikin — Sun, 25 Mar 12 01:09:45 GMT

Whooping it up in the Brian Topp section of the convention hall: former leader Ed Broadbent and Gatineau MP Francoise Boivin.

Peggy Nash had hopes of coming second on the first ballot. She's flanked by CUPE Ontario president Fred Hahn and Parkdale-High Park MPP Cheri DiNovo.

Nash's hopes were dashed when the first ballot results were announced and she was only in 4th place. By coming last, Niki Ashton had to drop off. Thomas Mulcair was in first place, but with too low a vote total for a quick victory. Nathan Cullen was poised to be the compromise candidate, placing third.

Martin Singh dropped off the ballot and moved to Mulcair. He would be the only candidate to drop off, and publicly express a preference for another candidate.

Paul Dewar was a very credible candidate in English Canada. But his lack of proficient French doomed his campaign. He dropped off after one ballot.

Dewar's wife told me after, "We're proud of the campaign we ran, we've got each other, we've got our health, we're just fine."

There was a lot of affection in the hall for outgoing interim leader Nycole Turmel. People understood she got put into an impossible spot, having to replace Jack Layton while New Democrats got over their shock at losing their leader.

Front-runner Thomas Mulcair, awaiting the second ballot results. Computer problems meant each ballot took twice, even three times longer to complete than anticipated.

Throughout the day, Mulcair's supporters made the convention hall seem like a home game for the Montreal Canadiens, constantly chanting "ole, ole, ole, ole..."

Second ballot results: Mulcair establishes the momentum, jumping 8 points, Topp increases his totals by 5 points, Cullen by only 3 1/2 points, and Nash is forced off, coming last.

Repeating a pattern, Nash declined to throw her support to any of the other three contenders. She dropped out and freed her supporters to go wherever they pleased.

Nathan Cullen, his wife Diana, and twins Isaac and Elliot. Cullen hoped to be the compromise candidate and win from third place as both Joe Clark (1976) and Stephane Dion (2006) did.

But it was not to be for Cullen, who remained in third place after the 3rd ballot results were announced. Once again, Mulcair kept his momentum up, gaining 5 1/2 points,

while Topp actually gained 6 1/2 points. But a fourth ballot would confirm Mulcair's lead was simply too big.

The delays between ballots seemed interminable. These young delegates found a way to kill some time.

And the winner is...

A fourth ballot victory for Thomas Mulcair gets a congratulatory handshake from second place finisher Brian Topp.

Hands together: a show of unity from the two leading candidates. Mulcair took it 57-43% --- a decisive win.

Questions will now be asked as to whether Brian Topp still intends to seek a seat in the next election. Had he won, he intended to ask a sitting MP in Quebec to step down, creating a by-election in which he'd run. During the campaign, I asked him whether he'd still run in Quebec even if he lost. "That's the plan," he said. We'll see whether plans have now changed.

Many delegates told me former leader Ed Broadbent will need to take steps immediately to reclaim his reputation, which took some hits during this campaign.

Two other former leaders join the candidates on stage: Audrey McLaughlin (1989-95) and Alexa McDonough (1995-2003), with Nathan Cullen.

Mulcair prepares to give his victory speech. After 12 hours in the hall, delegates were looking for something brief and inspiring. They got neither.

Nathan Cullen congratulates Mulcair's wife Catherine Pinhas.

Mulcair and Cullen embrace on stage.

Mulcair's speech was widely panned for its listlessness and recitation of a long, laundry list of policy objectives.

Mulcair's political career continues to take an extraordinary turn. Just four and a half years ago, he won a by-election in Outrement riding, becoming the only NDP MP from Quebec.

Now he is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, with a Quebec caucus of 59 MPs, and 103 MPs nationwide.

Anatomy of a Convention: The Speeches & The Tribute

Steve Paikin — Sun, 25 Mar 12 00:21:04 GMT

Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath welcomes everyone to the province of Ontario.

Nathan Cullen "wings it" with only a few notes jotted on a pad, perched on a stool.

Would Paul Dewar's lack of proficient French prove problematic for the Ottawa Centre MP?

Brian Topp gave perhaps the best speech he's ever given. But it still wasn't fabulous.

Many complained about Topp supporter, and former leader, Ed Broadbent.

"He's gone from elder statesman to I'd like to rip his name off that institute," one delegate told me, because of Broadbent's over-the-top criticism of Thomas Mulcair.

Just 29 years old, Niki Ashton from Manitoba gave a strong address, with no lecturn and a "Madonna microphone."

Thomas Mulcair's floor show took so long, he raced through his speech, plowing right through his applause lines. It wasn't great.

Peggy Nash had many youth supporting her campaign, including these three Quebec MPs.

Like Mulcair, Peggy Nash's pre-speech show took far too long, leaving Nash to ad-lib the last few minutes of her speech because the teleprompter was spinning so fast, trying to get to the end.

The Friday night tribute to the late Jack Layton was touching without being over the top. Here, his children Sarah and Mike thank the audience.

Layton's widow, Trinity-Spadina MP Olivia Chow, was grateful to hear the NDP's new headquarters on Laurier Street in Ottawa will henceforth be known as The Jack Layton Building.

The theme of the night was that NDP members are now Jack Layton's legacy.

Ironically, Brian Topp couldn't participate in the Layton tribute, even though he knew him as well as almost anyone in that room, because Topp was a candidate. "Thems the breaks," he told me.

And so ended Friday's events. The first ballot results would come the next morning at 10 a.m.

Ontario's Budget: Back to the Polls?

Steve Paikin — Wed, 21 Mar 12 22:39:09 GMT

Seven years of minority governments in Ottawa (2004-2011) have taught us all to be somewhat skeptical of prognostications and threats around budget time.

And the immediate analysis after last October's Ontario election was that it would be at least two, perhaps even three years before anyone would play chicken at Queen's Park and force an election. After all, the Liberals were just one seat short of a majority and the opposition parties, although both with more seats, had some internal fixes to make.

Premier Dalton McGuinty, with Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, in the Legislature.

But I'm picking up some different signals at the Legislature these days. And Dalton McGuinty's tough talk during his speech at the Liberals' annual "Heritage Dinner" tonight (Wed. Mar. 21, 2012) has done nothing to lower the temperature --- the premier saying he'd be proud to go back to the polls immediately to defend his upcoming budget.

