adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

Oliva Chow’s Win Was Foreseeable

Published

 on

“There is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.” ― David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays.

Despite a field of 102 Toronto mayoral candidates, last night’s election was a two-candidate battle—proving the need for rank-balloting—between Ana Bailão and Olivia Chow. Chow narrowly won.

Statistics from yesterday’s Toronto mayoral election:

  • Number of eligible voters: 1.89 million
  • Number of voters who voted: 724,638
  • Voter participation rate: 38.34%
  • Winner (number of votes, percentage of votes, in brackets): Olivia Chow (269,372, 37.17%)
  • 2nd place: Ana Bailão (235,175, 32.45%)
  • 3rd place: Mark Saunders (62,167, 8.58%)
  • 4th place: Anthony Furey (35,899, 4.95%)
  • 5th place: Josh Matlow (35,572, 4.91%)

Chow being elected as Toronto’s 66th mayor was no surprise to those following the polls; however, Bailaó’s performance was.

As Toronto’s mayor Chow takes on some significant “big city” issues—a $1 billion deficit, a crumbling transit system, growing homelessness, sporadic violent crime, and the increasing housing affordability challenge.

Despite 102 candidates vying to become Toronto’s next mayor, only Olivia Chow read the room correctly, which is an innate ability needed to succeed in politics. Chow knew, better than any of her opponents, this was a change election for Toronto.

Besides reading the room correctly, none of Chow’s opponents offered convincing arguments for why they would be a better mayor than Chow, whose polling from day one made it clear she was the candidate to beat.

Also in Chow’s favour was Toronto’s current electoral system of first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Ranked-choice voting would have significantly changed the outcome of this election; especially given that an overwhelming majority of Torontonians voted for conservative and moderate candidates.

Vanity candidates, fringe candidates, and candidates seeking their 15 minutes of fame, who combined received less than 10% of the votes cast, dominated the field of candidates.

Chow ran a textbook campaign. 

Chow’s campaign was reminiscent of the Turkish saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

Love her or hate her, it cannot be said Chow did not run a class act campaign, which is not surprising given her years of political experience. In contrast to other candidates, she did not engage in political attacks, ignored her haters and distractors, and was strategic in her appearances and endorsements.

While her opponents created a circus-like frenzy, attacking Chow without explaining why they were better options, Chow walked her campaign path almost Zen-like. As much as her opponents and haters brought up her having lived with her late husband, Jack Layton, in Toronto Community Housing or made unsubstantiated claims that Chow has ties to the Chinese Communist Party and is a CCP asset or warned that Chow will raise property taxes through the roof, it was all ignored by her and her supporters.

Each candidate had one job: Introduce themselves to Torontonians and provide compelling reasons why they were the most qualified to be the mayor of North America’s 4th most populous city. However, Chow’s opponents spent most of their time and energy attacking her instead of explaining how they were qualified to be Toronto’s mayor.

Had the Three Right-leaning Forerunnering Candidates United… 

Chow’s less-than-runaway victory was undoubtedly due to the egos of right-leaning candidates Ana Bailão, Anthony Furey and Mark Saunders. Their egos prevented them from adopting a political strategy that would have kept “a conservative” in city hall, of uniting behind one candidate; hence they split the vote and gave Chow her win. Had Furey and Saunders dropped out before advance polls and endorsed Bailão, yesterday’s election results would have been quite different.

On the other hand, Chow immediately united progressives and the left. (Josh Matlow’s campaign literally evaporated once Chow filed her nomination papers.)

What I find fascinating, especially from a strategic perspective, is how Chow did not make promises—she did not even provide a costed-out platform as Mitzie Hunter and Josh Matlow did. Chow connected with voters by telling stories… her stories. Chow’s political acumen enabled her to read the room and identify that voters had heard enough of politicians’ “promise numbers.” Voters now wanted a mayor who understood their immigrant struggles (In 2021, 46.6% of Toronto’s population were immigrants.), represents Toronto’s diversity, and is politically experienced enough to navigate Doug Ford’s government for the city’s benefit.

While Chow’s campaign methodology was an undeniable success, the downside of her storytelling campaign is that no one knows, other than her closest advisors and confidants, exactly what she has planned for Torontonians for the next three years.

The promise of higher taxes is no longer a candidate’s death knell.  

I believe this election was a referendum on Toronto’s two most recent conservative mayors’ fiscal austerity. Toronto has gotten to such a state where many residents, whether rightly or wrongly, believe low taxes—in comparison to municipalities across Ontario—is why Toronto’s infrastructures and social services have become inadequate.

