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

Day: September 18, 2018

Have we said recently that Un-President "Ronald Plump"'s attacks on the independent and free press are what's REALLY deplorable here?  We have?  Often?  Despite the fact that he probably doesn't even know the Canadian media exists?  Or that, on most days, he doesn't even know that Canada itself exists?  Well, isn't that just like him.  Rude!

Speaking of rude, who the hell gave permission for Americans like National Enquirer publisher David Pecker (tee-hee!) to come up here and start advising Postmedia on how to do whatever it is they do?  True, Pecker has recently resigned, and we couldn't care less if the Post went out of business tomorrow, which is what we've been secretly hoping for ever since they went into business, so it shouldn't really matter who they have on their board since we'd hate them anyway.  However, sometimes, in cases like this, you have to concern yourself with how the future of Canadian news is affected by letting Mob Boss Donny From Queens' wingman have a seat at the table.

We expect that fascist-adjacent conservative news in Canada at least maintain SOME semblance of respectability, but you have to ask if they're really trying anymore.  We mean, come on.  The National Enquirer?  Why would Canadians read that filth when they have such nutritious news options as Hello! Canada and Chatelaine available at supermarket checkouts, to go along with their $25 Loblaws gift card?  We can't even remember the last time we saw a Canadian celebrity in the National Enquirer!!

There was also the unseemly revelations of the Enquirer killing stories unfavourable to the not-President, and it quickly became obvious that not even the hacks at the failing, low-energy Notional Pest should continue stroking Pecker's….ego, after a cock-up like this.  Especially after the CBC has been accused of killing stories that would have made Royal Bank look bad, or killing Linden Macintyre's last story, or trying to bury the Kokanee Grope revelations.

It's a good thing that they scratched Pecker before people started asking questions about other Canadian groups with tight links to the Americans, like the Toronto Star's cozy relationship with the New York Times, or Canada 2020, "the progressive think tank that really runs Canada", which is effectively an offshoot of the Democratic Party, or all that foreign money that flowed into the country to defeat the CPC in the 2015 election.

But screw Pecker, because just talking about how much he sucks doesn't give our homegrown Trumplings enough credit for their attempts to destroy liberal democracy.  We love a good conspiracy theory just as much as anyone, but not even we can lay "HITLER HAUNTS THE NDP" at the feet of the Americans.  Our right wing Canadian not-really-journalists are just as good (or just as bad?) as any bottom-feeding corporate lackey running dogs, and we'll fight anyone who says differently!

Now I hear you asking: How do we square our attacks on right wing "journalists" with our opposition to Trump's attacks on media folks?  Well, you've probably already guessed the answer from our use of quotation marks around the word "journalists" when it comes to talking about them.  If a so-called journalist gives comfort and aid to the wrong kind of Americans, then they must not be real journalists!  How do we know?  Because us real journalists report the facts, and when we say they aren't real journalists, that's a fact!

But we are nothing if not a fair #Resistance, and we just want all of the fake-news peddling right wingers to know that if they renounce their evil ways and stick to promoting the kind of viewpoints that line up with the PMO, they'll be welcomed back with open arms.  Just ask Michael Coren, who's earned a complete pardon for the wacky stuff he used to say about how Danish kids being murdered was "ironic".  Don't think that we won't notice if you make nicey-nice with Rebel Media afterwards, though!

You might wonder what end this endless self-policing serves, but if we didn't do it, how would the people know who their enemies really were?

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.

loonie-thumb

More from Other Columnists

Click here for more

After yesterday's surprise floor-crossing by MP Leona Alleslev from the Liberals to the Conservatives, we have been treated to some of the usual drama queens of parliament collapsing on their fainting couches about how terrible floor-crossers are.  Well, none of them from the Conservative benches, given that they've just gained an MP and they think they've scored a hit against Justin Trudeau in the process, but the NPD in particular are retreading some of their greatest talking points.