Usually when there's a minority parliament, no party will provoke an election unless their poll numbers are decent and they've got money in the bank.

The Liberals' recent poll numbers are terrible (PCs 40%, Libs 28%). But they've got access to more cash than Tim Hudak's Progressive Conservatives, who are still smarting after believing last summer's inflated sense of the Tories' popularity.

Which brings us to next week's budget.

Conventional wisdom holds that in a minority parliament, the government can't afford to do anything too dramatic because it needs the support of one other party to survive.

But these are different times. Former TD Bank economist Don Drummond has laid down an unprecedented and tough guide book to bring Ontario's books into balance by 2018, and I'm hearing that the Liberals are gung ho to stop playing it safe, and instead will charge ahead with a bugger of a budget, which will highlight their determination to defeat the deficit.

In which case, which other party will support this budget and allow this parliament to continue?

I can't imagine it'll be the Conservatives. As the official opposition, their job is to oppose. And we saw, federally, how soul destroying it was to the Liberals' pride under Stephane Dion, either to abstain or vote with the Stephen Harper time after time after time.

Opposition Leader Tim Hudak rises to make a point in the Legislature.

Which brings us to the NDP.

It's a sure bet the Liberals will freeze any further corporate tax cuts in a bid to lower the deficit and ensure NDP support.

This Parliament's survival will likely rest in the hands of NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

But what if, despite assurances to the contrary, the Liberals include some budget items the NDP finds truly draconian, such as a wage freeze for teachers or other unacceptable cutbacks?

Could the NDP vote against this budget and defeat the McGuinty government?

Last year, darned near everyone who saw the same scenario unfold in Ottawa was sure Jack Layton would ultimately support the Harper government's budget, and forstall an election. Except he didn't.

So it wouldn't shock me if the same thing happened at Queen's Park next week.

Of course, there's another alternative.

With the Liberals only two votes shy of a majority (don't forget The Speaker, who's a Liberal MPP, and only votes to break a tie), it's not inconceivable someone on the opposition benches could catch the 24 hour flu, not show up to vote, and allow the government to survive its budget vote.

Is Premier McGuinty trying to lower the temperature? Didn't sound like it at the Heritage Dinner Wednesday night.

All of which means it'll be worth keeping both eyes on Queen's Park over the next couple of weeks.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Tony Silipo Was One of The Good Guys

Steve Paikin — Tue, 20 Mar 12 00:00:00 GMT

Tony Silipo did everything in life before many people thought he could.

He was a Toronto School Board trustee at age 21.

He was an Ontario cabinet minister at age 34.

He was out of politics by age 42.

And most tragically, the former deputy leader of the Ontario NDP died last week of brain cancer at age 54.

The good things came very early; the bad things came too early as well.

Silipo's political and personal families packed St. Anthony's Church at Bloor and Dufferin in Toronto to pay their last respects. Silipo was part of the NDP's one and only government in Ontario history. He held three senior portfolios: chair of management board, minister of education, and minister of community and social services.

His former fellow cabinet minister and leader, Howard Hampton, gave the eulogy. He fondly recalled taking Silipo to some of the most remote parts of Northern Ontario where Silipo had never been before, and said, "Don't worry Tony. You can still get a good cup of capuccino there."

The priest said, "The last gift Tony gave us was the gift of teaching us how to die." Silipo knew his time was slipping away, having first been diagnosed with a brain tumour three years ago. But by all accounts, this native of Calabria, Italy died with considerable grace under terrible circumstances. He leaves behind his wife and adult son.

"He'd call and say, 'I need your advice,'" Hampton recalled. "I need to know what you think is important. We have to create an education system that is more open to new Canadians."

Silipo was adamant that the education system fight the urge to stream certain ethnic students into technical schools at age 12 or 13. For two terms, He represented the downtown Toronto riding of Dovercourt, where many low income Portuguese kids would typically have been streamed away from "academics" into "technical" courses, regardless of their abilities, but because of their ethnicity or low income status.

After Bob Rae resigned as NDP leader in 1996, Silipo ran to replace him, running a campaign that featured representation from virtually every ethnic group in the province.

He lost to Hampton. but was eventually named deputy leader of the party. In 1999, the downtown boundaries were redrawn and he found himself facing off against Liberal MPP Tony Ruprecht. Ruprecht defeated him by 5,000 votes in the '99 election.

Hampton said Silipo had been urged by "other parties" to run for them after his provincial career was over. Presumably that means the Liberals had asked. But he refused.

"The people I have worked with are the people I have worked with," was all Silipo would say. He never did run again. He was appointed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal in 2000. In 2003, he then became president of the newly formed Federation of Calabrese in Ontario.

"We are better off for having had him in our lives," Hampton said, "And we thank Anne Marie and Adrian for sharing him with us," he added, referring to his wife and 23-year-old son.

Doug Little (pictured above), a fellow NDP trustee on the Toronto School Board, remembered the 1985 school board election. "Tony won, and I lost, and he wouldn't even celebrate at his own victory party. He immediately came over to my headquarters to commiserate with me. That was the kind of guy he was," Little said, fighting back tears.

Former Liberal MPP Laureano Leone with former NDP Leader Howard Hampton.

Three New Democrats share happy memories of Tony Silipo: former MPPs Ross McClelland and Howard Hampton, and former Toronto City Councillor Joe Pantalone.

Others attending the funeral service included current interim federal leader Bob Rae (in whose cabinet as Ontario NDP Premier Silipo sat), current Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, Toronto City Councillor Pam McConnell, and current Davenport MPP Jonah Schein.

After the service, Bob Rae remembered Tony Silipo this way:

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Another Candidate in TorontoâDanforth

Steve Paikin — Fri, 16 Mar 12 11:10:19 GMT

We had the major party candidates running in the federal by-election in Toronto—Danforth join us for a debate on Wednesday. Although they have no seats in parliament, the Canadian Action Party is the only other officially registered party among the 11 candidates seeking election, so we present an interview with their leader Christopher Porter below.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

A New Idea for Renewable Energy

Steve Paikin — Wed, 14 Mar 12 13:50:21 GMT

Next week, you're going to be hearing a lot about the province of Ontario's FIT program.

The Feed in Tariff Program encourages, for example, farmers to put solar panels in their fields. For doing so, the province agrees to pay a highly subsidized rate for the power generated, as long as that power is "fed into" the grid for everyone to use.

That approach has been taken in many jurisdictions that have tried to become world leaders in the renewable energy field.

