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

It's been about four months since Andrew Scheer became leader of the Conservative Party, and in the time since, there is a definite sense that the party is approaching a state of omnishambles.  And I use the term advisedly it comes from the UK series The Thick Of It, which Scheer would appreciate in his bid to rebrand his critic roles with their Westminster-equivalent "shadow ministers," and gets very insistent that we refer to them as such.

What is striking for those of us who live and work in the Ottawa bubble is that there appears to be a crisis of competence brewing within the Office of the Leader of the Opposition.  The people who knew how to manage things in the House of Commons seem to have fled along with Rona Ambrose, and we are left with a whole lot of bumbling around, crashing around from angry populist sound-bite to angry populist sound-bite, stroking outrage whenever they can find it while at the same time insisting that they are looking to practice "positive politics."

Question Period has become shambolic.  Not only is Scheer unable to look like he's seriously holding the government to account, unable to deliver questions without a) reading, b) smiling, and c) speaking in a breathy cadence, but tactically his choices make no sense.  For the first four-and-a-half days, they stuck to a single topic that was not only poorly managed from a substantive point of view, but they ignored vast swaths of other policy areas where the government should be held to account.  Instead, it's the same question about twenty-five times a day, with nothing to show for it but a handful of media clips that will go directly to YouTube and Facebook.  And they're not even good questions about the topic of the proposed tax changes, for which there are important questions to be asked about some of the unintended consequences that have been identified.  Instead, we've had little more than insinuation and allegation about plans to destroy the economy by a tax-grab to pay for government expenditures (never mind the fact that the money generated from these changes will be a rounding error), and wildly overblown numbers that don't reflect the situation on the ground.  Whenever they talk about the "73 percent tax rate" that these changes could bring to some private corporation owners, what they neglect to say is that this would only be the case for those making $150,000 in Ontario very much not the small business owners they showcase in their questions.  Add to that, Scheer's "positive politics" that totally aren't about class warfare or the politics of envy seem to be focused pretty much exclusively on the family fortunes of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, with further insinuations of feathered nests and now conspiracy theories about how these changes are done for the benefits of driving small businesses to take out private pensions from Morneau-Shepell.

There has been a focus on form over substance, starting with Scheer's picks for critic portfolios.  One might think that someone who fanboys over Westminster as much as Scheer does might try to introduce some changes into the way that his critics operate in order to better replicate the shadow minister system of the UK.  That would imply putting a great deal of more thought into regional, linguistic and gender balance in the creation of a "shadow cabinet" that could reasonably form a government, and ensure that they are dedicated to being actual shadow ministers doing the job full-time, not attending committees, working to ensure that they get tours of departments and regular briefings from the civil servants, as well as putting forward a shadow budget that would be a credible document to demonstrate how an alternate government would operate should the current government fall and they be asked to form a government in their stead.

But none of this has happened.  Instead of creating a credible shadow cabinet, Scheer has created starring roles for his deputy leader and Quebec lieutenant, while giving important critic portfolios to MPs of dubious credentials, typified by his choice of Pierre Poilievre as finance critic.  Critics are not only on committees, but Scheer has been insistent on putting those critics in the chairs of opposition-controlled committees, meaning that those committees are not operating as independently as those in Westminster, but that the more neutral position of chair is occupied by someone who is supposed to be the point person for holding the government to account, which contradicts the chair's role of being the facilitator of discussion and arbiter of rules being followed.

Nowhere is this more prevalent an issue than with Status of Women committee, where the Liberals chose to walk out rather than accept Scheer's choice for chair, critic Rachael Harder, because of her expressed pro-life views and actions.  It was a deliberately provocative move that Scheer has done to try and cast the Liberals and NDP in an intolerant light and in being against free speech, but in doing so, he has not only betrayed his promise not to re-open the abortion issue, but he has tried to cast this as the Liberals' attempt to distract from the tax change issue.  The problem with that is that Scheer created the very distraction that he's accusing the Liberals of, scoring on his own net.

I am forced to wonder if there are any experienced staffers left in Scheer's office, or if the last of them fled for greener pastures when he took over.  It's also a reminder that for a party that spent the better part of a decade trying to burn down the institutions of our parliament, they seem terribly ill-equipped to have to deal with their more-or-less normal operations once again (not that the Liberals are doing a stellar job with those very same institutions, let it be said).  I would very much like us to have a functioning Official Opposition in this country, but right now, I'm only filled with a sense of despair for the future of our parliament.

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

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.


Remember the old joke about a simplified tax form that said: 1) How much did you make last year?  2) How much do you have left?  3) Send it in.  Lately I've been wondering if there isn't some merit to it.

Not, obviously, because I favour government taking all your money.  But in two important ways.

First, the joke stings because it's far too close to reality.  Government at all levels now takes something over 40% of GDP counting narrowly (if you also include tax expenditures and regulations that deliberately distort key industries like finance, a series of Macdonald-Laurier Institute papers has argued, it's closer to 60%).  Once you pay that much tax on top of buying food, clothing, shelter and the essentials of a decent life, it's no wonder Canadians have little left over for savings and, like their governments, are deeply in debt.

Second, the joke might actually be the basis for a simplified tax form and system that would work without taking almost everything.  Suppose we got rid of almost all existing taxes, and the complex system of exemptions, loopholes and boutique tax credits that contaminates the current income tax system, and instead had a tax form that read "How much did you make last year?" "Subtract a basic allowance" and "Send this share of the rest".  And that would be all the tax you'd pay.

In principle it sounds pretty good, right?  Including no incomprehensible multi-page tax form.  The question, however, is what the basic allowance and tax rate would be.

Suppose for the sake of argument it said: "How much did you make last year?"  "Subtract $30,000" and "Send half of the rest".

"Half?" you gasp.  But it gets worse.  According to one Statistics Canada study, the average income of the bottom one-fifth of income earners in 2012 was $13,600 and of the second fifth $34,600. So if we set the basic allowance at $30,000 most of that 40% would pay nothing and the remaining 60% or so would have to pay everything.  But since the bottom 40% earn, in total, just under 15% of total income in Canada, you'd be raising the 40% of GDP governments need from nearly 90% of Canadians' income.

On that basis you'd get to send just under half.  But wait, because everyone gets the first $30,000 tax free, which turns out to exempt roughly 22% more of total income.  So you're left raising all your money from about two-thirds of all income earned in Canada.  And to get 40% of GDP out of 66% of income, you're looking at a flat tax of nearly 60% on all income earned in Canada above a $30,000 basic allowance.

Pretty scary, huh?  We know marginal rates that high have a very discouraging effect on enterprise, though at least my proposed system would leave little room for legal tax avoidance.  But sometimes fear is good.

It alerts you to dangers like being overgoverned.  One major drawback of our existing tax system is that we are being nibbled to death by ducks, paying HST here, property tax there, gasoline tax at the pump, "delivery charges" on our electricity and so forth.  What might Canadians say if the whole thing came in one big bite?  And what might they say if they realized that a truly "progressive" tax system is incompatible with government as big as our own because you can't just tax "the rich" when governments are so voracious?

Andrew Coyne recently observed in the National Post that the infamous "one percent" in Canada, namely people earning over $250,000, currently get about 10% of all income but pay about 21% of federal income tax.  Moreover, and to me more surprising, the top eight percent of earners pay more than half of all federal income tax.  We are definitely taxing "the rich" heavily and 91% of us pay less than half of income tax.  But most of us pay a lot one way or another because governments need far more money than even a confiscatory income tax regime can raise.

In that sense my proposal is obviously impractical.  But I did not put it forward only to smash it and see what sense we could make of the fragments.  I want people thinking about why our system has to be so complicated as well as so large.

I recently heard a suggestion that Canadian provinces could eliminate their income taxes entirely if they were willing to impose fairly hefty sales taxes, probably somewhere just shy of 15%.  I don't by many economists' argument that sales taxes are better than income taxes because they reward saving.  I don't think it's the government's business whether you save or spend.  I think the purpose of taxes is to raise the money necessary to pay for programs, not induce free adult citizens to give to charity, go to the gym or buy bonds.  But a sales tax, unless deliberately made nightmarishly complex, raises money cleanly, avoids the nightmare of the current income tax form and, again, shows just how big the bill is for government.  And those are all good things.

A far simpler income tax system would have the same virtues.  To produce anything like what I originally suggested the basic exemption would have to be rather lower than $30,000, and the "flat" rate structure would have to have several tiers, ranging from perhaps 20% on the first slice of income to maybe 40% at the top.  But such a system would nevertheless be far less economically distorting, far simpler to comply with, and much clearer about how much we pay in total than the existing one.

So there's life in that old joke after all.  Even if you're still not laughing.

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.


There's nothing quite so refreshing, so very cleansing to the soul, as the shameless hypocrisy of a crusading politician.  Time and again some high-horse moralizer will preach and preach about the evils of this or that, only to find themselves quickly turning about when offered the opportunity for a quick buck.

This week's stunning greedhead is Julian Fantino.  You may remember him as a bumbling scold on the benches of Stephen Harper's government, but before that, he was a scold with a gun and a badge.

A Toronto-area cop who made no secret of the dangers of the demon weed, who then found himself at the head of the Ontario Provincial Police, where he set up a task force to crack down on grow ops.  A man who lost an election preaching the dangers of Justin Trudeau's legal cannabis policy as dangerous for children.

A man who now finds himself as the executive chair of a medical marijuana company Aleafia.

Ah, just so.

You may remember flyers Fantino sent around to his constituents before the last election warning the people of his Toronto riding how dangerous and terrible the Liberal's plan to legalize marijuana.  In the flier he said, "Legalization is an irresponsible policy that only puts dangerous drugs on the streets and in our communities, and sends the wrong message to children that recreational drug use is okay."

And it wasn't long after that Fantino was telling the Toronto Sun he wanted no part of the selling of recreational marijuana:

" 'There's a lot of money in it,' Fantino said.  'Big money.'  He said he was offered 'to fall in with a company' that wanted to pay him very well to simply lend his name to it.  Not a chance.  'I would never do it.' "

Medical pot, though?  Well, that's a different story.  The former minister says his time overseeing the nation's veterans convinced him of the benefits of medicinal marijuana for the treatment of illness.  But he was also able to see the other important factors.  For example, there's a butt-load of money in selling medicinal pot to people.

While he was minister, his department saw a huge increase in the amount it paid out to reimburse veterans with a cannabis prescription.  As the Canadian Press reported at the time: "The cost of providing medical marijuana to the country's injured soldiers under a Veterans Affairs program jumped to more than $4.3 million [in 2015], an increase of 10 times what was spent last year."

Now, $4.3 million isn't a huge amount of money in a federal context.  But a tenfold increase year-over-year?  That's something interesting.  So when Fantino talks about there being "a lot of money" in marijuana, he knows exactly what he's saying.  Now he gets a slice of that.

But let's not forget what context Fantino is coming from.  Here's a guy who was a cop at the height of the drug war.  A cop who spent his fair share of time putting people in prison for drug crimes.  And as Andray Domise made a point of on Twitter, a cop who has a history of inflaming racial tensions wherever he goes.

Who is it that police lock up in disproportionate numbers you may ask?  Well, why don't we take the word of another former Toronto cop turned politician: "I think there's a recognition that the current enforcement disproportionately impacts poor neighbourhoods and racialized communities, and there's something unjust about that."  That's former Toronto police chief and current Liberal MP Bill Blair talking to Maclean's.

Of course, Fantino isn't the only hypocrite in this.  He's got a partner in not-crime, former undercover drug cop and deputy commissioner of the RCMP, Raf Souccar.

Our friend Mr. Souccar's involvement has the added benefit of being on the marijuana legalization advisory board for the government.  This is, by his own admission, a spot where he could be in a conflict of interest.  "There is clearly a potential conflict that could have occurred.  And I made sure to the extent that I believe is safe and ethical, I separated that," he told the National Post.  He separated that by waiting a couple months after the panel submitted its report before discussing whether to join the company he's now CEO of.

This is madness.  Here we have a couple of former cops, cashing in on selling a drug they spent much of their lives putting people in jail for.  One of those cops who was saying less than two years ago how, despite all the money, he didn't want in the marijuana business.  A cop who spent his time as a politician dying on the hill that marijuana legalization is bad.

My good gracious, THESE COPS ARE SELLING DRUGS NOW.

It's a utterly mind-boggling disgrace, but it's no real surprise.

Photo Credit: Macleans

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.


The democratic crisis in Catalonia is an example of what not to do when dealing with a democratically elected separatist government.

The Catalan referendum, scheduled for October 1st, was prohibited by the courts and deemed unconstitutional.  Madrid decided to enforce the ruling and sent security forces to Barcelona to seize the 10 million ballots and arrest regional government officials.

While the Catalan regional government has acknowledged that the holding of the referendum was compromised, Carles Puigdemond, the president of the Catalan government, has pledged to move forward.

The Catalan nationalists and independentists are no longer the only ones to oppose the Rajoy government.  Thanks to Madrid's heavy handed intervention, the whole region seems to be uniting.  Meanwhile, pro-democracy protests are spreading, not only in Catalonia, but across Spain and even into France and elsewhere in Europe.  Many demonstrators are brandishing the Catalan flag while the crowd is chanting "Si a la democracia".

In Canada, the Parti Québécois is strongly denouncing what is happening in Spain.  PQ Leader Jean-Françcois Lisée is attacking both Justin Trudeau and Philippe Couillard for their silence.  Some péquistes are even linking what is happening in Catalonia to Canada's approach to Quebec's secession under the Clarity Act.  The PQ sent an emissary to Barcelona, and separatists of all stripes were out en masse to a protest in front of the Spanish consulate in Montreal: Lisée, of course, but also Bloc Québécois leader Martine Ouellet, former Leader Gilles Duceppe, Québec Solidaire co-spokesperson Manon Massé, and many more.

Madrid has succeeded in turning the issue of Catalonia's independence into a question of basic democracy, converting many Catalans to the independence cause in the process.  They may have reached the point of no return.

If the referendum seems difficult to maintain under the current conditions, which was the objective of Madrid, it is now facing even more virulent opposition.  A month ago, it was far from clear that Catalans would have voted in favour of independence.  If somehow a vote is actually held on October 1st, it is virtually guaranteed that they would.

In Madrid, the Socialist Party, the first opposition party, supported the conservative People's Party in power to defend the rule of law, as did the centrists of Ciutadans, a party born in Catalonia to fight the separatists.

But that support is threatened as the separatist movement grows, and if blood is shed, the Spanish government would lose the confidence of the assembly.  Meanwhile, hard liners within his own party are calling on Rajoy to send in the army and are strongly opposed to any concessions to Catalonia.  Other regions of Spain are also not inclined to hear the Catalan claims because it would threaten the benefits they are getting from Spain's equalization rules of redistribution of wealth.

And while Mariano Rajoy now says he is ready to discuss with Catalonia within the constitutional framework.  It might be too little, too late.

Photo Credit: Yahoo

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.


It was announced Monday morning that by acclamation, Senator Yuen Pau Woo and Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain won the positions of Facilitator and Deputy Facilitator of the Independent Senators Group, replacing Senator Elaine McCoy, who opted not to run again.  That this large and growing group of senators soon to hold the plurality of the Upper Chamber is now being led by a team with very little parliamentary experience is going to mean interesting times ahead, and there could be red flags on the horizon if they aren't careful.

To start off with, I will admit that I'm not too familiar with either Woo or Saint-Germain, and I'm frankly shocked that some of the more forceful personalities within the ISG didn't make bids for the leadership positions themselves, especially considering how much some of them had been clamouring for media attention and trying to position themselves in the public eye that it would have seemed like going for leadership positions would be a natural next step.  That didn't happen, so we'll see if that is because they have opted to spend their time and attention for advocating for some particular causes that they are taking activist positions about, or if they're biding their time to make a bid during the next go-around, letting Woo and Saint-Germain do the heavy-lifting that will be required of them in the coming months.

What I do know of Woo has largely to do with the fact that he volunteered to sponsor the government's budget implementation bill through the Senate, but his goals were to act not as a proponent of the legislation, but as a shepherd through the Senate's processes something which makes me a bit uneasy given that this is very much the kind of bill that a minister of the Crown meaning the Leader of the Government in the Senate should be responsible for in the Senate in order to ensure that it conforms with the norms of Responsible Government, and that a money bill was overseen by someone in Cabinet.  That the current Government Leader err, "government representative," Senator Peter Harder (who is not in Cabinet) saw fit to pass this money bill off onto someone who is not affiliated with the governing party is troubling for the direction that the Senate is headed.

As part of his job as shepherd, Woo's goal was for it to be as scrutinized as effectively as possible something that should realistically be the job of an opposition critic, making the blurring of roles problematic.  By all accounts, Woo did a good job of it, ensuring that all of his colleagues had as much information as possible, and made sure to organize briefings with department officials outside of the committee study in order to ensure that their technical questions were answered, but again, that blurring of roles makes me uneasy, especially now that he is taking a leadership position for what will soon be the largest caucus group in the Senate.

As part of their letter to members of the ISG to explain their joint candidacy, Woo and Saint-Germain explained that they saw the work of the ISG as being able to change the entire institution of the Senate something that sets off my Westminster warning bells.

In keeping with the ideals of the ISG as being a caucus of independents, they pledged that each member of that caucus has the right to vote freely "without hindrance or retaliation," in the Chamber or on committee, and that they would not take any actions that would compromise that independence of thought or action, in appearance or reality.  They also pledged a collegial governance style, and that would use the different expertise of the members of the ISG, and that they would be transparent with the funds conferred upon the group for their shared services.

"Our parliamentary ethics are based on respect for the institution of the Senate and the protection of its rights and privileges," they wrote.  "This respect extends to all senators, whatever their origin or affiliation, and to the solemn role of the Speaker."

Rights and privileges are well and good to talk about, but my questions now extend to how they plan to extend theses protections in the face of Senator Harder's push for an external oversight model being pushed for by the Auditor General which would compromise the privileges of the Senate and would grievously damage its role as a self-governing institution.  Because these are new senators taking on this role, do they have enough of an appreciation for the depth and scope of the privileges of the institution that they are claiming respect for?  When you have someone like Harder preaching the dubious gospels of "what the Fathers of Confederation intended" when it comes to creating his particular vision of the Senate without there being any party caucuses one that would be much more pliable for him to co-opt I worry that too many of the new senators won't have sufficient knowledge to push back against this move.

I know that Woo and Saint-Germain will have a busy few weeks as they try to get the ISG's ducks in a row in advance of the sessional order expiring on October 31st, at which point they will have to determine how the ISG will play along with other caucuses when it comes to things like committee membership and leadership, and the role they will play with the Internal Economy Committee.  There is the question of whether the ISG will make a play to become the Official Opposition once they have plurality in the Chamber when the next round of appointments are made, though I'm told that Woo and Saint-Germain will be consulting with the rest of the ISG on that matter.  What they decide could shape the future of the Senate, and I intend to keep a close eye on events as they happen.

Photo Credit: Senate of Canada

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.


I knew that the PC Party of Ontario was a haunted house full of old, unsettled grudges and thwarted ambitions.

But it wasn't until the re-emergence of Brian Mulroney  a man who ascended to the office of Prime Minister the year I was born that I understood what kind of ghost story was being played out under the auspices of PCPO Leader Patrick Brown.

For me, the PC Party of Canada has always been a dead letter.  The significance of the brand is lost on me, likely because those who claimed that the newer Conservative Party of Canada was a betrayal of some obscure legacy never bothered to make their case clear.

In their minds, they probably didn't have to.  Like so many institutional zombies in this country, the PC Party of Canada had been around since the dawn of the nation, and it was the team that you were expected to stick by through good times and bad.

And unlike the Liberals, who reinvent themselves every generation and exorcise the spirits of Liberal Parties past, Conservatives linger on and refuse to go quietly into the next world.

Thus, Patrick Brown's attempt to breathe life into what was once thought dead.  Thus, the announcement of "revenue neutral" carbon pricing and the constant sounding off about how modern and inclusive the party is even as it seemingly works overtime to alienate groups of potential voters.

So if the spectre of PC Party of Ontario President Rick Dykstra insisting there's absolutely nothing untoward about the bizarre behaviour of party members, activists and staffers at nomination meetings across the province seems bizarre and otherworldly, it's probably because you're like the one character in the horror movie who notices something is off and tries to warn the others to no avail until members of the main cast start dropping dead or are killed off.

The rest of the PC Party faithful don't notice that the walls are closing in around them because for them, this kind of behaviour is normal and natural.  For them, it's the Harper-era CPC and the Mike Harris PCPO which are the aberrations, especially at those times when those parties managed to successfully challenge the Liberal-imposed boundaries of what was acceptable.

The uncanny and supernatural only captivate the imagination because they are, in part, familiar.  Something truly scary has to be in some way recognizable and in other ways unexplainable.

So, the very thing that is supposed to make the prospect of a Mulroney backed PC Party of Ontario so welcoming actually makes it terrifying.  As tempting and familiar as it may be for older conservatives, the PC Party of Canada cannot rise again, because it is dead.  Any attempt to resurrect it will produce a Frankenstein's monster of old and new bits.

This is why the CPC and the Harris PCPO were comparatively so dynamic and full of life.  They were not the dead-and-buried PC Party of Canada.  But unfortunately as we have seen with Patrick Brown the spirits of that old party are constantly on the lookout for new hosts to possess.

And by rigging the system so that only the most eager young loyalists, those millennials who have lost any hope of a comfortable future and those hacks who are willing to sell their souls for a chance at real power, have a chance to rise through the ranks while independent-minded conservatives are pushed out, a constant supply of fresh, willing sacrifices are assured.

The dead walk in Canada, and at times outnumber the living.  And, since horror movies sometimes don't have happy endings, I cannot promise the curse will ever be lifted.

Photo Credit: CTV News

Written by Josh Lieblein

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.


The four NDP leadership candidates made their last official pitch Sunday at the official NDP Leadership Showcase in Hamilton.  Online voting has now begun but was any of Sunday's performance enough to change anything?

It's been 700 days since the last Federal election, 528 days since Convention delegates decided to unceremoniously dump Tom Mulcair in Edmonton.  124,000  members will finally get to have their say about whom should lead the New Democrats into the 2019 election.

Despite Quebec having only 4% of the members, the province was a major part of every candidates' presentation.

Guy Caron casted himself as a bridge builder between Quebec and progressive Canadians.  In fact, it was the main message during his showcase with the bulk of his allotted time being used by key supporters and by three short videos.  Four different MPs came on stage to praise Caron's bridge building capacity, a message reinforced by Steelworkers president Ken Neumann, who pointed out that Steelworkers know a thing or two about building bridges.

It took a long time for Caron to finally take the stage himself.  He was introduced by his wife Valerie and walked  on stage with his kids.  Caron's arrival was upstaged by his son Dominic's dance moves, a big hit on social media.

Caron repeated the importance of maintaining and growing support in Quebec, something that is essential to the NDP's success.  Caron is quite right: the NDP will not form government federally unless it is able to recapture a sizeable number of seats in La Belle Province.  Caron believes he is the best positioned to do it and he certainly makes a good case.  As a native son, a staunch federalist and a credible progressive economist, Quebecers already see Caron as a step ahead of the other NDP leadership candidates as they consider their next federal ballot.

However, Caron made the strange decision to once again raise the debate about religious symbols and clothings, repeating his position that he disagreed with any ban as proposed by the Quebec government in Bill 62, but that he respected the right of the National Assembly to adopt such a law basically saying he wouldn't do a thing about it.

For many Quebec New Democrats, including Longueil-St-Hubert MP MP Pierre Nantel, that is the only position they would accept: "We don't want to see any ostentatious religious symbols.  We think that is not compatible with power, with authority," he said this week-end.  For other New Democrats, a right is a right is a right, Sherbrooke Declaration be damned.

By raising the issue, Caron was either courageous or reckless.  Either way, the bridge Caron is trying to build rests on a very fragile foundation.

Ontario MP Charlie Angus had the strongest performance.  He spoke with emotion, connected with the audience and brought up people on stage to illustrate what, or rather who this campaign was about.

Angus' camp highlighted his record as a longtime advocate for Aboriginal issues.  On stage with him, Serena Koostachin, who told the audience how the punk-rocker with a big heart helped her 13-year-old sister, Shannen, bring attention to plight of aboriginal youth in Attawapiskat, who were going to school in makeshift portables because the actual school had been condemned due to a decades-old fuel leak.

"You and your sister taught me and the nation that Indigenous youth have incredible power to make change.  And this is why I am here.  To be a partner, to be an ally," Angus said with tremors in his voice.

Angus then brought to the stage an auto worker from the Cami automotive plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, who is now on strike.  This was another example of Angus' main message he's got your back and he will fight the corporate interests and their friends in the Trudeau government; he will stand up for workers.

Niki Ashton continued with the same themes of her campaign, targeting youth and millennials.  She proceeded to enumerate a long list of goals and objectives: eliminate tuition fees, put pharmacare in place, create a national childcare system, establish a Crown corporation to fight climate change, etc.  That platform is certainly ambitious, or, as Ashton puts it, "bold and progressive."

How will she achieve all these things?  By dislodging Justin Trudeau in 2019, of course.  There hasn't been any other answer during her entire campaign.  So Ashton had a message for Trudeau: "Enjoy being prime minister while it lasts. … Canadians know that only the NDP will bring real change."  Let's not ask Canadians if that is indeed the case.

The presumed frontrunner Jagmeet Singh ran on stage to a backdrop of cheering supporters.  After a slow start, Singh got going when he recalled his struggles as a young Sikh and his encounter with police, "for no other reason than the colour of my skin."

Singh also addressed the religious symbols issue head-on, repeating his pitch to Quebec: "I've discovered that francophones in Canada and in particular Quebecers have faced similar pressures around their language and their identity," he said.  He learned French as "an act of solidarity", he added.

To Pierre Nantel and others, he made clear that his values include a firm belief "in the separation of church and state."  Singh reinforced the point: "I can assure you that my spiritual beliefs are not in conflict with my New Democrat values and progressives."

But many remain skeptical, having a hard time looking beyond the turban and the beard, as Singh pleaded.  A scepticism reinforced by the fact that Singh once brought a bill to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing motorcycle helmets.

But Singh also underlined his fundraising and organizing capacity, touting the thousands of new members he signed up during the race a lot of them from Liberal-held ridings.  Singh pointed to this success as evidence of what he can do leading up to 2019.  "Think about what we've been able to do in a few short months.  Now imagine what we can build together in two years," Singh said.  Many New Democrats are sensitive to this argument.  The party is starved for money and has yet to pay its 2015 election debt.

In the end, the event probably didn't change the game much.  Angus was at his best, doing all he could to alleviate concerns about a perceived top-down approach.  His emotional connection could have convinced many undecided.  But Singh did well enough to leave Hamilton feeling confident about the first round results.  Ashton's mantra probably only achieved to re-motivate her base, while Caron didn't have enough sparks to convince a critical mass of his round two supporters to vote for him in the first round.

Meanwhile, New Democrats have started to vote and are thankful that the end is near.

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.


Four distinct candidates offer very different views on how socialism and social democracy will evolve in Canada

In a few weeks, the federal New Democratic Party will have a new leader.  The four remaining candidates have very different visions for Canada and, quite frankly, for the future of Canadian socialism and social democracy.

Here's a quick overview.

Charlie Angus, the MP for Timmins-James Bay, has emerged as the establishment candidate (of sorts).  He's more in the mould of the last two NDP leaders, Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair.  Angus takes conventional positions on politics and economics, stays relatively clear of controversy and strongly defends a more realistic, centre-left philosophy on governing.

Niki Ashton, the MP for Churchill-Keewatinook Aski, is the darling of the radical left.  She's regularly denounced "corporate greed," and promoted "environmental justice" and a need to get back to the "socialist vision" of the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (the party's predecessor).  She's trying to recreate the NDP of old and push for a more state-oriented, anti-free-market model to run the government.

Guy Caron, the MP for Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques, seems to be trying to bridge the social democratic establishment with old-style socialism.  He's called for significant income tax changes, including the establishment of a tax crimes division and financial activities tax.  He also wants "trade deals that work for Canadians."

Jagmeet Singh, the Ontario MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, is attempting to present himself as the true candidate of change.  He likes to tout his progressive policies and social democratic views on issues such as an increased minimum wage, environmental protection and social justice.  If he wins, he would be the first Sikh to ever lead a major federal political party.

This race is rather important for the party's future.  It won't be (and shouldn't be) an easy choice for grassroots members.

What's the best course of action for the NDP?  Here's some free advice from a right-leaning conservative.

Vote with your head and not your heart. It's easy to understand how some of the candidates (in particular, Ashton and Singh) could create short-term gains for the party. But you have to seriously think about the long game in politics, too. Hence, it's important to identify the candidates who seem the most solid for the next one or two election campaigns, and isolate the ones who will simply be splashy for, and fade away in, one election cycle. This will make the choice somewhat easier.

Fixate on the right (or, in this case, left!) political and economic direction the NDP should go. Party members need to decide whether the NDP should maintain social democratic values or re-adopt socialism. It's also important to examine global patterns for the political left. This includes what like-minded parties are doing in regions like Europe, Asia and Africa, and how concepts such as small business, environmental policies, union control, and the free-market economy are being interpreted and utilized.

Start seriously considering what Canadians really want in their next government. The NDP has long been Canada's perennial third party in Parliament, with the notable exception of the 2011 federal election. There are many reasons for this, including a political vision that seems out of touch with reality and policies that are often perceived as likely to hurt more individuals and groups than help. So it would be wise to tweak long-standing policies to engage the progressive electorate and open the door to more wide-ranging policy discussions. While some grassroots members are more concerned about principles that power, which is honourable, there's no reason you can't have both.

Angus is the most sensible choice for NDP leader.

If party members prefer to gamble, Singh seems to be the best bet.

We'll see which left-wing political vision wins out shortly.

Photo Credit: CTV News

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.


Ever since the Auditor General issued his report on the Senate expenses, we have been waiting to see what kind of oversight mechanism the Senate would implement that would provide a better handle on the expenses of the Upper Chamber.  While Michael Ferguson was horrified by the fact that senators were making their own rules, and that senators were judging other senators, there was a complete disconnect with the realities of just how a parliamentary democracy operates.

Enter Senator Peter Harder, the Government Leader in the Senate err, "government representative," who wrote in Policy Options on Friday that he was all for the AG's recommendation of a completely external oversight committee to oversee those expenses, and if there were to be any senators that were part of that committee, that they should be in the minority.

Unlike Ferguson, Harder was able to mouth the words about retaining the Senate's ability to be self-governing, which on the surface seemed like a good thing.  But Harder then provided a number of examples to prove his point that demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about just how this works.

To begin with, Harder cites the Senate Ethics Officer as an example of independent oversight, whose judgment senators most recently were willing to listen to when it came to the findings of misconduct related to now-former Senator Don Meredith.  The hole in Harder's logic?  The Senate Ethics Officer is an officer of parliament and not an external body.  She reports to Parliament, and indeed to the Senate itself.  Indeed, the AG himself is also an officer of parliament, which is one of those process-related reasons why many Senators and MPs didn't want him to be the one auditing the Senate (or the House of Commons for that matter), because Parliament is his boss.  For them, they would have preferred an external organization doing the auditing where the lines of accountability were much clearer and more defined.

To bolster his case, Harder pointed to both the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that has been set up to oversee the UK's House of Commons, and the Australian Parliamentary Expenses Authority as examples of similar external oversight bodies in other Westminster democracies.  The problem, of course, is that things don't necessarily port well, even between Westminster parliaments, in large part because we each have different constitutional frameworks.  While both the UK and Australia have created a statutory authority as a solution to different perceived problems in their countries the UK most especially after the expenses scandal in 2009, a scandal which dwarfs what improprieties were found in the Canadian Senate (and a reminder that much of the Auditor General's report here was problematic and based on personal value judgments that would not have withstood the legal scrutiny of a court of law).

Add to that, there has been a definite shift in the UK to start moving "beyond" a system of responsible government, as evidenced by their Fixed Term Elections Act and the ways in which they are now voting on foreign policy as divorced from confidence votes things which have created no end of governance problems in their country that Canada should steer very clear of if we value our system of government.

While Harder may chide Canadian parliamentarians as apparently not being willing to adopt "modern governance practices," while also noting that he would want any independent oversight here to be done on the cheap (because that's a recipe for a good governance), he utterly ignores the key issue, which is maintaining parliamentary privilege.

"Senators must acknowledge that it is inappropriate for them to stand in ultimate judgment of their peers without a reasonable degree of transparency and independent oversight," Harder wrote, and he's half-right that this is an issue that requires transparency, but the degree of independence of the oversight is part of the problem.  Parliamentary privilege protects the Senate's ability to be self-governing, and that's part of a separation of powers issue that keeps the courts out of the legislature's domain and vice-versa.  A truly independent oversight body blurs that separation, and the protection of those privileges is what allows Parliament and most especially the Senate to discipline its own.  If we want the Senate to be able to punish its bad apples, then we need to ensure that its ability to do so isn't compromised by chipping away at those privileges with more "independent oversight."

Harder, of course, tries to be clever about this too, by proposing a compromise that the independent oversight body would not have binding authority over the Senate, but rather just recommend that the Senate vote on its findings.  But if that's the case, then why bother going through the charade of creating an independent body that is otherwise toothless?

If the Senate is looking for a model that allows a both a degree of needed oversight with an external view, but which won't compromise parliamentary privilege, then I would suggest that they return to the suggestion that Senator Elaine McCoy has been making since the beginning of the Senate expenses imbroglio, which is to look to the House of Lords' audit body.  McCoy's suggestion is that it be comprised of three senators, plus an external auditor and a former judge to arbitrate any disputes that arise.  Why the three Senators out of five are important is because it keeps it within the fold of the Senate and its privileges, while still keeping an external eye on the issues at hand, and wouldn't require the kinds of compromises that Harder doesn't seem to have fully thought through.

Ultimately, if one is looking to impose external oversight over our parliament, then we might as well declare that our 169 years of responsible government is a failure and hand power back over to the Queen, because it means that we ultimately can't be trusted to govern ourselves.  Otherwise, let's keep Parliament self-governing and demand better mechanisms for transparency that will drive accountability, which can be done without surrendering parliamentary privilege.

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.


Well, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Leader Patrick Brown has suddenly found the courage to take a stand against Premier Kathleen Wynne and show where he differs from the record-setting unpopular leader.  No, it's not in finally presenting real alternatives to Wynne's terrible policies, like a job-killing $15 minimum wage, a burdensome carbon tax, a phony hydro rate reduction, etc.  Instead, Brown is standing his ground and digging his heels in by refusing to retract his patently false statement that the Premier is herself standing trial for corruption, even after receiving a letter from Wynne's lawyer demanding an apology and retraction for his fib.

The reader should take the use of "patently" to mean both that Brown's statement is unequivocally false and that Brown has filed for the rights to that lie.

In a scrum with reporters Brown said, "I hope that the premier will give us answers, we're not getting them in the legislature, maybe when she stands trial."  This was in response to a question from CBC reporter Mike Crawley asking about why Brown had not brought up the Sudbury bribery case against two Liberal political operatives Wynne was set to testify at the following day.

Ottawa Citizen's David Reevely and others have claimed this was Brown "fumbling," but I doubt Brown, a former lawyer, doesn't know the difference between standing on trial and voluntarily testifying in a trial (she could've invoked her parliamentary privilege to avoid it).  Instead, observers should be looking at this far more cynically.  It's hard to fathom Brown misspeaking, as his office originally claimed when he was first called out for his false statement, since just a week prior a member of Brown's caucus, MPP Bill Walker, was forced to apologize for making similar baseless accusations that Wynne is under investigation and facing charges of bribery in connection to the ongoing trial.

And even if Brown did misspeak, then why would he double down in releasing the following statement?

"Yesterday was a sad day for Ontario.  No one, whatever their political view, wants to see the Premier of our province debased and humiliated.  Regrettably Kathleen Wynne compounded this sorry spectacle with baseless legal threats against me; threats that will be ignored."

This proverbially middle finger from Brown to Wynne was churlish and insincere, especially when the day Wynne testified Brown gleefully tweeted out an attack video of her outside the courthouse facing reporters in Sudbury compared to video clips of his day hanging out at a school, smiling and high-fiving children, while using the the outro music of Curb Your Enthusiasm for the soundtrack.  His trolling and disingenuousness accomplishes the impossible: drawing a smidgen of sympathy for the embattled and scandal-plagued Wynne.

So Brown has essentially stuck out his tongue at Wynne and is going to own his relatively trivial "misstatement" he could have easily swept away by saying he misspoke.  What could possibly be his reasoning for not doing this?  Perhaps he thinks voters will find this matter trivial and a desperate attempt by Wynne to change the channel on her many failings as Premier.  If Wynne files a lawsuit against Brown for defamation, perhaps he thinks voters will look at it as absurd that the sitting Premier is suing him after two of her former operatives stood on trial over audio recordings of them claiming Wynne would give a job to a former Liberal candidate if he stepped aside quietly in the Sudbury byelection.

What Brown seems to forget is that he hasn't come across as likeable to the media in the past and isn't likely to win any more ground in amiability in this narrative where reporters are already taking sides with the Premier.

But don't take my word for it, here's Wynne's press secretary Jennifer Beaudry:

"While Patrick Brown refuses to apologize, we are encouraged that media coverage and public discussion over the last 48 hours has covered just how wrong and misleading his comments were.  We continue to consider all of our options at this point in time, and will govern ourselves by the timelines set out in the Libel and Slander Act."

They should feel encouraged when Wynne's primary opponent thinks it's good strategy to distract from Wynne testifying at the Sudbury bribery trial and actively help Wynne garner sympathy from the press, making her somehow the victim in all of this.  Why give her any options at all other than owning the original shit storm?

Wynne's now given Brown an ultimatum of six weeks to either apologize or see her in court.  Of course this is all deja vu; Brown's predecessor had legal action filed against him by an unpopular Wynne when he made wild allegations in the lead up to the last election.  We all know how that ended.

This time around it looks like both Wynne and Brown are waiting for the other to blink, but in this obstinate game of chicken it looks like they're going to collide into each other, wrestling in the mud.

NDP leader Andrea Horwath currently the most liked by voters if you believe the latest polling -must be having a good chuckle.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

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.