Once upon a time, candidates for political office would not even think of suggesting tax increases, let alone promise them outright, as Chow did throughout her campaign, without mentioning how much. The divisiveness between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ left-leaning politicians have created has made increasing taxes something the have-nots want to hear and see… “Tax the rich!”

Paying more taxes, as “your moral obligation,” to help the greater good is how left-leaning politicians sell higher taxes to those with the financial privilege to pay more taxes. Voting for a candidate who openly states they will raise property taxes, which will be passed on to renters (Landlords will not absorb tax increases.), indicates being financially privileged or believing that other people’s money can create your utopia.

Inevitably, higher property taxes will make owning a home or renting an apartment in Toronto more costly. Holistically, Torontonians have yet to reach their breaking point regarding Toronto being affordable and where they begin embracing austerity measures. Toronto still has a way to go before becoming as expensive as North American cities such as New York City, San Francisco, Vancouver, or Seattle. (Economic pressures beyond the mayor’s control—no need to increase property taxes—will eventually make Toronto just as expensive as these cities and many others worldwide.)  

Affordable Housing Was This Election’s Number One Issue

The law of supply and demand dictates that a product’s availability impacts its price. When it comes to real estate and housing, this is especially true.

More than rising crime (as a city population grows, inevitably, the number of crimes will increase) and unreliable public transit, affordable housing is the top-of-mind issue for Toronto residents. As I write this, per the Rentals.ca June 2023 Rent Report, the average rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Toronto is $2,538, up 17.5% from last year.

The pace of people moving into Toronto far outpaces how rapidly housing can be built. Not even Chow can build housing fast enough. (Chow says she is going to build affordable housing “fast.” However, she did not give any specifics because she has not figured it out yet.) According to a Toronto Star article three years ago, The population of the Toronto area will hit 8 million in the next 10 years. People are literally pouring into Toronto!

Canada has raised immigration targets. (Canada plans to accept up to 505,000 new permanent residents by 2023, 542,000 by 2024, and up to 550,000 by 2025.) With most newcomers settling in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal, Toronto’s housing shortage will undoubtedly worsen.

How many housing units can be constructed in a year? Which of these numbers looks realistic? 5,000? 7,000? 10,000? 15,000?

Toronto is at a crossroads of either its residents acknowledge the fact that living in Toronto—a choice one makes—means accepting housing costs “are what they are,” just as residents do in any major city, or Torontonians continue kidding themselves that affordable housing can be built fast enough so one day supply and demand are in sync meanwhile complain about how expensive it is to rent or buy in Toronto.

Suggested reading: If you build it, they can come, by Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Climenhaga.

If the affordability to rent and own in Toronto is not really a concern, which I presume is the case since Chow promised to hike taxes, although by how much is unknown, what does keep Torontonians up at night?

The city’s direction.

Once considered an affordable, model city, Toronto headed into this election facing the same problems as all big cities. Chow’s victory, even though it is mainly the result of the top three right-leaning candidates splitting the votes, does represent a shift that many Torontonians—albeit not the majority, as Chow only received 37% of the votes cast—are now willing to see how Toronto will look and feel like under progressive policies that emphasize social justice, addressing homelessness and climate change.

If there is such a thing as “motivational science,” then logically, considering 62% of eligible voters did not turn out to vote, knowing Chow was leading in all polls the entire election and was likely to win, one could conclude Torontonians were okay with Chow being their mayor. In other words, 62% of eligible voters were not motivated enough to vote against Chow.

Over the next three years, no one can predict how Toronto’s story will play out or what it will look and feel like with Chow as the heroine. Depending on how the “Toronto Story” unfolds from now until the next election in 2026, Torontonians may finally learn that elections have consequences.

________________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan

 

News

Indian diplomats ‘clearly on notice’ after high commissioner expulsion: Joly

Published

 on

OTTAWA – Canada isn’t ruling out expelling additional diplomats from India, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly suggested Friday following bombshell allegations that Indian diplomats in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver were involved in state-sponsored violence targeting Canadian citizens.

Canada expelled the Indian high commissioner and five other diplomats on Monday and when asked at a news conference in Montreal Friday if any more expulsions would follow Joly did not say no.

“They’re clearly on notice,” she said.

The minister said that Canada will not tolerate any foreign diplomats that put the lives of Canadians at risk.

A year ago Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada had clear evidence that Indian agents were connected to the murder of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia in June 2023. The allegations suggest India is trying to snuff out a movement to create an independent Sikh state in India known as Khalistan.