But with a $16 billion deficit, the days of the province offering 40 cents a kilowatt hour for power they can buy on the open market for 4 cents are coming to an end. We're expecting more details on a new FIT program next week.

But put all that aside. A guy named Jeff Mole, who ran for the Greens against the then energy minister Brad Duguid in the last election, has a different idea. He sees a province not chasing private operators to generate renewable energy, but rather, 50 regional, non-profit, public entities building renewable generation.

Mole explains his plan, which he says would generate not just power, but hundreds of millions of dollars for Ontario's bottom line in the interview below:

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

One Legend Remembers Another

Steve Paikin — Fri, 09 Mar 12 18:44:29 GMT

More than a decade ago, I wrote a book about Ontario's 17th premier, John P. Robarts. I found the juxtaposition of his brilliant public life and his tragic private life to be a compelling story.

When I went looking for Robarts's final resting place, it took me 45 minutes to find the actual gravesite. I found this incredible. How could one of the most successful premiers in Ontario history not have anything marking his gravesite?

The fact is, there was nothing. And I thought that was wrong.

So I will admit to some delight that the Ontario Heritage Trust has created the Premiers' Gravesites Program. For the past few years, the trust has been holding ceremonies, recognizing the achievements of our late premiers, and unveiling plaques and flags that will now mark their gravesites.

I had the honour of emceeing the service for Harry Nixon (premier in 1943), whose son Robert Nixon was Ontario Liberal Leader four times, and who was Ontario Treasurer from 1985-90 as well.

I told the folks at the trust, if you need an emcee for the Robarts ceremony, I'd be up for that too, given my interest in the man.

They took me up on the offer and on March 1, 2012, some long time friends and family of the former premier gathered at St. James' Cathedral in downtown Toronto to take care of some long overdue business: the unveiling the plaque that will soon be installed beside Robarts's gravesite at Parliament and Bloor.

Yes, there were some special guests there:

* David Peterson, Ontario's "other" premier from London, who idolized Robarts while growing up in the city within a forest.

* Stephen Lewis, Canada's former United Nations Ambassador, but also, for this gathering, Ontario NDP Leader during much of Robarts's time as premier.

* Darcy McKeough, the former treasurer from Chatham, who got his first cabinet job from Robarts and today is the "keeper of the flame," hosting an annual luncheon in Robarts's memory.

* 90-year-old Gordon Carton, whose first election as a Toronto PC MPP in Armourdale was in 1963, Robarts's first majority government win.

* Roy McMurtry, one of just two Ontarians who was both chief justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario and attorney-general.

* Andrea Robarts, John's niece, and the closest surviving blood relative of the former premier. Andrea spoke lovingly of her uncle, and fought to hold back tears recalling that the last time But the star of the day's events was Robarts's successor as premier, William Davis.

Andrea Robarts, the former premier's niece. (photo courtesy Ontario Heritage Trust, by David Lee)

Davis, now 82, did something I've never seen him do before, and I've seen him speak many times. In trying to tell the audience how much impact Robarts had on his life, Davis spoke about the death of his first wife Helen, who died of cancer when she was just 30 years old. The Davises had four children at the time, and the youngest never even got to know his mother.

Davis is an extremely private person. To speak of this, in public, was unprecedented. But he told me ahead of time he felt he needed to talk about Helen's death to show just how remarkable Robarts had been to him at the time.

Robarts was minister of education when he became premier in 1961. However, he had his eye on Davis, who was a rising star at the time, having just been elected two years previously. Robarts kept the education portfolio even after becoming premier and told Davis that once his life was under control, they'd talk again.

Less than a year later, Robarts offered Davis the job and he went on to become, by most accounts, the best education minister Ontario ever had.

Robarts's successor, William Davis (photo courtesy Ontario Heritage Trust, by David Lee)

Davis never forgot how the premier looked out for him during that time of crisis.

Davis's "eulogy" of Robarts lasted just over 20 minutes. The whole thing is worth seeing (the video is below). The comments about Helen's death are at the 5:30 mark. The deeply troubling questions about whether Robarts's friends did everything they could to help him recover from his stroke (he never did, which eventually led to his suicide) are further along at the 20:00 mark.

It is a uniquely introspective Davis on tape, one we have never seen before and may never again.

Unveiling the plaque: From left to right: The Very Reverend Douglas A. Stoute (rector of St. James' Cathedral), William Davis, Andrea Robarts, and Ontario Heritage Trust chair Thomas Symons. (Photo courtesy of Ontario Heritage Trust, by David Lee).

This is the plaque which will be erected beside John Robarts's headstone at the cemetery at Parliament and Bloor in Toronto.

William Davis, flanked on the left by Stephen Lewis, and on the right by Robarts's deputy minister of finance, Ian Macdonald.

From left to right: Stephen Lewis, William Davis, Ian Macdonald, Darcy McKeough, and the emcee.

The honoured guests unveil the new plaque for John Robarts's final resting place.

The most introspective and emotional speech I've ever seen William Davis give.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

James Q. Wilson

Steve Paikin — Tue, 06 Mar 12 20:50:38 GMT

His death didn't get as much attention as Whitney Houston's.

But in his own way, James Q. Wilson had a profound influence on American society.

Wilson died in Boston on March 2nd from complications associated with leukemia. But over his 80 years, he demonstrated a knowledge of public administration that influenced several generations of political leaders.

Wilson chaired a White House Task Force on Crime for Lyndon Johnson. performed the same task for Richard Nixon's National Advisory Commission on Drug Abuse Prevention, and served on three other commissions for Ronald Reagan.

He may have started as a liberal, but he became a darling of conservatives with his "broken window theory" on crime reduction.

Many years ago, I had the pleasure of interviewing Wilson for Studio 2.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Upper Canada Welcomes Jean Charest

Steve Paikin — Mon, 05 Mar 12 21:52:38 GMT

It is an historically unusual time in Upper and Lower Canada.

Both provinces have Liberal premiers who have won three consecutive elections. No Liberal premier has done that in Quebec in 77 years (Louis-Alexandre Taschereau). No Liberal premier has done that in Ontario in 128 years (Oliver Mowat). And coincidentally, both Jean Charest and Dalton McGuinty won their first elections in 2003 and have each won two majorities and one minority government.

Charest, Canada's longest-serving premier by six months over McGuinty, visited Toronto today (March 5, 2012) to speak to the Canadian Club and share his vision for developing northern Quebec.

