38 Comments
User's avatar
Kevin Johnston's avatar

I have two take away from tonight.

1) Lose your own constituency, exit the field. You have no recourse to being the absent leader or unacceptable party support. You’re the Boss. Own the whole thing.

2) Easily the worst speech, concession or otherwise, I have seen on Election Night, and I am old! You want to continue to lead the charge, grab the moment and the Party by the shorts and declare war. This is not a “Lay me down and bleed awhile” moment. See point 1), own it!!

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar

I don’t know if Mississauga has snow in the forecast for tomorrow, but it is time for a walk. Maybe she has to imagine the snow part. She cannot stay on as a leader.

I don’t see any of the safe seats giving up their spot to let her run. They could have done that 12 months ago. So, why wait 4 years for another attempt with the same leader? Run a leadership campaign, give it enough time to get some real new ideas on the table and be ready in 4 years time.

My impression of Crombie’s campaign is lazy and unprepared. As soon as Trump had been elected, she should have been ready. And she was not.

Expand full comment
Charles Parkhurst's avatar

Time for proportional representation?

The usual majority govt without the majority of votes.

Expand full comment
Ryan H's avatar

Even with PR this would be a commanding victory for Ford. There’s no representative government system in the world where a party winning 42%+ of the vote, more than double the next largest party, doesn’t get a completely dominant control of the government

Too many people use Electoral Reform as a shorthand for “the people I don’t like won’t get to win any more”. Or, worse, “a system the magically puts my tiny party in charge, regardless of their vote share”.

Expand full comment
Wesley Burton's avatar

It'd still be a win of sorts but he'd have 42% of the power, not 100. He'd need the support of at least one other party to get things passed.

Expand full comment
Ryan H's avatar

That’s not actually how it works in application in any PR system. 42% of the seats means that you work out a deal with 9% of the remaining seats, and combined you have 100% of the power. So that 42% translates to more like 84% of the power, even in the most favorable electoral systems. Probably more like 95% when you figure all the issues where they already agree on with whoever they make a deal with.

And, this is important, there is no electoral system ever invented where smaller parties that don’t form part of the government coalition have any meaningful power at all. Doesn’t exist. Can’t exist, unless you’re talking about tyranny of the minority situations, which are a hell of a lot less democratic than even the most absurd FPTP results

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

There's precedent for the largest party not forming government after election in Canada itself, see the outcome after the 1921 federal election, or when David Peterson became Premier of Ontario.

That aside, we clearly differences in amount of scandal and policy outcomes in majority versus minority governments. No one benefits when a majority government rushes in a bunch of obnoxious partisan legislation that gets repealed a couple years later to then be replaced by a different set of obnoxious partisan legislation.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

No, there was no repealing of “obnoxious partisan legislation”. What did happen was the SCC overturning 6 for 6 pieces of Harper’s legislation, at least portions of the Legislation. This is because the SCC determined that the Legislation was not constitutional or over-reached the authority of the Parliament. The SCC instructed both the Parliamentary and Executive Branches to address the ultra vires (beyond the Power of the government) portions to the Legislation. This included portions of The Anti-Terrorism Act, minimum sentencing for various crimes, refugees being denied access to health care, legislation which prevented devout Muslim women from wearing face-coverings during the Citizenship ceremonies, and stripping citizenship contrary to rights. Again, this was done at the behest of the Courts. The courts also overturned approval of Northern Gateway pipeline and required additional consultation for the expansion to the Kinder Morgan pipelines. This was the Courts, not The liberal government which repealed legislation. And please also appreciate that all parties sit on Standing Committees from which proposed Draft Legislation is developed. All Legislation also goes to Committee after 2nd Reading.

Trudeau also introduced Legislation for policies upon which he campaigned and do not represent repeals. This includes Child Benefit, legalizing physician assisted dying, legalizing recreational marijuana., and the introduction of a carbon tax. Trudeau also acted to strip the partisanship from appointments to the Senate and to the SCC by enacting independent advisory boards, opening up the process to be one of application from those interested. In foreign policy, the Liberal government continued the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement and TISA with Europe started under the Conservatives.

