Sun:
Hillier had sent an e-mail to caucus criticizing his own party for seemingly using a private members bill to try to secure donations from construction company EllisDon.
"In caucus, it was stated quite explicitly that following a successful EllisDon fundraiser for Tim (Hudak), our party would continue to benefit financially with the advancement of this legislation."
He claimed he didn't leak the e-mail to the media, but didn't deny the nature of its contents.
You mean the member for Lanark tried to do his job as an MPP? Oh these wacky country folks. He'll be expecting the Premier of Ontario to tell the truth next.
It's nice to see Randy still making himself usefully obnoxious. There was a long tradition in Canadian politics that backbenchers came in three varieties; the ambitious, the indifferent and the obnoxious. The first were eager for critic or cabinet posts, the second were marking time and the third believed that their duty was to serve the electorate. A skillful political leader would know how to manage all three groups. It was understood that the obnoxious were the conscience of the party and more broadly of the legislature.
Those days are mostly gone. Instead we have cheap theatrics like this:
The Progressive Conservatives are trying to force Ontario’s governing Liberal Party to pay back $950-million for cancelling two gas plants prior to the 2011 election.
Conservative Jane McKenna’s motion demands the Liberal Party of Ontario repay the cost of killing the gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga, which the auditor puts at $950-million to $1.1-billion.
This is a kind of stupid I thought beyond the Hudak Tories. Silly me. It sounds appealing at first glance. Politicians, or their party, being financially liable for their actions. Thing is that it would make governance virtually impossible.
Imagine being a cabinet minister trying to decide on a new highway, knowing that if something goes wrong they would be personally liable. It's hard enough to get governments to make public policy decisions, except the reflexive dolling out of money, if a party or minister could be bankrupted because of a bad decision, they simply wouldn't make decisions. Worse they might simply delegate the responsibility to some obscure and unaccountable bureaucrat. There goes whatever remains of democratic oversight.
This doesn't even get into the issue of how a party could repay a billion dollars. It would take decades if not centuries. It is reminiscent of the Tory plan in the lead up to the 2011 election to bring chain gangs to Ontario. Not very practical, but it was red meat to a certain quick to judgement segment of the base. Nor is there a private sector parallel. Corporate executives can be held liable for fraud, not simple incompetence. How to prove in court that a cabinet minister was being fraudulent rather than incompetent? Or how about having courts decide on the fitness of politicians?
It's an idea that isn't so much half-baked as it is a small pile of wet flour.
On the other end of the spectrum we have Mr Hillier making this observation:
He said the provincial government has its priorities backwards -- the legislative process is too hasty and implementation of the legislation takes too long.
"You can wait 10 months for a new health card, but to change legislation sometimes only takes a day," he said.
"Administration of government should be efficient, but legislating public policy should be methodical. It should be slow, if you're going to get it right."
Now that's a point too little made. The bigger government gets the bigger the mistakes become. A bit of caution when moving the Leviathan about is warranted. Now how is it that an electrician from Perth, which I believe is east of Scarborough, can figure this out? But the political science majors and lawyers that dot the legislature can't?
Recent Comments