On Oct. 14, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme rocked the diplomatic relationship further, saying the national police force had launched a special investigative unit last February to investigate multiple cases of extortion, coercion and violence, including murder, linked to agents of the Indian government.

In more than a dozen cases, Canadian citizens were warned about threats to their personal safety and Duheme said the national police force was speaking out to try and disrupt what it deemed a serious threat to public safety.

The six diplomats expelled are persons of interest in the cases, with allegations that diplomats used their position to collect information on Canadians in the pro-Khalistan movement and then pass that on to criminal gangs who targeted the individuals directly.

India has denied the allegations and expelled six Canadian diplomats from New Delhi in return.

Joly said Friday the allegations were extraordinary in Canada.

“That level of transnational repression cannot happen on Canadian soil,” she said. “We’ve seen it elsewhere in Europe, Russia has done that in Germany and the U.K., but we needed to stand firm on this issue.”

The allegations will be studied in more detail by the House of Commons national security committee following a vote by the committee Friday. Joly and Duheme will both be asked to appear, as will Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor, who put forward the motion to launch the study, said the fact the RCMP came out with such “explosive revelations” underscores how serious the situation is.

“The RCMP made a point that they were doing this because some individuals in Canada had their lives directly in danger and the threat reached such a level they felt compelled to ignore the traditional way of going through the judicial process and make these accusations public,” he said.

Canada’s allegations were followed Thursday by charges announced by the U.S. Justice Department against an Indian government employee who is accused in an alleged foiled plot to kill a Sikh separatist leader living in New York City.

U.S. authorities say Vikash Yadav directed the New York plot from India. He faces murder-for-hire charges in a planned killing that prosecutors have previously said was meant to precede a string of other politically motivated murders in the United States and Canada.

The Indian government didn’t immediately provide comment on the U.S. charge.

American-Canadian lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a lawyer and dual Canadian and U.S. citizen, said in a statement that he was the target of the alleged murder plot in New York. He said he was targeted because he is a lawyer for Sikhs for Justice and was helping to organize votes in a non-binding referendum on the creation of an independent Sikh state.

Nijjar helped organize a similar referendum in B.C. prior to his death.

The House committee Friday also voted to call Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown to testify, as well as other candidates from the 2022 Conservative leadership contest. A report released in June by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) contains a redacted paragraph that details alleged Indian interference in a Conservative leadership contest. A specific year is not mentioned.

The Conservatives have said they have been given no information about any such interference.

The committee is also now considering a second NDP motion calling for all party leaders to apply for a top-secret security clearance within 30 days, along with a Conservative amendment to demand Prime Minister Justin Trudeau release the names of parliamentarians listed in top-secret documents as being engaged in or at-risk of foreign interference.

At the foreign interference inquiry this week Trudeau said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre refused to get the clearance that would allow him to access the names of Conservatives from those documents, while Poilievre accused Trudeau of lying and demanded he make all the names public.

Trudeau acknowledged the documents include the names of members of other parties, including the Liberals, but said if Poilievre doesn’t get the clearance that is needed to know who is at risk he can’t take any steps to prevent or limit the impact.

Manitoba Conservative MP Raquel Dancho told the committee that Poilievre getting a briefing would be a “gag order” against criticizing the government on foreign interference.

“We can put this to bed, it’s rapidly devolving into some McCarthy witch-hunt as a result of the prime minister’s actions and we can clear this up today by releasing the names,” Dancho said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

B.C. faces a rain-soaked election day after a campaign drenched in negativity

Published

 on

VANCOUVER – British Columbians go to the polls on Saturday after a too-close-to-call campaign that saw David Eby’s New Democrats and John Rustad’s B.C. Conservatives tangle over housing, health care and the overdose crisis — as well as plastic straws and a billionaire’s billboards.

Forecasters say election day will be soaked in several parts of the province by heavy rain from an atmospheric river system.

But the campaign has already been drenched in negativity, with Eby and Rustad each devoted to telling British Columbians why they shouldn’t vote for the other.

The NDP’s election platform mentions Rustad more than 50 times, compared to only 29 times for Eby, while the B.C. Conservative platform names Eby 50 times, and Rustad only 11 times.

“I hope we never see another election like this,” Eby said this week in Nanaimo, describing the tone of the campaign where he felt compelled to tell voters about controversial public statements made by Rustad and some of his candidates.