"You'd have to have a pretty massive ego to think you got elected solely on your great looks and good charm and that it wasn't something to do with the Party and the platform and the Leader," snarked Nathan Cullen after Alleslev's move on Monday.  "It's a package deal whenever people are voting.  It's the local MP plus the ideas that are being offered by the Party."

The NDP tend to be pretty militant about this sort of thing, but considering that in 2011, they gained dozens of new MPs based on an "orange wave" that saw Quebeckers voting for "Le Bon Jack" rather than the actual candidates in their ridings many of whom had never visited the riding, or who were invisible in their campaigning it's no surprise that they're a bit defensive about it.  And to that end, they've attempted to pass legislation at the federal level to insist that an MP who crosses the floor has to either sit as an independent or resign and run again in a by-election.  Some of their provincial wings have passed similar laws in their own provinces, Manitoba being one example, but at the core of these attempted laws are a fundamental misunderstanding with what an elected representative's role is supposed to be.

Ultimately, our electoral system works because we elect MPs as individuals.  It's why we elect them to fill seats rather than apportion seats based on party votes.  It gives MPs individual agency to make their own decisions, and to be held to account for them.  It's also important because our system is based on confidence, and the government maintaining it.  While that can engender a certain amount of party discipline in order to ensure that there is always confidence, the fact that MPs have agency enough to withdraw that confidence keeps them as the people who have ultimate power within our system not the party leaders.  Yes, we've diminished that with our bastardized leadership system were the leaders have claimed an outsized amount of power based on the "democratic legitimacy" of their leadership vote, but in the end, it's the MPs or MPPs that will ultimately have the power to pull the plug on a government that crosses a line.

It works the same way with our MPs or MPPs having the individual agency to stick with their party or not, depending on the circumstances.  We have elected them whether we consciously elect them as individuals or not at the ballot box or not for their judgment.  It comes with being in a representative democracy, where we place our trust in a representative who will act on our behalf.  Whether we do so with the party platform or the party leader in mind, we nevertheless put our faith in that representative.  The alternative is really nothing less than not bothering with MPs and just filling the House of Commons with drones who will vote according to the leader's wishes (and, given the way things work right now, recite canned speeches into the record).  And even if they act on behalf of the party or the leader the majority of the time, we still need for there to be an escape valve of personal judgment that allows them the ability to vote against their leader and party if the circumstances demand it.  That extends to leaving the party and joining a different one as well.

Trudeau himself acknowledged this yesterday when asked about Alleslev's defection.  "This is something that [is] allowed for in our system," he said, before wishing her well within her new caucus.  And he's right.

And because our system is based on accountability, it is now up to Alleslev's constituents to judge her as to whether it was the right move to cross over to the Conservatives or not.  It's possible that they will decide that it was the wrong move and decide to punish her at the ballot box, or they might decide that they too were unhappy with Trudeau's performance and that it was a good move.  But they get to decide that.  And I think that by not insisting that a by-election be held immediately, it allows for the vote to be a bit more dispassionate, and where voters get to evaluate the MP's post-crossing performance rather than voting in short-term anger or disappointment.  There will be a record that they can judge her on, rather than just the act itself, and that's not a bad thing.

I would add that Alleslev will still have to give a reason for her decision to cross that will satisfy her voters, and I'm not sure she's done so yet, given that her reasons on Monday were not terribly coherent, based on a false premise (that she couldn't criticize the government from the backbenches), or on dishonest Conservative talking points (such as her insistence that the economy is "not strong" when both Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada have stated that the economy is pretty much running at capacity, with unemployment at forty-year lows, rising wages and relatively strong GDP growth, even in the face of tariffs).  It will be up to them to determine if she had a matter of personal principle, or whether this was opportunism after she saw the riding, which she won narrowly in 2015, go strongly PC during the provincial election.  But her voters will hold her to account, and all of the pearl clutching about her decision doesn't change the fact that she has agency in our system, and opted to use it.

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

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.

Screen Shot 2024-02-26 at 11.27.30 AM

More from Dale Smith

Click here for more

What is this strange feeling I have?

I've just seen a Québec leaders' debate, in English, where PQ Leader Jean-François Lisée made an impressive, damn-near convincing case for anglophone Quebecers to give the PQ their votes.

Now, it's unlikely he does pick up much in the way of anglo votes.  The PQ is not the sort of party that has a favourable relationship with the anglophone community in this province.  But I can't shake the feeling that he might be on to something.

It was interesting in the way he bookended the debate with his opening and closing statements.  Right out of the gate, he acknowledged that he believes Québec should be an independent state, and he would hold a referendum in his second mandate, should he get one.  And then nobody touched the issue again.

This is a testament to his position as the leader of a party that's running in a consistent third place in the polls.  And it's also a testament to how this election is about other things.

Which brings us to his closing statement, where he made a very different pitch than the other leaders.  It was a pure environmental policy giving details of the PQ's plan to move the province away from oil production, and fund things like car sharing and electric vehicles to combat climate change.

The CAQ under François Legault came into the debate with a fair, but shrinking, lead in the polls.  In a province growing tired of the governing Liberal party, the CAQ has has led the pack as the people who could court voters as a viable option for change.

And yet, and yet.

This bizarre thing happened where Lisée — a leader of a separatist party — came away seeming as, in my estimation, the most credible alternative to the Liberals and their leader Philippe Couillard in an English-language debate.  (I really cannot oversell the strangeness of that sentence.)

He did this not by cutting down the Liberals, as much as he did do that, but by gleefully helping to throw Legault off kilter.  Early on, the CAQ leader was able to keep talking about the things he wanted to talk about.  But as the early evening debate wore on, Legault was pushed more and more on the defensive.

Legault finished with a closing statement seemingly prepared in advance which emphasized the case, I assume, he was to have made through the course of the debate.  He said was a credible candidate for change in the premier's office with his sweeping new vision for Québec.

But there was little of that vision on evidence.

He spoke of a lower tax burden, getting more companies involved in recycling, extending full-day kindergarten to four year olds, and giving everyone better access to a family doctor to relieve pressure on emergency rooms.

But for all of that, very little seemed to have any real sticking power.

He was attacked from either side — Lisée stood to his right, Couillard to his left — on his immigration stance that would impose a language and values test on new immigrants, and expelling those people from the province that couldn't pass.

And he had little credible response other than he said he was being reasonable, perfectly reasonable.

He wasn't able to go further than that, though.  He tried to pivot, again and again, to the fact that 26 per cent of immigrants to Québec end up leaving the province, and that his party's plan was to reduce the total number of incoming migrants and provide them better services.  But he was never able to make a case expelling people for a lack of French or failing some kind of values test.  It's the sort of thing a party trying to win government for the first time should have an explanation for.

But they can't, because it's not defensible on anything approaching a rational basis, so every time it came up Legault was left to fumble and fidget.

Lisée was decent at speaking to anglo anxiety, promising not to shut down English school boards and to improve access to health care for English speakers outside of Montréal, referring to a speech he wrote for Lucien Bouchard when the then-PQ leader was premier: "Mr. Bouchard said when you're in pain, when you get to the hospital, you don't need a language test, you need a blood test."

I haven't written much in this space about Manon Massé, the co-spokesperson of the left-wing Québec Solidaire party.  Her party is one which has yet to break out of a few ridings in Montréal.  Her pitch centres around things like free dental care and education, a government for the many not the few.  There is room for growth for QS, but it's unlikely to be the sort of massive breakthrough that results in victory.

I should also add Massé's willingness to debate in English was quite admirable.  "As you know, my language is not English as yours is," she said at one point.  As an anglophone living here with a shaky grasp of French, I understand the position she was in, and it's worth recognizing her effort.

In the overall electoral picture, the Liberals under Couillard are unlikely to lose support among anglos to Lisée.  But the PQ leader put in an impressive showing Monday night.  He may not have been able to win over many English speakers to the point of getting their vote, but he was able to take further wind out of the sails of Legault's party.  This was a real chance for the CAQ to solidify themselves on the path to government.  Instead, Legault came away diminished.

It's harder now than it was a few weeks ago to say Legault is firmly in command.  His performance tonight was underwhelming, and it's not easy to see him as a credible third-way party.

And so, the weirdness of this election continues apace, spiralling off in strange directions where the leader of the PQ has the best performance at an English debate.

Photo Credit: National Observer

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.

robert-hiltz

More from Robert Hiltz

Click here for more

What if I told you that the bombastic leader of the most populous province of a small nation held an unprecedented midnight sitting of parliament to ram through a law to overrule the judiciary to interfere in an ongoing election against his political rivals?

You would think it was some Banana Republic.

But it isn't.

It's Ontario.

Well, Doug Ford's Ontario, anyway.

I'm old enough to remember when the scandals in Canadian politics came from Québec.  But thanks almost exclusively to the Fords, Ontario is now the province making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

It's quite a fall from Ford's most esteemed predecessor premier, who famously and rightly quipped "bland works".

Premier Ford is dressing up his unprecedented interference in an ongoing election all kinds of ways.  But we would do well to remember what's really happening here, despite his attempts at justification.

He's doing it to save costs — some $25 million over four years.  Or is that $25 million a year?  Or maybe $15 million?  Depends on who you ask and when you ask them.  But hey — what's a few million amongst Tories?

He's doing it to let Toronto City Council make decisions faster, because everyone knows fewer people means faster decision-making.  I'll grant that seems reasonable enough on its face.

Except, by interfering in the midst of the election — changing the rules midway through the game — he's caused untold chaos and confusion.  The City Clerk worries about running the election in the midst of the confusion, some candidates have taken the bizarre step of endorsing their opponents, but only if they're running in the 25-ward scenario, and it has even led some legal experts to speculate that the Council, once elected, will face all sorts of challenges to their legitimacy and ability to operate.  So, that's one step forward on efficiency, and like thirty-four steps backwards, at best.

He's doing it because there should be as many Councillors as there are MPPs and MPs — well, only in Toronto, because…well, there isn't really an answer except, I guess, that everyone hates Toronto and wants fewer politicians, so there.  Plus, MPs and MPPs have two offices at the parliament and in the constituency, and more staff, and surely to goodness Ford doesn't want to add more costs to enable fewer Councillors to serve their communities better.

He's doing it because bike lanes are bad, or something.

He's doing it because he can.

We don't yet know if a court will throw up further hurdles, or if the government could still yet lose its appeal, but we do know that Conservative MPPs won't stand up to Doug.  And John Tory's gonna John Tory his way through this crisis the way he always does: in a roundabout way that thrills no one but at least seems measured (he's from that earlier generation of Tory for whom "bland works" was high praise).

All we do know is that this was all unnecessary.

I had my disagreements with the judge's verdict declaring the initial Bill 5 unconstitutional.  But he did get one thing right: this is more about personal "pique than principle".

Doug's doing this because he can, and he wants to.

He's forcing 71 other Tory MPPs to vote to override a Charter right for the first time in the province's history to satisfy one thing and one thing only: his personal, petty grudge from his one term as a City Councillor from Etobicoke — the revenge of the failed mayoral candidate.

The notwithstanding clause has never been used in Ontario, and is rarely used in Canada.  Debate over its use in this case has centred on the notion that Ford needs to enact his agenda in a timely manner, despite the court's verdict.

But that ignores the truly unprecedented nature of what he's doing.  He's interfering in an election.  He is not only changing the rules in the middle of the game.  He is, in effect, cancelling dozens of races by merging them into fewer "super races" (and, indeed, cancelling elections outright in the case of the regional chair elections).

Set aside all the arguments and the punditry.  This isn't a complicated matter.  This isn't even about reasserting parliamentary sovereignty, which is a debate we had largely settled in favour of upholding Charter rights.  And it certainly isn't a thoughtful, reasoned debate on that question.

It's interference in an election, no more, no less.  We'd do well to keep that in mind, because when we think about this issue at its most basic, it's actually truly alarming.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

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.

jonathan-scott

More from Jonathan Scott

Click here for more