Tallying the Election Results in Thunder Bay

 

The people have spoken and Thunder Bay – along with all the other municipalities in Ontario – has a new mayor and council.  Congratulations to the incoming Mayor and City Council members as well as to all the candidates who put their names forward and ran.  Running for office and serving as the public in an elected role is a challenging and important task and vital to the functioning of our system of government.  

 

 It was certainly an interesting evening last night not the least because of the exasperating nature of the election results.  Despite our “state of the art” modern election system in Thunder Bay that combines online, phone, in-person, and drive through voting and with over one fifth of eligible ballots cast in advance, it took several hours before any meaningful results were delivered.  One hopes that this process will be thoroughly reviewed because in order for the public to have confidence in their voting system, the smooth running and operation of the system sends an important signal and that was certainly lacking last evening.

 

As for the results, Figure 1 presents the winners as well as their percent share of votes cast.  With about 35,421 votes cast (at my last tally) Ken Boshcoff emerged the winner as Mayor with 38.2 percent of the ballots cast with Gary Mack in second place with 34.3 percent of the ballots cast.  The At-Large winners (with over 140,000 votes given every elector can vote for up to 5) were Mark Bentz (11%), Shelby Ch’ng (9.4%), Trevor Giertuga (8.6%), Rajni Agarwal (7.6%) and Kasey Etreni (7.2%).  In terms of the Ward races, Michael Zussino took Red River with 33.4% of the vote, Albert Aiello retook McIntyre with 63.3% of the vote, Kristen Oliver held Westfort with 45.9% of the vote, Dominic Pasqualino won in Northwood with 41.6% of the vote, Brian Hamilton kept McKellar at 53.5% of the vote, Andrew Foulds kept Current River with 74.9% (a ringing endorsement one might add) and Greg Johnsen won Neebing with 36.1 percent of the vote.  

 

 

 

Was this a change council? Not really.  If you want to see the results of a "change" election you should check out Hamilton's results where three incumbents actually lost their seats and there are ten new faces on their City Council which consists of a Mayor and 15 ward councillors. In Thunder Bay with a council of twelve plus a mayor, seven of the elected councilors are incumbents (Bentz, Ch-ng, Giertuga, Aiello, Oliver, Hamilton and Foulds). If one counts Peng You as an incumbent then there was an incumbent not returned. As for the Mayor, well he has been Mayor before and a familiar face and is effectively an honorary incumbent making for eight incumbents on council.  Are the other five a vote for change?  At best managed change given that they probably only won because a number of incumbents chose not to run thereby making room for a few new faces.  Name recognition is important in politics and in Thunder Bay given its closeted nature even more so, which is why constant calls for people to run because there is a “candidate shortage” was so amusing to observe this summer.  Ward contests with more than three candidates essentially guarantee a win for incumbents and At-Large slates with upwards of 25 to 30 candidates for five positions pretty much do the same for those races.  Sometimes, quality of candidate should be a more important consideration than quantity.

 

Will it be smooth sailing for this council?  There are a lot of issues coming down the pipeline – not least of which will be policing - and one expects the honeymoon period will be short-lived especially with an anticipated major hike in property taxes being rumoured.  The other interesting issue is whether or not we should reform City Council and go to a fully At-Large system of between 8 and 12 councillors plus a mayor.  I would say the answer is a definite no.   If one looks at the results in Figure 1, the five At-Large winners have each won with barely 10 percent of the votes cast in their favour in the At-Large competition. They can claim to “represent” the interests of the entire city, but it remains that they do not have an overwhelming mandate aside from the fact they got the biggest numbers in a ranking.  The mayor’s position did somewhat better at nearly 40 percent.  It is the wards where the strongest mandates have emerged.  In three of the seven wards, the winners actually got a majority of the votes case, while in an additional two they were over 40 percent.  I would say there if you truly wanted democracy, there is probably a better case for an all-ward system than a fully At-Large system.

 

One other point.  Take a look at figures 2 and 3.  These are the “projected” winners based on the TBNewswatch online polls that took place the weeks of August 20 to 27 and October 7 to 17.  They are a mix of highly accurate projections and wildly off the mark results.  In the case of the mayor’s race, the McIntyre, and Current River Wards they were consistent with the actual election results though the percentages vary quite a bit.  For the At-Large race, they consistently showed Bentz as a winner but there was quite a bit of variation in the others over time.  Pretty similar conclusion from the remaining ward competitions which saw quite a few flip-flops though in the case of some wards like Westfort they probably reflect the closer nature of the race.  In the case of McKellar or Neebing it was either a really volatile race or well…something else perhaps given the nature of online polling.

 

So, to repeat, congratulations to the new mayor and council.  And of course, once again the drama begins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Budget 2017 Analysis

Well, the 2017 federal budget is out and I have put together some comments in two parts: general and northern Ontario specific.

General Comments

Today’s federal budget addresses Canada’s economic uncertainty by stimulating spending without adequately addressing the long-term productivity growth of Canada’s economy.  Total spending is expected to rise from 315.1 billion dollars in 2016-17 to reach 371.8 billion dollars by 2021-22 – an increase of 18 percent.  The 2017 federal budget is disquieting given that revenues will still rise from 292.1 billion dollars to 356 billion dollars – an increase of 22 percent - over the same period and yet still result in the accumulation of more deficits. 

The federal debt is 637.1 billion dollars in 2016-17 and projected at 756.9 billion dollars by 2021-22.  Debt service costs will rise from 24.3 to 33.3 billion dollars over the same period. The deficit will be 23 billion dollars in 2016-17, 28.5 billion dollars in 2017-18, 27.4 billion dollars in 2018-19 and decline moderately to 18.8 billion dollars in 2021-22.

While the introduction of a contingency reserve is welcome, it still remains there is no long-term plan for addressing the fiscal deficit situation of the federal government.  This is of concern given the importance of private sector confidence when it comes to making investment and business decisions.  This is also worrisome given that interest rates are projected to rise as well as the economic uncertainty we still face given the trade and economic policies of the Trump administration in Washington.

Despite the increased spending, there is to date relatively little to show for promised federal infrastructure investment and the federal government’s promises of a bold and transformative agenda have fallen flat when it comes to actual implementation.  While today’s budget focus on social policies such as more skills training, better access to child care, innovation and infrastructure spending for First Nations is commendable, there is really no assurance that the government will be able to implement anything given its slow pace of implementation on the preceding year’s infrastructure and spending commitments.   

According to a recent report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, the federal government already spends nearly $23 billion on innovation, skills development and training across 147 activities and there is little available in the way of performance measurement to evaluate what works and what does not.  

In the case of assistance to the middle class, it remains that the recent reduction in middle class tax rates from 22 to 20.5 percent generally benefited tax filers making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year while nearly two-thirds of Canadian tax-filers report total income below $50,000 and saw no benefit from the tax decrease. Moreover, the increase in unemployment insurance premiums in 2018 to partly offset the government’s skills-training proposals and the increase in excise taxes constitute a tax increase on the middle class. However, the government is to be commended for not further increasing the tax burden via increases in capital gains taxation.

While the federal government has grand aspirations and seems willing to spend a lot of money it falls short on achievement and does not appear able to fully address concerns that it is generating the best value for money.  A budget must be more than an aspirational document that announces spending that is to be spread out over time.  It should set goals and then achieve them. 

Northern Ontario Comments

This is a government that has decided to run large deficits and add substantially to the public debt.  In the case of northern Ontario, one has to ask where the regional benefits of this increased spending are given the federal emphasis on infrastructure investment, the innovation agenda and assistance to the middle class?  In many respects, the budget is a disappointment with respect to some of the specific issues the northern Ontario economy faces.    Northern Ontario is still characterized by slower economic and employment growth relative to the rest of the country and given that its has substantial representation at the federal level both in terms of MPs as well as cabinet, one wonders where the federal growth agenda for northern Ontario is now that we are two years into the federal mandate?

Northern Ontario receives little in the way of specific mention in Budget 2017.  An extra 25 million dollars over five years for Fednor is not much in a world of multi-billion dollar spending projects.  Here is what I would have liked to see in the 2017 federal budget with respect to the economic future of northern Ontario. 

·      1. It is Canada’s 150^th anniversary.  Where is the federal vision that would see us embark on finally completing the Trans-Canada highway through northern Ontario up to a standard that is worthy of a nation as wealthy and developed as Canada?  When will there finally be a commitment to complete a four-lane national highway through the middle of Canada fully linking east and west?

·     2.  Northern Ontario municipalities have not had the increase in economic base characteristic of larger urban centers and their revenue is increasingly being borne by residential ratepayers.  At the same time, the physical infrastructure in northern Ontario municipalities is increasingly in need of repair and renewal.  Notwithstanding the announcements of investing in infrastructure, where are the federal infrastructure projects and dollars infrastructure in terms of roads, bridges and sewers here in northern Ontario?

·      3. Where is federal leadership when it comes to investing in the Ring of Fire?  Commodity prices have bottomed out and are in the process of starting an upturn.  What are the federal plans to providing the infrastructure investment to assist in development of mining resources in northern Ontario in advance of the coming upturn in commodity prices?

·      4. The federal government maintains it is committed to research and innovation and economic development.  When can we see some direct and more substantial federal investment in research directly related to northern Ontario economic development issues, to the analysis of the regional economy of northern Ontario, and the economics of natural resources, mining and transportation?  Where are the Federal Research Chairs and research support directly dedicated to these areas?

·      5. The 2016 Federal Budget said it planned to invest $8.4 billion over five years for indigenous people with $1.5 billion earmarked for 2016-17 and the 2017 Budget earmarks an additional 3.4 billion over the next five years.  The money was supposed to be spent on health, infrastructure, renovating and building schools on-reserve as well as improving water supply and treatment infrastructure.  How much of this in 2016-17 made its way to northern Ontario?  How much in 2017-18?