LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

In the good old days of slow politics, politicians could take their time before pontificating.  They could double check their numbers, crafting messages with weight and authority.

But that was then, and this is the time of Twitter and Trump, of fast reactions and fake news.

United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney is likely wishing he hadn't been quite so quick off the mark to amplify a message from one of the party's rookie candidates in the upcoming Alberta election.

Michaela Glasgo, a UCP candidate in Medicine Hat, tweeted that her local church would be paying $50,000 in carbon tax this year.  Kenney very quickly retweeted Glasgo's assertion, commenting "We hear stories like this all the time, sadly."

Except the number actually was $5,400.  Glasgo had misinterpreted an overall rise in operating expenses for the church to refer only to the carbon tax.  She owned up and clarified the gaff and Kenney retweeted the clarification.

So all's well that ends well, Kenney supporters might say.  And yes, mistakes do happen.

But in this case, Kenney's one solid campaign promise to date has been the elimination of the provincial carbon tax.  Surely the actual mechanism and numbers of the tax should be at his fingertips.

A UCP spokesperson said Kenney had no reason to doubt the veracity of the original Tweet.

If Kenney is living and breathing this stuff, a warning bell should have clanged and a small voice whispered in his ear that the number just didn't sound right.  It's a basic building block of media literacy that if something on social media sounds preposterous, it probably is wrong.

Not that $5,400 is an inconsiderable number in itself.  The cost to the church of the NDP government's carbon levy could have been a talking point in the case against the tax.  But the exaggerated figure eliminates that possibility.

It also left the church, the Hillcrest Evangelical Missionary Church, in some discomfort with its position as a political football.  The church pastor ended up soft pedalling the entire issue by saying: "Many people in our congregation are concerned about environmental issues."

The whole incident has shone a spotlight on the oversimplification of the carbon tax issue in the campaign.  Kenney can't utter the words "carbon tax" without the prefix "job-killing".  When platform points become that glib, it invites more rigorous scrutiny, initially from critics, then from journalists and eventually from voters.

Kenney and the UCP has had a fairly negative week in the overheated Alberta political arena even beyond this particular dustup.

Alberta's Election Commissioner sent out letters last week warning that he is looking into obstruction of his investigation into questionable campaign contributions during the UCP leadership campaign Kenney won in 2017.

Grassroots dissent about how the leadership campaign was conducted continues to reverberate in the UCP and the suggestion of some sort of intimidation tactics to keep the lid on the controversy is not helpful to what is still really a fledgling party.

A Mainstreet Poll that came out last week found that while the UCP still holds close to a 25 per cent lead against the governing NDP, Kenney is mustering only a 39.7 per cent positive impression rating, with 33 per cent having an unfavourable impression.

One impression that Kenney has generally been able to maintain is that he is a smart and focused politician.  But misfired Tweets like the carbon tax one aren't doing much for that reputation.

With the UCP out in front, these bumps in the road would seem not that concerning.  But no party can completely count on early leads.

A faint echo from the 2015 Alberta election may well be echoing in the ears of conservatives who watched what appeared to be the impregnable 44-year reign of the Progressive Conservative  Party go down to defeat that year.

Premier Jim Prentice, in an unfortunate bit of mansplaining to Rachel Notley during a televised debate, uttered the fateful words: "Math is difficult."

That's all the more reason campaigning politicians should double check the numbers.

Photo Credit: iPolitics

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 biggest political story of this new year has to be Canada's deteriorating relationship with China.

Here we have an extradition request from our biggest partner and ally targeting a high-ranking official from a Chinese multinational telecommunications company.  We have Canadians being arbitrarily detained in China.  A sentence upgraded to death by the Chinese for another Canadian.  Chinese investments in Canada dropping by half.  Trade talks basically abandoned.  Billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of jobs at play.  An ambassador cut loose for talking too much.  And the responsibility of it all lying directly at the feet of the Prime Minister.

You would think that the opposition parties would have been ready to ask tough questions about this whole file, to keep the government accountable.  More than the Indian trip, the consequences of the Liberals dropping the ball badly on this file are enormous.

But the opposition is not bothering to ask.  So far, a grand total of five questions were asked about China.  On Monday, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer led with a generic potluck question about foreign affairs, mentioning China only in passing.  Trudeau was happy to ignore him to extol the virtue of the temporary House of Commons and to thank the workers who built it.  No thanks for the taxpayers who footed the bill for this outlandish adventure, though.

Scheer repeated his question in french, Trudeau responded with some useless boilerplate.  Inexplicably, Scheer dropped the matter and moved on to talk about the deficit, picking it up where he left it before the Christmas break.

When the NDP's turn came around, they elected to ask about social housing.  Important, but it could have waited.  Eventually, the Conservatives would ask two more generic questions related to China while the NDP's Hélène Laverdière would finally put her party on the record.

On Tuesday, not a word from either party.  High-fives all around on the government benches.  They certainly couldn't believe their luck.  The Trudeau Liberals haven't looked this bad in months.

There are lots of questions to ask.  Will the new Justice Minister proceed with the extradition once it lands on his desk?  Is Canada investigating the actions of Huawei based on what we have heard from the Americans?  Why are we even still considering this company for our 5G network?

John McCallum's actions, in particular, deserved more scrutiny.  Was he freelancing?  Was he saying out loud what he was being told in briefings by PMO operatives?  Was he clumsily trying to implement a PR operation concocted to mitigate the damages?  Who organised that press conference in Markham?  Why invite chinese-language media only?

John McCallum was Justin Trudeau's choice as Canada's ambassador to China.  And once McCallum started fumbling the ball, Justin Trudeau chose to keep him there.  And McCallum kept going.  After publicly making the case against extradition on behalf of Meng Wenzhou, the Huawei CFO wanted in the United States for a series of alleged crimes, John McCallum decided to express the wish of the government of Canada for the US not to proceed with its extradition request at all.

The Americans were upset because McCallum was signalling that Canada was siding with China.  McCallum was given the boot by Trudeau, and now the Chinese are upset: they have lost their common sense champion.

The opposition had plenty of ammunition to question the Prime Minister's judgement.  They could have put a dent in Chrystia Freeland's reputation as a capable Minister.  Instead, they are letting Justin Trudeau's Liberals off the hook.

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.