A common complaint of conservatives and other members of the citizenry is that the government treats them like children.  But if they behave like children, is that the government's fault?

Kathleen Wynne's one-time hydro rate rebate, dangled in front of Ontarians before she sticks them with another increase down the road, reminds me of nothing so much as a frustrated mother jingling her car keys in front of a baby's face to keep them from crying.

Whatever was ailing the poor newborn is quickly forgotten.  Tears disappear and are replaced by a laugh and smile.

Similarly the beleaguered mother is compelled to try something- anything- to keep her baby from crying.  The child wants something, but cannot tell her what it is.  So the mother is forced to resort to distractions.

The newborn has an excuse.  The mother has an excuse.  Those of us old enough to vote in Ontario, and those parties for whom votes are cast, do not.

We are not children.  But we maintain a childlike dependence on the government.  Conservatives may rail against its excesses and failings, but by and large they have accepted that it calls the shots.  Only the government, and the political establishment behind it, can legitimize an idea or decide that it is time to deal with a problem.

Those opposed to Ontario's sex ed curriculum, for example, have accepted that in order to get what they want, the Ontario PC Party must take the correct position namely, their position.  Similarly, those who are for the sex ed curriculum require the party to take their position.  That's the ultimate goal of, and the sole reason for, their activism.

We know this because the party's previous flip flops on this and many other issues don't appear to matter.  Each time the party moves back in the right direction, they are forgiven.  At the time of this writing those who are for the curriculum are cheering Patrick Brown's op-ed in the Toronto Sun wherein he openly dares his detractors to brand him a flip-flopper.  Who knows where we, and they, and Patrick Brown, will be a week from now?

What is lost in the shuffle here is that the party and the government should be irrelevant.  If there is in fact a critical mass of supporters or detractors on this or any issue, then the way forward for the government or for the opposition should be as clear as crystal.  There should be none of this fruitless casting about trying to identify the right balance to strike or the right message to send.

A government should be able to come down on one side more or less, and the opposition on the opposite side more or less, without the issue being muddied.  If a third option becomes necessary then that option could and should be taken up by a third party, and if no third party exists one should be created and should be able to stand on its own.  Then we can have an adult debate on the subject.  That's how democracy is supposed to work.

Yet instead parties and governments and leadership candidates are taking whoever knows how many positions on however many issues.  They must, because determining what Canadians really want is like placing a bet at the roulette table.

A poll says 75% of Canadians support screening immigrants for anti-Canadian values.  Who are these people?  Where were they during the last federal election when the Harper government bet the farm on Canadians standing up for Canadian values and against face-coverings for public servants?

Even so, trying their luck, a CPC leadership candidate nails their campaign firmly to this claim.  The issue dominates the news cycle for a week or two.  This is what passes for "momentum" while the larger issue of what Canadian values actually are, or if there should be any, remains unsettled.

Then the Prime Minister's advisors expense the public purse for a move from Toronto to Ottawa and we have another pointless debate about the minutiae of what constitutes an acceptable price tag for a move of that size, to that home, for that distance and for that quality of person, etc. etc.

And so the bewildered citizenry and the governments they elected continue their dance, failing to communicate as cynicism and apathy breed.

Written by Josh Lieblein

Day three of the trial began with the start of the defendant's cross-examination of Holly Doan, publisher of Blacklock's Reporter.

Alex Kaufman, counsel for the Attorney General, questioned Doan on the updates on the terms and conditions of her news site, the differences between single and corporate subscription rates as well as the varying rates for different types of institutions.  When Kaufman pointed out that Doan had given the CBC a subscription at a lower rate than government departments, Doan explained that she did it at "a reduced rate" because of the benefit of the possibility of the CBC picking up stories broken by the news start-up.  Kaufman also referenced Doan's testimony from yesterday about the internet spreading content "in the wind" when he explained to Doan that a university gives access to anyone using its computer library access to Blacklock's content.

Next on the stand was Sandra Marsden, President of the Canadian Sugar Institute.  Kaufman focused on asking the witness about her correspondences with Tom Korski, editor of Blacklock's, and Patrick Halley, Senior Chief at Tariff and Trade Policy.  There were a couple parts of her testimony that stood out.  During Kaufman's examination, Sandra repeatedly testified that "raw sugar imports" had "no change in price" or "no sugar tax."  The semantics of whether or not a tariff is a tax became a point of contention because the two Blacklock's articles circulated within Finance mentioned there being a sugar "tax".  AG counsel is trying to put forth the argument that Blacklock's articles were "misleading" or "inaccurate" and that Finance simply obtained a copy for "internal research purposes" to check the copy's contents, which would likely fall under fair dealing.