“We don’t call people who are gay ‘groomers,'” he said. “We don’t tell Indigenous people that what they experienced in residential schools wasn’t real. We don’t propose that health-care professionals be put in front of an international tribunal similar to the trial of the Nazis called Nuremberg 2.0.”

Rustad, who campaigned in Nanaimo on the same day Eby visited the Vancouver Island city, said the NDP leader has consistently attempted to shift focus away from what he says are the real issues facing the province — mismanagement of the economy, the crumbling health-care system and the ongoing drug overdose crisis that has resulted in more than 15,000 deaths since 2016.

“I don’t know why, I guess as premier he thinks it’s OK to be lying to the people of B.C.,” said Rustad. “The premier of a province like B.C. should be able to be out, being straight up with people and telling them the truth as opposed to lies.”

Regardless of the outcome, the election will go down as a sea change for B.C. politics, with the Conservatives poised to either form government or become the official opposition, after the implosion of the BC United party under Kevin Falcon, who halted his party’s campaign to support Rustad and avoid centre-right vote splitting.

Polls have put the NDP and the B.C. Conservatives locked in a close battle. It’s a remarkable turnaround for the Conservatives, who won less than two per cent of the vote in the last provincial election.

Eby and Rustad spent Friday making last-ditch pitches for support in vote-rich Metro Vancouver.

Eby started in Coquitlam, while B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad was scheduled to be in North Vancouver.

“We have left nothing on the table,” said Eby, adding every vote will count Saturday. “I have really no regrets about the campaign.”

On Friday, the Conservatives said that if elected they would launch “a full public inquiry” into the use of taxpayer money to buy drugs on the dark web.

That is a reference to a so-called “compassion club” that was operated by the Vancouver-based Drug User Liberation Front to buy drugs including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin, test it for safety and then sell it to its members.

The club was ultimately shut down and the group’s founders arrested and charged with trafficking.

“This inquiry will seek to uncover who knew what, when they knew it, and what actions were or weren’t taken by the New Democrats, including Premier David Eby,” the party said in a statement.

Rustad was not available to reporters on Friday, but he was holding photo opportunities in Metro Vancouver.

Green Leader Sonia Furstenau was in Victoria, where she is looking to capture a seat in the NDP stronghold of Victoria-Beacon Hill. She has acknowledged the Greens won’t win the overall election, but is hoping to retain a presence in the legislature where the party currently has two members.

The campaign’s only televised debate saw Furstenau tell voters that Eby and Rustad were more closely aligned than people may believe on issues including support for the fossil fuel industry and placing people with mental health and addiction issues into involuntary care.

The month-long campaign has featured regular controversies for the Conservatives surrounding past comments by Rustad and his candidates.

Rustad dropped several potential candidates before the start of the official campaigning period over extreme views posted on social media.

But during the campaign he continued to support Surrey-South candidate Brent Chapman, who called Palestinian children “inbred” and “time bombs” in a 2015 Facebook post.

Eby mentioned Chapman during visits to two mosques in Surrey.

“John Rustad and the B.C. Conservatives are standing with that candidate,” he said at the Guilford Islamic Centre. “They should have got rid of him.”

Eby said the NDP are running two Muslim candidates in the election, including candidate Haroon Ghaffar in Surrey-South against Chapman.

“It’s important to have diverse candidates in the legislature,” said Eby, adding B.C. has yet to elect a Muslim.

Eby faced tough questions from people at the mosque about teaching sex education at schools and the rise of Islamophobia.

Rustad also stood by North Coast-Haida Gwaii candidate Chris Sankey, who suggested vaccines caused AIDS by posting about “Vaccine Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then there was Vancouver billionaire Chip Wilson, co-founder of the Lululemon athletic clothing line.

Wilson injected himself into the campaign with a series of anti-NDP billboards outside his waterfront Vancouver home, located in Eby’s Vancouver-Point Grey riding.

Eby and the NDP embraced the moment, saying Eby was on the side of ordinary people in B.C. struggling to make ends meet and not the owner of a home assessed at more than $81 million.

Rustad said he supported entrepreneurs like Wilson, but they couldn’t expect a break on their property taxes.

Rustad’s campaign promise to reverse a ban on plastic straws prompted Eby to begrudgingly agree that “paper straws suck,” but he suggested the B.C. Conservative leader was trying to stir up controversy by diverting attention from major issues facing the province.

Election day coincides with an atmospheric river system that is dumping heavy rain across much of the province.

Furstenau used the weather event to highlight her party’s climate promises, saying the Greens are the only party that offers a serious response to the climate crisis.