"It's twice the size of France with only 120,000 people," the premier said, insisting $80 billion worth of development is on the horizon.

Charest has to be one of the most impressive speakers of this generation of politicians. He moves effortlessly from French to English, speaking frequently without notes, as he expounds on how well Quebec has done under that province's Liberals.

He says Quebec's stubbornly low birthrate is finally going up, childcare is still just $7 a day, the deficit will be eliminated in 2014 (fully four years before Ontario), the unemployment rate is also below Ontario's, female participation in the labour force is up, and the province will soon open its first ever diamond mine.

It's worth remembering that Charest has been in public life for a quarter century, and yet he's only 53 years old. Of course, he started in federal politics as a national Progressive Conservative, was one of just two surviving MPs after the debacle that was the 1993 election, but answered the call to make what must have been an odd shift to the provincial Liberals in 1998. He lost his first election to the Parti Quebecois, but has since won three straight elections, something not done in Quebec politics since Maurice Duplessis did it 60 years ago.

It's true that Charest is probably more popular in Ontario, where his government's shortcomings aren't a feature of the daily media. Many Ontarians have warm memories of Charest, leading a small PC party federally, yet overshadowing Jean Chretien and other "No" side politicians in the 1995 referendum.

I spoke with many people in the room at the Royal York who wondered whether Charest still has national aspirations, and if he did, with which party? He once was a Conservative, but others I've spoken to with a solid knowledge of the Quebec scene say he has now embraced the Liberal Party, both provincially and federally.

Charest concluded his speech by offering a view of Canada not often heard in central Canada. He said the provinces are equals with the federal government and speak for Canada every bit as much as the national government does. It's one reason why Charest says he was so offended by the federal government's take it or leave it offer on health transfers. While reaffirming Quebec's commitment to Canada (the one line in his speech that did receive sustained applause), he also reminded us of some advice he once gave Stephen Harper.

He quoted Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, who said almost a century and a half ago, treat Quebec like a nation and it will be generous.

If Macdonald said that then, Charest told his audience, how can we do any less today?

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Of All the Interviews I've Ever Done...

Steve Paikin — Fri, 02 Mar 12 01:00:00 GMT

I'm often asked, which was with the most impressive person?

It would be hard to argue against this man, who turns 81 today (March 2, 2012).

Without question, the single most important person I've ever interviewed was Mikhail Gorbachev. From the moment I walked into the hotel suite where we did the interview, I got the sense that I was in the presence of greatness.

Not that he was the most successful politician I've ever met. Ultimately, he wasn't, since he was unable to do what he set out to do: keep the Soviet Union together, while introducing the political and economic reforms he championed (glasnost and perestroika).

But Gorbachev changed the world. He came to realize the USSR couldn't win the Cold War, and rather than compete with The West in arms spending (or God forbid, on the battlefield), he chose another path.

Yes, events did pass him by, and he lost power to Boris Yeltsin. But his political courage made the world a better and safer place in which to live. And that's why I was honoured to have interviewed him.

I can't say it's the best interview I've ever done. It's hard to have a good conversation with someone, and develop the necessary rapport, when you're going through an interpreter.

But for me, it was unforgettable. Happy 81st Birthday Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

41 Years Ago Today, William Davis Became Premier

Steve Paikin — Thu, 01 Mar 12 16:13:14 GMT

Ready for a little nostalgia?

Check out this documentary I did many moons ago, on the 25th anniversary of William Davis's becoming the 18th Premier of Ontario.

Today, March 1, 2012, is the 41st anniversary of Davis's accession to Ontario's top political job. And at age 82, he's still a major going concern, back (50 years later) at the law firm his father started in Brampton back in 1916 --- Davis Webb LLP --- and occasionally venturing back into politics, as he did at the PC Convention in Niagara Falls a couple of weeks ago.

Still a sought-after speaker, Davis will be the headliner today at a special ceremony for the Ontario Heritage Trust. He'll talk about the man he succeeded --- Ontario's 17th premier, John P. Robarts --- at a ceremony unveiling a new plaque that will be erected at Robarts's gravesite in Toronto.

The Bishop's Still Giving 'Em Hell

Steve Paikin — Tue, 28 Feb 12 12:11:22 GMT

More than two decades ago, Rev. Dennis Drainville shocked Ontario's political world when he won one of the safest Conservative seats in the province.

It was the election of 1990, and Bob Rae's New Democrats staged perhaps the single greatest upset in Ontario history by defeating David Peterson's massive majority Liberal government.

And in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton --- once held by former Premier Leslie Frost no less --- Drainville topped the polls.

But he quickly learned how perilous politics could be.

The recession of the early 1990s had taken hold, and the NDP government was grasping at every option to try to boost revenues. But when the NDP suggested opening casinos, Drainville drew his line in the sand. He strenuously objected to the government including plans for casinos in its budget, and so he committed one of politics' cardinal sins --- he voted against his party's own budget.

Premier Rae called Drainville into his office for a private chat, and told him he'd never get into cabinet if he kept this up. Drainville said he didn't care about cabinet jobs. He cared about the damage casinos would do to the province.

He also told Rae that if he, the premier, supported casinos, "There's no way you can be a social democrat. You're a Liberal in a hurry." Drainville turned out to be right about that.

Ironically, both men didn't last long where they were. Rae was defeated at the polls in 1995, then left the NDP for the Liberals, where he's interim national leader today.

Drainville, having run afoul of the leader's office, quit the NDP caucus in 1993, sat as an independent for awhile, then left politics altogether before his first and only term was up.

His departure created a by-election which the Conservatives won, road testing many of the planks of their Common Sense Revolution. Two years later, Mike Harris' Conservatives would win 81 other seats and a majority government, running on the same platform.

These days, Drainville is one of 40 bishops in the Anglican Church. He represents the Diocese of Quebec. He travels constantly, spreading his message that "until the political and economic elites focus on the common good, we're screwed as a society."

Yes, the Bishop from Quebec does use that kind of language.

"One thing I've learned from my time in politics," he continues, "is that every government is the enemy. Even the one I was a part of."

Drainville will speak to these issues Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at the University of Toronto's Trinity College in Sealey Hall.

And there's more where that speech comes from on his own blog: The Bishop's Views.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Vroom Vroom: The Toronto Auto Show

Steve Paikin — Sun, 26 Feb 12 00:59:28 GMT

As much as we know more public transit is good for us, our love affair with the car is eternal.

People may instinctively understand that for cities to work better, they need improved public transit systems. But they don't have exhibitions featuring the latest streetcars or subway cars that attract thousands of people --- at least, not like the Toronto Auto Show has been drawing 'em in.

Yes, we respect transit. But we love our cars --- the sportier, the flashier, the more luxurious, the better.

The Challenger Yellow Jacket

Check out some of what this year's auto show had to offer, starting with some Triumph sports cars:

The lineups for the Ferraris and Maseratis were the thickest:

James Bond's favourite car: the Aston Martin.

Still classically gorgeous: the Rolls Royce.

The Hot Wheels Camaro:

Battery-powered cars were also present at the Auto Show, although truth be told, the lineups to see them were nothing compared to the luxury cars.

So that's what my Volt looks like without its skin on ...

Tesla Motors in California makes this $125,000/copy car. It can go 385 km on a single charge.

And some classic oldies ...

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

My Memories of The Kid: Remembering Gary Carter

Steve Paikin — Wed, 22 Feb 12 17:17:53 GMT

When I heard the sad news about Gary Carter's premature death last week, the first thing that popped into my head was, I can't recall seeing another player who seemed to get so much joy out of playing baseball than The Kid.

He was arguably the biggest star ever to play for the late lamented Montreal Expos. Some might say, he was the biggest star for any Canadian-based major league baseball team. And even when he went to the New York Mets and got his hair all "permed up," he never lost the smile and the infectious delight he seemed to take from playing.

His death also sent me to my scrap books because through the years, I've seen Carter play a few times.

Here's a shot of my game day stub when I saw him play with the Mets in Shea Stadium.

The Mets were the defending World Series champions in 1987, having defeated the Boston Red Sox in a thrilling seven-game series the year before. The Bosox were one strike away from winning the series in six games. But Carter was part of that incredible Game Six, bottom of the 9th inning, which ended when Mookie Wilson hit a squibber through first baseman Bill Buckner's legs, and as Vin Scully said, "Knight scores and the Mets win!"

My score card reminds me of what a great team those Mets were:

The Mets were playing the Pittsburgh Pirates that day. And look who was leading off for The Bucs (and back then, he looked normal --- Barry hadn't started on his steroids diet yet).

I also saw Carter play in the first ever "Pearson Cup", an unofficial one-game match between the two Canadian-based teams, only for bragging rights. The cup was named after former PM Lester Pearson, who was a huge baseball fan.

While the Jays were still many years away from being a contender, check out the powerhouse Expo lineup:

Some of the all-time Expo greats played in that game, including Warren Cromartie, Ellis Valentine, Andre Dawson, and of course, Gary Carter.

Thanks for the memories Kid.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Stop the Mega Quarry Hits New Heights

Steve Paikin — Tue, 21 Feb 12 18:04:12 GMT

The folks in and around Melancthon Township north of Toronto have gone to great lengths to publicize their efforts to stop the development of the so-called "Mega Quarry" in their area.

Two opponents recently climbed Mount Kilimanjaro and put a "Stop the Mega Quarry" sign on the top.

Now that's taking protest to new heights.

Graeme McPhail, with 22-year-old son Blane McPhail atop Mt. Kilimanjaro.

California Dreamin'

Steve Paikin — Tue, 21 Feb 12 17:27:32 GMT

From the Governator...

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, during a visit to MaRS in Toronto in May 2007.

to the return of Governor Moonbeam...

Fox TV's Anita Vogel with current (and former) California Governor Jerry Brown

...California politics are always fascinating. Former Fox TV correspondent Anita Vogel gives us the rundown on things in The Golden State.

Follow me on Twitter @spaikin

Tim Hudak's Challenge

Steve Paikin — Thu, 09 Feb 12 12:25:00 GMT

It's traditionally one of the most nerve-wracking moments any political party leader deals with.

You've just lost an election. And therefore, at your next party convention, members will vote on whether they want you to continue in your job, or send you packing.

Back in 1983, federal PC Party leader Joe Clark got 66.9% of members to endorse his leadership. Clark thought that wasn't enough, so he resigned, and called for a leadership convention. He lost to Brian Mulroney later that year.

After he lost the 2007 Ontario election, then PC leader John Tory got that same 66.9% vote. Tory ultimately decided to stay on. He later resigned after losing a by-election.

Conversely, the Parti Quebecois' Pauline Marois recently received the support of more than 90% of her party's members. And yet, one week after that convention, the knives were back out for her. The high support seemed to resolve nothing.

Having lost last October's provincial election by just two percentage points to the Liberals, it now falls on Tim Hudak to find out whether he has adequate support to continue as leader.

Generally speaking, of course, leaders want as big a number as possible. Anything less than 60% support is usually considered fatal. The worst place to be is right where Clark and Tory were: about 2/3 support, which isn't that strong, but isn't so bad that it requires stepping down.

With all these different permutations in mind, we thought we'd invite longtime PC party activist John Mykytyshyn in, to tell us what's at stake for Hudak, and how things are looking for him in the days leading up to this momentous vote next week in Niagara Falls. Here's our interview:

The Quebec Question, Part 2

Steve Paikin — Thu, 09 Feb 12 01:33:27 GMT

While the province of Quebec is certainly covered by and included in the Canadian Constitution, it's also a fact that the province never signed it.

Should we let constitutional sleeping dogs lie or is it time to raise this troublesome issue again?

The University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance decided to bring more than a decade of silence on this issue to an end. Earlier this week, it held a day-long conference on "The Quebec Question."

Former Ontario Premier David Peterson shared some deeply personal stories about his efforts to gain Quebec's signature on the Constitution through the Meech Lake process. You can read about that here.

One of the conference's best debates showcased two former premiers and the prime minister's former chief of staff.

Bernard Landry, who turns 75 next month, was premier of Quebec from 2001-03. He has lost none of his separatist zeal.

"Quebec is a nation. Quebec must be free," he told the conference. "Quebecers feel less and less Canadian and more and more Quebecois these days. The attachment to Canada is more and more marginal.

"It's time to say goodbye," Landry says. "It's time to have two friendly countries."

After hearing that shot across the Canadian bow, former Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin got into the act.

"Bernard," he said, "I'm delighted to learn that after being a non-partisan businessman for 10 years, I'm not even on a treadmill right now, but my heart rate has shot up to 160 after listening to you."

In 1995, Tobin (then a federal cabinet minister) was one of those who urged Canadians to get on planes and trains, go to Montreal, and demonstrate The Rest of Canada's love for Quebec. The federalist side carried that '95 referendum by just 1%.

In those days, Tobin was in full rhetorical flight, fighting separatists and as he calls it, being one of "the gladiators, the generals of yesterday's battles."

Today, he has no animus for separatists. "They're in love with a beautiful dream. They don't want to shatter Canada. They want to create their own country. But the debate has passed them by."

Tobin calls the results of the last federal election a "seismic shift" in Quebec politics. Neither of the traditional federalist parties (Liberals, Conservatives) benefited from the meltdown of the Bloc Quebecois. Quebecers seemed to be asking different questions, not the old familiar should we stay or should we go. Tobin says the big issues today are:

1. eliminating school boards. 2. health care. 3. economic development.

Now he's looking for political leaders who will "speak to the priorities of citizens today, not the battles of yesterday."

Just as Landry was provocative from the separatist side of the equation, Ian Brodie was similarly so from the federalist side. Brodie, a former chief of staff for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, says the sponsorship scandal was responsible for a resurgence of separatist sentiment in Quebec.

"How do we kill off the threat of separatism?" he asks. "More good, clean govenrment, economic growth, the (House of Commons) resolution recognizing Quebecers as a nation, and the marginalization of those who want to stir up trouble."

That brought Landry back into the mix with a question about history.

"How did my former law professor, Pierre Trudeau, patriate the Constitution against the unanimous vote of the Quebec National Assembly? The Liberal Party lost Quebec forever because of that."

Then it was Tobin's turn. "Bernard will never convince me. And Meech Lake would never convince him to give up his beautiful dream. But we must listen to those trying to build a civil society and have prosperous families.

"Would you accept any federal representation speaking for Quebec?" Tobin asked Landry. "I say no, and that's the fundamental divide."

That brought Brodie back in. "The Quebec Question has created a cottage industry of constitutional experts who wanted to keep this issue alive. We have to break the monopoly of the Laurentian Concensus. I have a lot of friends in Alberta who agree that Pierre Trudeau was a bastard. So let's get on with things."

Apparently, Landry agreed with Brodie's view of Trudeau: "One of the first things we'll do when we become an independent country is change the name of that airport!" he said to laughs.

Enter Brian Tobin: "Ian, don't try to be too pure on this. Some politicians in this country have been known to talk about firewalls."

However, Brodie tried to make the point that "a reversion to a debate about Quebec's status in Canada will damage the Quebec economy. The overhang of uncertainty hurt the country, but it especially hurt Quebec. Now, Montreal is having a renaissance," Brodie says, because the separation issue for now has gone away.

At the end of the debate, Daniel Paille, the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois, rushed to confront Brodie.

"When you talk like that, you help us," he said of his fellow separatists.

"You have a dream," Brodie told him. "But I just want to raise my family." Brodie later told me it was ironic that Paille confronted him, given that it was the Harper government in 2007 that hired Paille to clean up the public procurement process, which had gone astray during the sponsorship scandal.

Has The Quebec Question gone away? For now, it has. Our deficits are too big. Our fears about the future are too strong. The next generation just wants a job, not more talk about Quebec's signature on the Constitution.

But as any intelligent watcher of Canadian history will know, this issue really never goes away. And some day, some brave (or foolish) politician will no doubt try, once again, to finish the job that Pierre Trudeau and the premiers of 1982 started, that Brian Mulroney and eight premiers tried to improve upon in 1990 with Meech Lake, and again in 1992 with the Charlottetown Accord, and that no one has dared touch ever since.

The Quebec Question, Part 1

Steve Paikin — Wed, 08 Feb 12 02:05:51 GMT

It's the number one verboten subject in Canadian politics: what to do about the fact that Quebec still hasn't signed the Constitution.

Despite admonitions from almost everyone in Ottawa these days to leave the subject alone, the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance is tackling it head on.

It held a day-long conference yesterday (Feb. 7, 2012), which, in itself is newsworthy.

"I've been to 100 conferences on The Quebec Question," U of T chancellor David Peterson said, in opening the event. "But this is the first one in this century."

Peterson is both a veteran of, and possibly a casualty of, the national unity wars. As Premier of Ontario, he was one of 11 Canadian first ministers to have signed the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord in 1987, which completed the work started by Pierre Trudeau in 1982, when he led Canada's constitutional repatriation effort.

However, Quebec was then led by a separatist government and Premier Rene Levesque refused to sign on. Trudeau, whose Liberals had 74 out of 75 Quebec seats then, felt he could speak for Quebec, so he went ahead with repatriating the Constitution, in spite of Quebec's absence.

Meech Lake would have "fixed" that problem, since Quebec's new premier, Robert Bourassa, did sign that document.

However, the 1987 signing merely started a three-year "clock," in which all provinces had to ratify the agreement in their legislatures. Governments changed, Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allowing them to bring in a French-only sign law, and with that, Meech started to unravel.

In the end, the clock ran out with Newfoundland and Manitoba refusing to ratify.

In 1990, Peterson made an 11th hour compromise that almost saved the agreement. He offered to give up several of Ontario's seats in The Senate, so Quebec's proportion wouldn't decline, when other provinces received more. It was seen as a bravura gesture at the time. But three months later, Peterson lost the ensuing provincial election to Bob Rae's NDP, and some thought his obsession with the national unity file, at the expense of other perhaps more mundane provincial issues, was partly responsible.

Former Ontario Premier David Peterson speaking, while former Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin looks on.

Why did Peterson feel so deeply about accommodating Quebec?

Perhaps it goes back to his teenage years. When he was 17, he spent a summer in rural Quebec near Rimouski as part of a Western University program. Anglophones learned French, Francophones learned English, and they both learned about each other's cultures too.

"My world was totally expanded and enriched," Peterson told a packed Faculty Association room at The Quebec Question conference. "I became a more complete human being and Canadian. It goes to the core of the Canadian experience."

Peterson joked, "I'd urge the government to pass a law saying every Anglophone had to marry a Francophone and vice versa. I never could implement it but it's a good idea and I commend it to Prime Minister Harper."

That summertime experience gave Peterson "not a petty, nationalistic, tribal view of the country, but rather a large view of Canada and the world."

When Peterson talks about the national unity battles of the 1980s, he still sounds and looks wounded by the experience. He's critical of his fellow Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau, "who was such a perfectionist when it came to Meech Lake. But he compromised in 1982 and made mistakes and those came back to haunt us regarding Meech Lake."

Peterson refers to the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter, which allows provinces to bypass Charter rights if they pass a special law doing so. That's what Quebec did with its "illegal" unilingual sign law.

Peterson spent almost an entire weekend urging Premier Bourassa NOT to use the notwithstanding clause, "but Bourassa felt if he didn't use it, he'd have massive unrest. I told him it would turn the country off Meech Lake."

But Bourassa feared massive unrest because he had seen it before. He told Peterson, "You have never faced a situation where one of your best friends has been killed because of an insurrection." He was referring to the murder of former Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte by the FLQ.

"I can't say if Bourassa was right or wrong," Peterson confesses. "But if we'd had a six-month clock instead of a three-year clock, Meech would be the law of the land."

In the end, Meech failed because, despite a significant full court press to get him to put the accord to a vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, Premier Clyde Wells refused to do so.

"Brian Mulroney was heroic," Peterson recalled. "But I blame Clyde Wells totally. His vanity tanked the agreement. I don't blame critics or oppositions. They're supposed to criticize and oppose. I blame the guy who held the pen in his hand at the table."

Both Peterson and Mulroney went to Newfoundland to speak to the Assembly in hopes of changing the Wells' government's mind. Another conference speaker, former Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin, said in hindsight, that might have been a mistake.

"I told Brian not to come," Tobin told me. "Newfoundlanders just don't like folks from Ottawa coming down to tell them what to do."

"We thought we were appealing to Wells' vanity by coming," Peterson countered.

"I know this," Tobin continued. "Wells didn't have the votes. I canvassed all the MHAs. So he refused to call the vote (to ratify Meech Lake) because he knew he'd lose." Tobin was a Liberal MP at the time, but left Ottawa in 1996 to succeed Wells and become premier.

Peterson calls the death of Meech Lake one of the seminal events in the history of the country. He believes it contributed to the death of the Progressive Conservative party, the rise of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois, exacerbated regional differences, and eventually led to the 1995 referendum in which the federalist side only narrowly defeated the separatists in Quebec by 1%.

"Everyone says everything is calm now, so why worry?" Peterson says. "But a country is never static. Separatism is dormant, but it's not dead and never will be. This debate could flare up at any time.

"Quebec is the cornerstone of our Canadian identity," the former premier concluded. "Give up on Quebec, and you give up on Canada."

* * *

The Agenda took a look at the Quebec situation last week on TVO. If you missed the debate, you can see it here:

* * *

Next time, Part 2 of The Quebec Question, as we report on three widely divergent views of the issue:

Former Quebec Premier Bernard Landry, who still dreams of an independent Quebec.

Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin, who would like to let the issue lie fallow, but seems open to finding a way to accommodate Quebec and gets its signature once and for all on the Constitution.

And former Harper chief of staff Ian Brodie, who says if we improve the economy and convince Canada's constitutional cottage industry to shut up, we'll avoid having to deal with this at all.

The Incomparable Hart Pomerantz

Steve Paikin — Mon, 06 Feb 12 15:25:16 GMT

In my six years of hosting The Agenda, I've never had more difficulty coming up with an appropriate introduction than for Hart Pomerantz.

Hart is a lawyer. But he's also a comedian. And he spent many years in show business, working with Saturday Night Live's Lorne Michaels, writing jokes for Rowan and Martin's Laugh In, and for Woody Allen, and appearing in some popular TV shows on the CBC decades ago.

How do you introduce such a guy?

Watch and see, then listen to Hart wax on about the law, humour, politics, and everything else under the sun.

Robert Nixon: Fifty Years Later

Steve Paikin — Mon, 30 Jan 12 18:38:45 GMT

If there's a "first family" in Ontario politics, it has to be the Nixons of Brant County.

Harry Nixon was the longest-serving member of the Ontario Legislature ever (42 years), and was premier briefly in 1943.

Robert Nixon, his son, was elected 50 years ago this month, winning the Brant constituency after his father died.

Nixon was Ontario Liberal leader on four different occasions, and spent almost 30 years at Queen's Park.

And Robert's daughter Jane Stewart was the family's third generation in public life, having served as a member of Jean Chretien's cabinet.

We invited Robert Nixon into our studio to mark the 50th anniversary of his first election, back in January of 1962.

Highlights of this interview will air on The Agenda tonight (Tuesday, January 31, 2012) at 8 and 11 p.m.

The entire interview --- plus pictures of Nixon's life --- are available below.

Our interview with Robert Nixon, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary since his first election win in January, 1962.

Robert Nixon stands beside the plaque that would soon be placed beside his father's gravesite in St. George, ON.

This plaque, on the north side of Highway 5 west of Hamilton, marks the location of former Premier Harry Nixon's home, where Bob and his wife Dorothy still live.

The two Bobs: Nixon, and then NDP leader Bob Rae, well before Rae won the Ontario premiership. After nearly a quarter century on the opposition benches, Nixon finally made it to the government side of the legislature in 1985, only to have Rae's improbable win in 1990 send him back into opposition. Rae later appointed Nixon to be Ontario's representative in London, UK. Nixon remains a fan of the now federal Liberal leader.

Premiers Harris and Peterson Respond

Steve Paikin — Mon, 30 Jan 12 12:01:32 GMT

Why did it take so long to restore order once protestors had taken over Ralph Lean's class at Ryerson?

In part, because former premier David Peterson urged Lean to let the students figure it out.

"Peterson advised me as we were waiting for security to let the students deal with it. And they did, by letting the protesters know this was their class and they wanted to hear the answers to the detailed questions they had researched."

While the insults hurled at Harris were profane and bellicose, at no time did any of the protestors approach Harris. His safety never appeared to be in jeopardy.

Once the protestors were, in fact, thrown out, the two former premiers got down to business and answered some good and difficult questions from the students.

Two things became abundantly clear: David Peterson still mourns the loss of his cherished Meech Lake Constitutional Accord. And Mike Harris still believes in his Common Sense Revolution. Here are some excerpts:

Mike Harris, on the Common Sense Revolution:

"The Common Sense Revolution was a campaign slogan. It was also a blueprint for governing. It was based on small c conservataive principles. I always felt the cruelest thing you can do is create dependency. Look at our northern reserve natives. No one can say the reserve system is working well. So we created workfare to create independence and break the cycle of welfare. It was based on the work ethic. Give people the right to break through."

David Peterson, on the U.S. System of Government vs. Ours:

"The president of the United States doesn't have to face the public of his opposition ever. Our system is messy. We sit across from each other in the legislature, two sword lengths apart. You can't stab each other, but you can argue with each other. Our first ministers have a lot of power but we have to stand up and be accountable for every pothole in the province. You've got to be up on everything. The opposition is there to make you look stupid and dishonest. There's high accountability in our system. It's messy, a little juvenile sometimes. But as we've seen, Ryerson isn't always civilized either."

Mike Harris, on selling Highway 407 to a private consortium:

"Four consortia bid on the highway. Afterwards, one of the losers came up to me and said it was the best, fairest process he'd ever been involved in. The sale put $3 billion into Ontario's coffers and led to our being able to avoid very heavy expenditures on the highway. My brother lives at the intersection of 407 and 401 in Georgetown. I was planning to meet him and suggested he take it. He said, no, I refuse to. I'm opposed to it. I said, fine, take the 401, allot another hour of time, it's your choice.

"I was approached by a French consortium to buy all the 400 series highways. I asked them, how can we be sure you'll put the necessary maintenance and expansion dollars into it? They said, 'When we own the highway and traffic is moving at 120 km/hr, we make money. When it moves at 60 km/hr, we make lilttle money. And when traffic is dead stopped, we don't make any money. So who's going to build the new lanes faster? Furthermore, when you've got health and education competing for tax dollars, highways will always lose. We'll build them, because we make money when cars move, and we don't when they don't." (Still, Harris turned thumbs down on the deal).

David Peterson, on whether the federal Liberals are dead:

"In 1984, Brian Mulroney won huge. Not only did the federal Liberals look dead (just 40 seats), but there were no provincial Liberal governments anywhere in Canada. There are four provincial Liberal governments today. So the Liberals aren't dead."

Mike Harris, on his cutting welfare rates by almost 22%:

"Our welfare rates were 50% higher than anywhere else in Canada. So if you were on welfare, you wanted to come to Ontario. There was such an imbalance, you were better off being on welfare than on minimum wage. You got free benefits too being on welfare (free drugs and dental coverage). There was very little incentive to get off welfare. We didn't cut the rates for the disabled. But we cut rates 22% for the rest. They were still 10-15% higher than the rest of Canada.

"I argued with priests and ministers. I said you're condemning too many people to a life of dependency. You have parishioners on welfare. Couldn't you give them something to do so they can feel good about themselves? Record numbers of people came off the welfare rolls. And there was no accountability in the system. Your cheque kept coming even if you were skiing in Whistler or playing golf in Florida."

David Peterson, on the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord:

"It was the most important constitutional debate in history. All Ontario politicians supported it. Mike Harris and Bob Rae supported it. It was an opportunity to make the country whole. There was lots of support in 1987, but it deteriorated. There were some elections in some provinces. And (Newfoundland's) Clyde Wells changed his vote. I made some concessions that appeared to save the day. That was my single most important day in politics. Before Meech failed, there was no Reform Party or Canadian Alliance in the West. There was no Bloc Quebecois. Then the country became totally polarized. And I blame one man: Clyde Wells. Through the sheer force of his own ego, he thought he'd put a knife through the heart of Brian Mulroney, but it went through the heart of Canada. 90% of the people who analyzed Meech agreed with it. It would have totally changed politics in Quebec."

Mike Harris, on the Walkerton water tragedy:

"Did cutbacks contribute to Walkerton? Not one whit. Walkerton was made worse by one thing: lab testing. (The NDP government) allowed municipalities to use private sector labs. You think they'd alert everyone when they got questionable readings. But they did not. They alerted the Koebel brothers (who ran the water treatment plant) and they told no one. Walkerton happened because two unqualified people working in the public sector lied and cheated. I doubt those two unqualified guys would have survived in the private sector. A private sector company would have fired them long before Walkerton took place. But they were protected by public sector unions."

Steve Paikin

Hanging Ernie Eves

Managing A Minority Parliament

Mental Health Q&A: Three Questions for Catherine Pringle

Mental Health Q&A: Three Questions for Michael Landsberg

Mental Health Q&A: Three Questions for Elaine Flis

A Tough Few Weeks for Tim Hudak

The Insiders: David Herle

The Insiders: Kathleen Monk

Sorry To Ruin A Good Story, But K-W Won't Mean A McGuinty Majority

The Insiders: Jaime Watt

Some Days, It's Tough to Be the Mayor

Guest Post: A Dissenter's View on the Constitution At 30

Should The McGuinty Government Have Been Defeated?

Celebrating 100 Years of Fenway Park: Part II

The Election is Off

Remembering Randy Starkman

Celebrating 100 Years of Baseball's Most Beloved Ballpark

Guest Post: Was Quebec Represented Or Not?

The Three Amigos of The Constitution: Thirty Years Later

Thirty Years Ago Tomorrow, Canada Got Its Own Constitution

Getting Long Term Care Right in Ontario - Part II

Getting Long Term Care Right in Ontario - Part I

A Memorable Day for Autism Awareness

The End of a Very Sad Life

Getting More Civility into Politics

A Beast of a Budget

George Smitherman Defends His Record on ORNGE

Anatomy of a Convention: The First Press Conference

Anatomy of a Convention: Four Ballots to Victory

Anatomy of a Convention: The Speeches & The Tribute

Ontario's Budget: Back to the Polls?

Tony Silipo Was One of The Good Guys

Another Candidate in TorontoâDanforth

A New Idea for Renewable Energy

One Legend Remembers Another

James Q. Wilson

Upper Canada Welcomes Jean Charest

Of All the Interviews I've Ever Done...

41 Years Ago Today, William Davis Became Premier

The Bishop's Still Giving 'Em Hell

Vroom Vroom: The Toronto Auto Show

My Memories of The Kid: Remembering Gary Carter

Stop the Mega Quarry Hits New Heights

California Dreamin'

Tim Hudak's Challenge

The Quebec Question, Part 2

The Quebec Question, Part 1

The Incomparable Hart Pomerantz

Robert Nixon: Fifty Years Later

Premiers Harris and Peterson Respond

Another Candidate in TorontoâDanforth