LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Forgetting to include Alberta may have been an oversight on Trudeau's part but it's now a permanent part of our 150th birthday celebration. And that's not fake news, folks

TORONTO, Ont./Troy Media/ I never thought I would live to see the day when a Canadian prime minister forgot to mention one of our provinces at a public event.

Yet that's exactly what happened to Justin Trudeau.

During his Canada Day speech in Ottawa, the PM said that Canadians are "of every colour and creed, from every corner of the world."  That's certainly true.

"We may live in British Columbia, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland and Labrador," Trudeau noted.  "But we embrace that diversity while knowing in our hearts that we are all Canadians."

There's nothing wrong with this sentiment, either.  Unfortunately, one rather important component of his inspiring message was missing: Alberta.

That's right.  Our prime minister forgot to mention the one province that has had a long small 'c' conservative political history (up until recently).  The one province that hasn't elected a Liberal government since 1921.  The province that gave birth to the federal Reform Party, and provided significant political and financial support to both the Canadian Alliance and Conservative Party.  The one province that loathed the federal Liberals for almost four decades, and didn't elect a single MP under that party banner during the periods of leadership from Trudeau pere to Trudeau fils.

Yeah, how could he possibly remember the name of that province?

I'm obviously having a bit of fun.  I fully believe the reports that Alberta was included in Trudeau's original speaking notes and he missed this reference by accident.

Otherwise, it's the sort of egregious error, or intended/unintended omission, that would immediately destroy a political career and get a speechwriter fired in a nanosecond.  No excuse or explanation would ever be truly satisfactory.

What remains interesting about the "Where's Alberta?" escapade was the massive amount of damage control that was needed.

First, Canadian actress Sandra Oh cleaned up Trudeau's mess after he left the stage.  As the co-host of the event, she had to stop the bleeding.

Second, Trudeau apologized to the entire province of Alberta when he returned a short while later. "Let me just start by saying I'm a little embarrassed," he said. "I got excited somewhere over the Rockies.  Alberta, I love you.  Happy Canada Day." (He also posted a similar message on his Twitter account.)

Third, the CBC and other media organizations tried to sweep this matter under the rug as fast as they could pick up a virtual broom.  Accidents happen, everything will be fine and don't forget, Gordon Lightfoot will be here to entertain us in a few short hours!

You don't have to be a political spin doctor (Liberal or otherwise) to realize why this had to be done.  It may have been an oversight on Trudeau's part, but it was now a permanent part of Canada's 150th birthday celebration.  And that's not fake news, folks.

Will Albertans be in a forgiving mood?

As expected, right-leaning opponents like Alberta Wildrose Leader Brian Jean and federal Alberta Conservative MP Michelle Rempel played up Trudeau's gaffe to the hilt.  That's the nature of the political game.  If the roles were reversed, the Liberals would surely have pounced.

Meanwhile, a Canadian Press piece on July 1 showed some forgiveness and some ill will coming from Albertans who attended the festivities in the nation's capital.  Kudos to one respondent, Michael Viola, who amusingly pointed out that "Something's going to get legalized next year.  Maybe he's just test-driving something."

The evil weed strikes again!

Yes, this controversy will blow over in due course.  We'll all move on to different stories and new political missteps.

Yet there's no way for Trudeau and the Liberals to ever erase the fact that Alberta was, for a brief period, the Polkaroo of Canada Day 2017.

Photo Credit: Montreal Gazette

Troy Media columnist and political commentator Michael Taube was a speechwriter for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

© 2017 Distributed by Troy Media

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


News that Manitoba Progressive Conservative MLA Steven Fletcher was booted from the party caucus for daring to have differing opinions should be taken as a troubling sign, not only for the state of democracy in that province, but for the entire country.  Fletcher was previously a Conservative MP (and one-time cabinet minister), and with minor variations, many of the attitudes about how parties and caucuses are run are fairly uniform around the country, as are the attitudes about the role of backbenchers.  That things have reached this stage should be taken as a very dire warning that things are not well with the state of backbench politics in Canada.

First and foremost, we should remind ourselves what the role of a backbencher is in a Westminster democracy like ours, and whether you're in the government benches or part of the opposition, the role is to hold the government meaning the Cabinet to account, largely by means of controlling the public purse.  The separation between backbencher and cabinet minister has been blurring ever since we stopped the practice of making MPs resign and run in a by-election when they were being appointed to cabinet, where it became explicit that they were taking on a new role that went from being watchdog to the person spending the money.  But going back to that system of by-elections is no longer practical, and with a growing gap in civic literacy in this country, the expectations have changed.  MPs and MLAs on the government backbenches no longer take seriously the role of watchdog, but rather, are more interested in being team players with the hopes that they too will be picked to join Cabinet (or at the very least, become a parliamentary secretary at the federal level).

What makes this even more problematic is the ways in which governments undermine the role of backbenchers in any myriad number of ways.  In at least two provinces Ontario and New Brunswick MLAs have been given spots on Cabinet committees under the rubric of trying to involve them in decision-making and a greater stake in the running of the government, as well as a better understanding of why decisions are made.  You'll note that my head explodes at the mention of these kinds of shenanigans because it undercuts the backbencher role of watchdog, and when they become implicated in the decision-making, they are no longer able to do their duty of holding government to account, which is a problem.

Part of what makes the Fletcher case interesting is the fact that premier Brian Pallister allegedly didn't make the decision, and told media that he recused himself from discussions and the decisions to ensure that this is a "caucus decision."  On the surface, it looks encouraging because it almost makes it look like he's not exercising top-down control of the party, which should always be encouraged.  But digging a little deeper, I find this troubling because this was a place where Pallister had chance to tell the caucus that it's okay to dissent on things, that they don't have to be in constant lock-step, and apparently, he didn't.  That sends a far bigger worrying signal to me, because he is tacitly endorsing a mindset by which his members should behave like automatons.

In case there was any confusion, it's not just the party leaders that enforce rigid discipline amongst the caucus it's also internal.  The mileage varies between parties, of course, but there are many parties, both provincial and federal, who have a system of internal bullying whereby it's seen as "unseemly" if their members vote out of line with the rest, because they need to be seen as "team players" and "supporting the leader," which makes it harder for individual members to step up and assert any kind of individual thought or action.  The justification that "you were elected on a party ticket," which often gets bandied about, is a disingenuous argument, however, because our electoral system privileges a member's individual agency we elect the member as a person, rather than cast a ballot for the party who then assigns the member a seat based on their place on a list or slate.

The other aspect of the Fletcher case that I find extremely troubling is the role that the media played in exacerbating the situation.  When Fletcher voted against the party, or conducted a filibuster-of-one in committee, reporters went up to Pallister and immediately started asking if he was going to expel Fletcher from the caucus, presumably for being a rebel or for "going rogue."  Media both made implicit demands for his expulsion demands which the rest of caucus no doubt picked up on and normalized the notion that a caucus should always vote in lock-step, that a backbencher's role is to be a cheerleader for the premier as opposed to holding the government to account, and that brokering dissent is a sign of weak leadership.  It's hugely problematic, and it's something that we in the media need to stop doing because it is completely toxic to our democratic system.  We've seen some examples of Liberal backbenchers voting against the government at the federal level, and journalists always pick up on it and start whispering about whether those backbenchers need censure or to be expelled.  So far, the Prime Minister has resisted those calls, but they nevertheless persist.

I would add that for as much as Fletcher was proving his role as a backbencher, he's certainly not living up to all of it witness the 30-plus private members bills that he's advancing, and you can see that he too is showing some confusion as to what his role is supposed to be.  Nevertheless, the fact that he took a stand on issues he cared about and flat out said that if you agree on everything all the time, then it's a sign that there's a problem, is commendable.  It's something we need to encourage more of, while fighting the myths surrounding a backbencher's role.

Photo Credit: Winnipeg Free Press

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.