“It’s very interesting the timing of an atmospheric river arriving right on the moment of this election campaign, an election campaign where we have one party led by a climate denier and another party led by a climate delayer,” she said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

AFN votes on way forward after $47.8 billion child welfare reform deal is defeated

Published

 on

OTTAWA – The executive team from the Assembly of First Nations will meet in the coming days to discuss how to proceed with new negotiations for a child welfare reform deal after chiefs voted against the government’s proposed $47.8 billion agreement at a meeting in Calgary Thursday.

AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who had helped negotiate the deal and pushed for it to be approved, was blunt in her assessment of the outcome in her closing remarks to the special chiefs assembly Friday.

“We also recognize the success of the campaign that defeated this resolution. You spoke with passion, and you convinced the majority to vote against this $47.8-billion national agreement,” she said.

“There is no getting around the fact that this agreement was too much of a threat to the status quo, to the industry that has been built on taking First Nations children from their families.”

Cindy Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society which helped launch a discrimination case against Canada that led to the deal, said “that’s an unfortunate characterization of the chiefs taking a look at the agreement with their own experts and own legal staff and making an informed decision that’s best for them.”

“I respect the National Chief, and I look forward to kind of working with her and everyone to make sure that we get this across the finish line,” Blackstock said.

The defeated deal was struck between Canada, the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Assembly of First Nations in July after a nearly two-decades-long legal fight over the federal government’s underfunding of on-reserve child welfare services.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said that was discriminatory because it meant kids living on reserve were given fewer services than those living off reserve.

The tribunal tasked Canada with reaching an agreement with First Nations to reform the system, and also with compensating children who were torn from their families and put in foster care.

The $47.8 billion agreement was to cover 10 years of funding for First Nations to take control over their own child welfare services from the federal government, create a body to deal with complaints and set aside money for prevention, among others.

Before the deal was announced in July, three members of the AFN’s executive team wrote letters to the national chief saying they feared the deal was being negotiated in secret, and asked for a change in course. They also said the AFN was attempting to sideline the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society from negotiations.

Those concerns largely remained when the deal was announced in a closed-door meeting at the AFN’s last gathering, with chiefs questioning how the reforms will work on the ground, and service providers saying their funding levels will be significantly cut which would impact their ability to do their work effectively.

Blackstock found support from 267 out of 414 chiefs who voted against a resolution calling for the deal to be approved.

Squamish Nation chairperson Khelsilem introduced a resolution Friday calling for a new negotiation mandate from chiefs.

“This is a lesson for the Assembly of First Nations, for the staff and legal, for the advisers, for the portfolio holder who has worked on this deal,” he said.

“The way we got here was not the way we should have done this. There’s a better way forward.”

His resolution, and another one from child welfare advocate and proxy chief for Skawahlook First Nation, Judy Wilson, called for the creation of a children’s chiefs’ commission comprised of leadership from all regions in the country to negotiate a new deal and provide oversight, along with a new legal team.

It also calls for chiefs to be given at least 90 days to review an agreement before voting on it, with the document to be made available in both official languages.

Khelsilem said the new negotiation mandate was developed with about 50 leaders from across the country, and hopes it will set a positive path forward in the best interest of kids in care after a fairly testy special chiefs assembly. He also said the new mandate will address “flaws” highlighted by chiefs across the country, and will ensure there is more transparency.

“We didn’t have to be in a situation where we had to vote down a flawed agreement and then create a direction to be able to get this back on track,” he said to chiefs.

“We didn’t have to be here if the process that was used to create the (final settlement agreement) was a meaningful process that meaningfully respected and consulted First Nations, that allowed for meaningful dialogue to improve that agreement.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the minister of Indigenous Services said Canada worked closely with First Nations on this deal, and as it was being amended.

“The agreement that chiefs in assembly rejected yesterday is the final product of those close negotiations,” Jennifer Kozelj said.

“Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to reform the First Nations child and family services program so that children grow up knowing who they are and where they belong.”

Blackstock said that Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ought to have been at the gathering in Calgary if they stood by the agreement.

In a statement Friday, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador said they’re grateful for the work that has been done to date, but that chiefs need to work together to amend the deal so it respects diversity of communities and eliminates systemic discrimination.

“As chiefs, we have a sacred responsibility to protect our children and families for the next seven generations,” said interim regional chief Lance Haymond.

Blackstock says that even though the deal was defeated, it doesn’t mean they’re starting from the bottom.

“We have so much to build on, including the draft final settlement agreement,” she said. “This is a reset to ensure that First Nations kids all succeed.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending