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

A story out of CBC Saskatoon over the weekend made me despair for the state of our democracy once more, which is about how partisans of all stripes are flocking to buy Saskatchewan Party memberships in order to vote in the upcoming leadership race to replace Brad Wall.  After all, this is not only about who will lead the party, but it's also about having a direct hand in choosing who is going to be the next premier of the province, and who wouldn't want to take part in that?  The problem?  It's utterly corrosive to our system of democracy in this country.

To be clear, this isn't a Saskatchewan problem.  It's been happening for decades, and Alberta perfected it when the Progressive Conservatives were in power over the course of over four decades, and toward the end, it's certainly part of what led to their eventual downfall.  We also recently saw a similar phenomenon with the federal Conservative leadership contest, where people who nominally support other parties all took out memberships in order to vote for someone who wasn't Kellie Leitch, but for as much as they tried to channel that toward Michael Chong's bid, it certainly wasn't nearly enough to make an impact.  And in the end, its more lasting damage is the way in which people believe our system operates.

Part of these problems stem from the way in which Canadian parties have bastardized the Westminster system when it comes to choosing party leaders, going back to the Liberal Party in 1919, when they opened up the process from the caucus to a delegated membership convention to choose a new leader, settling on William Lyon Mackenzie King.  The eventual rupture that the move caused for how accountability works in our political system when King faced a caucus revolt in the face of a scandal, he reminded them that they didn't choose him and thus they could not remove him later widened when one-member-one-vote systems became more widely adopted.  When that happened, leaders started to claim a "democratic legitimacy" of thousands of voters who supported him or her directly instead of the handful of caucus members, and thus they were secure in centralizing their power and authority.  Accountability in our system has suffered greatly ever since.

But while this particular problem of removing the accountability of leaders is a big enough issue, the process of instant memberships is a much more insidious problem for how our system operates, because it subverts the entire party system.  Party memberships are supposed to be the way for ordinary citizens to interface with the process it's how candidates get nominated in order for their names to be on the ballot in the forthcoming election, and it's how party policy gets debated in order for it to be forwarded to a policy convention so that an election platform can be hammered out.  What instant memberships for leadership contests do, however, is sever that link between the grassroots and the party, and instead empower a leader who then gets to ignore the entire grassroots process.

Witness how it has become standard for leadership candidates to bring forward policy packages that they run on for their members to confirm, and their victory is seen as tacit support for those policies to be what the party runs on.  Where then does the grassroots, bottom-up policy development go?  While it may still happen on a pro-forma basis, its validity is largely devalued because policy has become the domain of the leader, and they can and on many occasions, have overridden the will of the membership in order to run the platform development out of their office.

Former Senator Lowell Murray, who was one of the last remaining Progressive Conservatives in the Upper Chamber, made the following trenchant observation shortly after his retirement, in reference to Alberta's instant-membership leadership system, and the loss of cohesion that it engenders:

Where is the commitment?  If the membership of a political party at the constituency level is so fluid and so amorphous, how can that party play its essential role of acting as an interlocutor of the people of that constituency and the caucus and government in Ottawa or Edmonton, or Toronto or wherever?  The short answer is that it can't, and then the constituency party is just a sitting duck it's completely at the mercy of the well-financed and permanent apparatchiks in the nation's or the provincial capital.

The key word there is interlocutor.  Your local constituency association should be the place where you, as the party member, can interface with the caucus, be it federal or provincial, whether or not your riding voted in a member from your party or not.  It should be the place where your concerns are funnelled, so that your voice is heard.  When the point of memberships is to validate leaders, that role is diminished, if not obliterated.

Leadership contests should not be a quasi-presidential primary system, and yet that's where we are doomed to end up so long as these wrong-headed processes are encouraged, and when they aren't being questioned by experts or the media.  And make no mistake there is presidentialization happening, from the centralization of power in the leader's office, to the disconnect between the leader and the caucus in violation of the spirit of the Westminster system, to the fact that we are now seeing leaders like Jagmeet Singh, who no longer feel compelled to run for a seat, and for whom pundits are giving them cover for such a blatantly wrong-headed position in the context of our parliamentary norms.  That we empower these wannabe presidents with instant memberships has caused so much damage to the way that our system operates.  Instant memberships don't empower citizens as some may claim they merely empower the leaders without any corresponding accountability mechanisms to keep them in check.  It's a kind of populism that has eaten away at our institutions, and will be very difficult to walk back from when we realize the damage that's been done.

Photo Credit: Chatelaine

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.


This isn't about free speech.  As a Canadian, Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is as free to speak her mind today as she was last week; as Laurier himself would have put it, freedom is her nationality.  This is really about saving universities from themselves.

Last week was when Shepherd was disciplined for having played a clip of an interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson in her first-year communications tutorial, in a class that focused on the evolution of gendered pronouns.  Peterson himself rose to notoriety after criticizing Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.  Since then, he has developed an almost cult-like following based on both his scorn of "post-modernism" and his self-help offerings, which young men especially have embraced with gusto.

Shepherd, a self-described "leftist," told the administrators she disagreed with him.  They insisted that by failing to mention this during her lecture, she had "created a toxic climate" in violation of Laurier's Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy, in particular:

3.02 Gendered Violence: an act or actions that reinforce gender inequalities resulting in physical, sexual, emotional, economic or mental harm.  This violence includes sexism, gender discrimination, gender harassment, biphobia, transphobia, homophobia and heterosexism, intimate partner violence, and forms of Sexual Violence.  This violence can take place on any communication platform (e.g., graffiti, online environments, and through the use of phones).

Note the word "harm."  Even hardened libertarians tend to agree that freedom ends where harm to another person begins, such as incitement to violence, defamation, or fraud.  A feeling of offence or discomfort does not count, least of all when the speaker simply displays the discomforting content in the context of a larger discussion.  And "violence," by definition, implies intent to harm, which the administrators admit that Shepherd did not have.

However many students complained about Shepherd's lecture, all of them need these distinctions explained to them.  Once you separate harm from offence, it's clear that she did not violate Laurier's policy in letter or in spirit.  The school's administrators might have said so in response to the students' complaints.  Instead siding with "one or multiple students" over a grad student, an associate professor, and a growing chorus of critics  faculty members will approve and monitor Shepherd's tutorials going forward.  Per university president Deborah MacLatchy, they'll also be "striking a task force" to determine how to balance open academic debate with inclusivity and diversity.

With the right input, that task force will produce something like this:

The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.  In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.  But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University's commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.

This comes from the Report on the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago, released in January 2015.  Several other U.S. universities have adopted the "Chicago Principles."  The first Canadian campus to do so will set a precedent that could lead students, faculty members and administrators in this country to think before they mistake offence for harm.  With the addition of language protecting the freedom to engage in academic work, as recommended by David Moshman of the University of Nebraska, administrators at Laurier will be forced to justify their interference with Shepherd.

This is the best way forward for students and professors who share Shepherd's belief in confronting uncomfortable ideas an open forum.  There is no need to avoid academia altogether, or to hand over the defence of free discussion to its least qualified, least reasonable spokespeople.  Laurier, and all campuses, must take it upon themselves to live up to the "intellectual inquiry, critical reflection and scholarly integrity" they call their cornerstones.

Photo Credit: Wilfrid Laurier University

Written by Jess Morgan

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.