So no these actions were not inconsequential nor are they a function of each majority government. Most governments understand and respect the important role of the Standing Committees with respect to developing consensus on legislation. These governments were both Conservative and Liberal including Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, and Martin. Instead Harper refused to deal with the Parliament and introduced massive changes in policy in Omnibus Bills hundreds of pages in length (unemployment insurance, Veteran Affairs, Immigrant & Refugee Boards, and Temporary Foreign Worker program, among many, many others). Harper’s disrespect for the Parliament was such that he was found to be in contempt of Parliament as sanctioned by Parliament. The first PM in history to have been found in Contempt.

So no you cannot draw a conclusion on how the Canadian parliamentary system works on actions of Harper only. Nor draw the conclusion that this all because of our electoral, First past the post system. It’s just not true. Please do stop with repeating misinformation of how our “country is broken”. It’s an untrue sentiment pushed by the current leader of the Conservatives. Please also do remember that a lie remains a lie regardless of how many times it is repeated, namely your comment of “It is widely accepted that the bulk of legislation…. And ending with the opinion (not supported by fact but simply a statement of emotion) and your statement that false majority governments create lurches in policy. That is just not true. You are letting your support of PR colour and taint your overbroad comments

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

You are presenting accurate but irrelevant information (though I am not sure where you got information about the "Anti-Terrorism" Act repeal being led by the courts). The Trudeau government repealed certain mandatory minimums, repealed some of the environmental law changes of the Harper government, and repealed the "Fair Elections" Act legislation.

Pierre Poilievre has been campaigning on and promising to defund the CBC and using the Notwithstanding Clause to impose aggressive incarceration, which are divisive policies that would only be possible from him gaining a false majority from a potential plurality of votes, given lack of support from any other parties.

I did not say anything about Canada being "broken" - those are your words, not mine.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

You said it is widely accepted that all new governments do is repeal “obnoxious partisan legislation”. And you would have one believe all of this could be stopped with the introduction of PR. I disagree with your assertion presented as fact but actually unsupported opinion. The information I presented was to address your opinion that new governments repeal Legislation simply because the new government finds it obnoxious. That is just not true. I specifically noted the Legislation repealed to provide the facts that dispute your opinion. And you call it irrelevant information. Guess facts are not a part of your repertoire. And the repealed Legislation I noted was repealed at the behest of the Courts. It’s not difficult to do a simple Google search to learn. I have the benefit of a law school degree but I did the simple Google search too to ensure it was easy to become informed.

By the way, I did have to smile that the Legislation you noted as being repealed were the very Acts I noted. Remember that irrelevant information? It is the Courts which determined the Legislation needed to be repealed. This is thru its long-standing ability and responsibility to interpret legislation thru the lens of our Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as well as consideration of legal precedents. Last post.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Stefan I don't see Canadian governments rushing in a bunch of "obnoxious partisan legislation" and then having it replaced by a different set of obnoxious partisan legislation. Legislation in Canada is repealed most often by our Courts thru References by government to the SCC. The courts, under the Westminster System, are one of the three legs of the system. Courts assess the Constitutionality of legislation and legislation which is not Constitutional is overturned - usually with time given for the Parliamentary & Executive legs of the system - to adapt the Legislation such that it meets Constitutional requirements. Your comment seems to refer to the current Trump Presidency and the former Biden Presidency and the Executive Orders; these just don't exist in the Westminster system.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. What exactly are the "obnoxious partisan legislation" to which you refer?

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

It's widely accepted that the bulk of the legislation that was implemented under the Harper majority era was repealed by the Trudeau government. Unless a Poilievre government restores most of the Harper majority legislation (which seems unlikely), then the Harper majority was for legacy purposes entirely pointless and inconsequential. All the division that the Harper government created by rushing through legislation despite heated criticism was a pointless waste of energy.

Every false majority that results from small shifts in public opinion creates artificial major lurches in public policy that are unsustainable in the long run.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Nope. First past the post isn’t perfect by any means but it’s better than all the alternatives. Please do look at the 3 Referendums conducted by Elections BC in 2005, 2009 and 2018. All Referendums failed to pass by a margin of 6 voters for FPP and 4 voters for PR. When studies have been done where more time spent on educating people what PR means the numbers increase for FPP even more. Also please look at countries where PR in place and it just hasn’t worked - small parties prevent forming of a government leading to more elections.

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

Proportional representation received the support of 57% of voters in the 2005 BC referendum. Electoral reform is never implemented not due to popular opposition from voters, but because short-sighted governments never want it to happen and are happy to let misinformation about electoral reform spread freely.

Pretty much every country that out-scores Canada on quality of life indexes has proportional representation. No country that ever implements the system ever has a sustained movement for bringing back First Past the Post.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Yes, Stefan I was wrong - the 2005 Referendum failed as it didn't meet the 60% threshold. But, it failed and many felt with the ballot question itself in that STV was not well understood. Which is why the 2009 Referendum rephrased the question and was defeated by 60.7% voting against it. I knew it had been defeated and should have reviewed the reports prior to commenting.

But assuming PR failed because "misinformation" circulated freely is a broad overreach and incorrect. I am aware of in-depth longitudinal studies in BC which incorporated a high education component and those PR proposals were rejected once STV became better understood. The votes must be placed in the context that Canada's history is the Westminster system. This is unlike the Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Switzerland, etc) where PR has been in place historically. Only 2 countries use the STV system - Ireland and Malta and both are small countries in comparison to Canada. This historical context of the election system in Canada vs. other democratic countries, really means that trying to change Canada's view of how elections should work will be a huge, uphill battle.

Once Canadians understand that their preferred vote, even if it is top in their Riding, may not necessarily be at the top of the regional list, support for PR drops. .

And really the correlation you attempt to draw between PR and Quality of Life is tenuous at best to just not accurate at worst. Canada scores #5 in quality of life and #4 in best country overall. How could that be in PR is determinative of quality of life. The OECD wellbeing research indicates Quality of life is health, knowledge and skills, environmental quality, subjective well-being and safety further supporting my contention that the type of electoral system used (which is mostly based on historical factors in that country) is in anyway correlated with quality of life.

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

The 2005 referendum failed to meet a threshold that had no reason to exist. A majority of BC voters supported electoral reform, there was no legal impediment to reform, and yet it was a choice of government to not proceed with reform. That the 2009 referendum went the other way does not seem the change the "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" attitude towards electoral reform that governments consistently adopt. There's always a new excuse given by governments for never changing away from the status-quo, because there has yet to be a government that genuinely and sincerely wanted electoral reform.

Referendums by their very nature are vulnerable to misinformation. When you try to implement a permanent policy outcome based upon a one-time snapshot of public opinion, the side that can win through last-minute misinformation has every incentive to do so.

You specifically said that "countries where PR in place and it just hasn’t worked". To refute that statement does not require demonstrating a causality between PR and positive quality of life - it only requires pointing out that there is no correlation between PR and failure in democracy or democratic outcomes.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

No Stefan. The 2005 Referendum failed as it did not meet the standard to pass. Period. BC saw some issues related to bias in the way in which the Citizen’s Assembly had been set up and the PR system recommended, that is STV, and, to their credit, the government announced another Referendum and continued to work on ensuring a vote was fair and that voters understood implications. They spent time and money to educate voters on what PR STV model entailed. It just does not fit with Canadian lived experience of voting in your Riding for the person who will represent you. Here the person elected has won the Riding. Period. Under PR that is not the case - it all depends on votes garnered at the broader regional level. Canadians just will never vote for that. We like knowing the platform of the party for which we are voting and understand that if enough candidates win the plurality of the vote within their respective Ridings then that Party shall form the government. Loyal Opposition holds governing party to account. The same could be said for those who live in countries which have for Centuries used PR. It’s what their citizens know and understand.

As well there is no correlation between quality of life indicators and how it is determined who wins a democratic election which is what you said, “Pretty much every country who outscores Canada on quality of life indexes uses proportional representation.” That would be 4 countries- Finland, Norway, Sweden or Switzerland. Saying it is because of PR that they have a better quality of life is just not supportable.

PR is failing now due to increase in populism and the far right which has increased the difficulty in forming governance coalitions in order to provide effective implementation of policy to meet the needs of the electorate. You are seeing more and more elections more quickly due to the breakdown of these coalitions. Recent examples include France, Germany, Italy and Israel among others. The very people who want “to burn the place down” are now in a position to disrupt government and take governments on a never ending cycle of more and more frequent elections. This is why PR, in my opinion, is failing.

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

The 2005 referendum "failed" to meet an arbitrary standard that was chosen by a government that wanted an excuse not to proceed with reform. There was no legal or moral requirement for a 60% threshold. Governments consistently adopt the "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" attitude towards electoral reform.

"The same could be said for those who live in countries which have for Centuries used PR. It’s what their citizens know and understand."

That seems to me to boil down to an argument that whatever the electoral system is already in place is whatever is best for a given country. New Zealand would beg to differ.

"PR is failing now due to increase in populism and the far right which has increased the difficulty in forming governance coalitions in order to provide effective implementation of policy to meet the needs of the electorate."

Perhaps it is precisely when electorates are divided that legislation and executive formation should not be rushed through. The ideal is to get through sustainable and good policies, not to get policies through for the sake of getting policies through.

Expand full comment
Charles Parkhurst's avatar

I have the same opinion for over 50 years.

How on earth do places like Scandinavia, Germany function with PR ?

I don’t use PR as a shorthand as referred to.

Majority of seats but not votes.

Expand full comment
Wesley Burton's avatar

They seem to do it just fine and have way more engagement. The turnout in Germany's election last week was 82%. We've never come close to that in my lifetime. They know their votes all count. Here we know a lot of the time it won't.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Wesley I think the German system is very, very complicated. It worked well when populism and far right candidates received little of the vote. Now they must contend with minority governments with parties represented which basically wants to burn down democracy. As well, one must consider the geographic concerns - Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and the Netherlands all of who use the Party List PR system - are small in geography compared to Canada. That makes a huge difference in the ease of educating people about a multitude of candidates for any one district. I think that is probably the biggest drawback for any PR system.

Expand full comment
Charles Parkhurst's avatar

Didn’t mean to stir up anything. I have an opinion, and I am old.

That’s all.

Just looks unfair to see how the seats don’t reflect how people vote.

Expand full comment
Wesley Burton's avatar

No it isn't better at all. It depresses the vote.

Expand full comment
B G's avatar

Interesting article. Is Crombie's political career over? Unless she decides to run federally for the Liberals, I think highly likely. Perhaps Tyler Watt can be made interim Liberal Leader since he did actually win his seat (almost received 50% of the total vote) and has actually a fairly robust social media presence. Of course, you may not agree with me. Having some knowledge of Mississauga politics I cannot say that I am surprised with the result. There is no doubt that Ontario lost the 2025 provincial election. I can't see a reason for a lot of young people 30 years or under to want to stay. It's going to be very tough for many boomers to sell their houses in the GTA to fund their retirement based on the current economic climate. The Premier is only going to serve his donors and the vast majority of Ontario's citizens are up the creek without a paddle. I do not have confidence in the health care or education system or basic infrastructure improving at all in Ontario but definitely see it worsening. It will take many years to make the improvements to make this the province that Davis once led, but only if the current government is voted out. This is doubtful given the current vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP. The Liberal party, although achieving party status which is helpful, needs to take its time in selecting its next leader. You may decry the draft Mike Schreiner movement, however, he would have definitely distinguished himself from the Conservatives far more easily. The PCs essentially form government with less than 20% of registered voters voting for them. Hardly a resounding majority but, in our current system, enough form a majority of seats. Since it is unlikely that our first past the post system will change, there needs to be something drastic done between the three progressive parties. How many people honestly think that life is better for them in Ontario than it was in 2018?

Expand full comment
LDTerra's avatar

It was evident from the start that Bonnie Crombie didn't have what it takes to bring the Liberals back to life. The Liberal Party of Ontario deserves as much blame as she does for this shameful showing, they chose her. Hopefully they can do better in the future.

Expand full comment
Jake's avatar

If people in the OLP wanted to remove Crombie, how would that be done? Is there a leadership review at the next convention and when would that be? Can the party try to take away her salary to try to force her out?

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

I agree that the Libs do not seem to have run a good campaign (as is evidenced by no seats in Mississauga or surrounding areas and Crombie losing her own seat). And it was a terrible speech she made, but it was a terrible result she had to talk about. She looked devastated instead of trying to focus on the one bright spot - Libs look to have earnt party status and with it a lot more resources.

As far as replacing her goes, there is a process in place for a leadership review. Let that process work itself thru to its conclusion.

Evan I typically enjoying reading your posts....your irreverence is often refreshing in a time when there is so much about which to be worried. In this post though I think you've missed the mark.

My read is that your tone comes across as a sore loser that your man did not win. This may not be what you intended. You have valid points, but really is this the time to re-litigate them? Is this the time for lamenting the flawed process which saw Crombie win the leadership? I would say not. There are much bigger fish to fry and what did or did not happen or what should have happened in the leadership race is irrelevant as we cannot change the past. And I fail to see where they provide a lesson for future action. My advice - Give it up. Focus on what Libs should be doing....and that is committing to fight for Canada, committing to do what you can do as an individual, committing as a Leader to stand with other leaders and other Canadians to fight the existential threat which is Trump and the tariffs and his wanting Canada as a 51st State.

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar

Do you really have the impression that Crombie ran a campaign where she left it all out on the field? And that there is nothing else she could have done to get a better result?

How many town halls did she do? How many speeches? How many interviews? How many doors knocked? She had more than a year to prepare and the campaign still had no clear message. I’m sorry, Crombie was approaching this as a part time job. And it showed.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Dan, my point was now is not the time to wallow in “If only we’d picked a different leader”.

I doubt that even if the Liberal leader had run a campaign doing everything you suggested that the final result would have turned out differently. Maybe she could have picked up a handful of additional seats. Maybe. But that’s even doubtful given that she would have been talking about health care and schools during all of this time since she became leader. These factors just didn’t break through to become the ballot box question and were not top of mind when it came right down to it. What voters showed was an unwillingness to switch horses in the middle of a potential economic upheaval occurring as a result of Trump and his threatened tariffs and his threat of 51st State. Incumbency mattered in this election

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar

Look, if Crombie had done more 50 town halls, if she had raised cash on par with the PCs, if she had done 5 substantive interviews per week consistently, if she would have visited at least half of the ridings, if she had knocked on more than 500 doors, I would be the first to say that external events negated all the work she had put in.

But she has not put the work in. And she did not win her seat. End of story.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Dan have you heard of the old saying of “if if’sand and’s were kettles and pans, you wouldn’t need a tinker”. Here you have a lot of ifs and ands with no direct correlation that the outcome would have been different had she done everything you suggest. More current saying is “Easy to be an armchair quarterback”.

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar

You should re-read what I wrote. If Crombie would have done everything possible, then I could see myself supporting her even if she did not achieve the goals she set herself.

But she ran a lazy and unfocused campaign. So there is nothing to support.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Dan I don’t disagree with you. She did not run a good campaign. And every Liberal has the right to an opinion on whether or not the leader should resign. Regardless whether you can or cannot support her, there is a process in place for an automatic review. I’m not confident there’s an inherent advantage for the party not to follow the process given that a provincial election will not be held for 4 years. In other words, what’s the rush? Allow her to establish her Shadow Cabinet and then maybe step aside appointing one of the members as interim leader or conversely allow the caucus to appoint the Interim Leader. There’s no hurry.

Expand full comment
jello's avatar

Yes I know Libs are not Official Opposition but there will assignments of those elected to Ministerial portfolios. It’s the only way Libs can keep abreast of the many issues happening across the various Ministries

Expand full comment
Dhananjay Ghildyal's avatar

Who would you pick to be the next OLP leader, if yours was the decisive vote?

Expand full comment