Plaintiffs' counsel Yavar Hameed's cross-examination seemed to be effective at undermining the claim that a tariff is not synonymous with tax.  He examined how Marsden was concerned about managing her relationship with the government and that she never contacted Blacklock's to follow-up on her problems with the article.  The cross-examination also showed that in an email to Finance Marsden admitted most of the facts were accurate.

After Marsden, Halley took the stand.  Kaufman questioned Halley about the tariffs again and Halley reiterated Marsden's words, that the tariff is not considered a tax in the industry.

A few times throughout the proceedings on Wednesday, Judge Barnes intervened and reminded counsel that the case involves an argument of fair dealing.  It appears that the case will largely be decided on whether or not it was fair dealing for one of the defendants to receive copyrighted material as a third party and then distribute to several others within Finance.

Thursday, Halley will finish giving his testimony and then the Finance employee who communicated with Doan about Blacklock's subscription quotes, Stephanie Rubec, Deputy Director of Communications Policy and Strategy for Finance Canada, will be called to the stand.  The case's ruling may lie largely on the testimony given on Thursday by these two employees of Finance Canada.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

The fourth day of proceedings began with Patrick Halley, Senior Chief at Tariff and Trade Policy at Finance Canada, being cross-examined by the plaintiffs' counsel, Yavar Hameed.  During questioning Hameed focused on the "close relationship" in dealing with tariffs on raw sugar that Halley had with Sandra Marsden, President of the Canadian Sugar Institute, and why she would send him Blacklock's articles.

After the Blacklock's articles on the possible tariff increases on raw sugar under the new TPP trade agreement were averted, the usual "twice or three times a year on average" that Halley and Marsden communicated increased to "high frequency" during the "issue" of the articles.

Despite this, there is no evidence proving that Marsden was solicited by Finance to send the Blacklock's articles to them.  Hameed also questioned the witness about the "unhappiness" Marsden felt about the article.  "She was concerned about the terminology."

Another interesting part of Hameed's cross-examination of Halley was when he asked the witness about sending the web link to Blacklock's "about page" to staff members.  Halley said he didn't attempt to access the article and wasn't aware of Blacklock's terms and conditions when he visited the site.

"Looking at the article wasn't a concern to you?" said Hameed.

"No," replied Halley. "I didn't understand why the article said no comment."

When Hameed tried to press further about Halley's "surprise" about the article saying Finance had no comment, Judge Barnes intervened: "We're not trying to reinvent history," he told Hameed.  He then said it was already established Korski, editor of Blacklock's, "on the record the department gave a substantive comment and Mr. Korski reported no comment."  Judge Barnes later added, "We know what he did. I have to decide if that was reasonable."

Judge Barnes also commented on Halley's actions: "I have to decide under the fair dealing provisions of the act if his actions were acceptable."

Hameed questioned the witness about his reasoning for circulating, and Halley said his "primary concern" for distributing to others in the department was the use of the words "sugar tax" and "error".  Another interesting point raised by Hameed that may have relevancy in fair dealing is that Halley took no effort to limit his distribution, though the evidence shows that the circulation was limited to only several staff within the department.  Halley also didn't contact Korski to make a correction.

Following Halley there were two witnesses — one from Canadian Museum of History and the other from Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation — who both gave testimony of their poor experiences with Blacklock's.  One of the witnesses said she felt "sort of duped into creating this situation."  She also said Koski "didn't seem to be accepting the answers that I was giving him" and that he wrote negative articles that were "misleading" and "misrepresenting" of facts.

Stephanie Rubec, deputy director of communications policy and strategy for Finance and a former journalist, was the last witness for the defence.  In her testimony she stressed the importance of "fair and accuracy in your reporting… If there are two sides to a story you give both sides."

Alex Kaufman, counsel for the Attorney General, asked Rubec when she first became aware of Blacklock's.  Rubec said shortly after it was created she saw posters that were meant to draw your attention.

Rubec then testified about some of her previous experiences answering questions from Korski for Blacklock's articles on Finance.

Rubec explained that Blacklock's had a "track record of lying about their dealings with us" and made "Finance look like bumbling idiots" with "torqueing and salacious" stories.

Hameeds cross-examination of Rubec didn't have too much significant testimony, except for Rubec's admission that she inquired about bulk subscriptions with Blacklock's a month prior to Halley circulating.  Kaufman, however, says that the fair dealing question will be placed on Halley's actions, the Finance employee who circulated the two articles.

Rubec also said she was frustrated with Korski's reporting on finance when questioned by Hameed.

"He's not going to change his article regardless.  I didn't see the point after the back and forth from the day before," said Rubec.

She also pointed out that in all of her years in media she had "never experienced a reporter receiving comment and then putting no comment."

The closing arguments in the case of Blacklock's Reporter v AGC will take place Friday at 10 a.m. at 90 Sparks Street in Ottawa.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon