LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

I can't help but wonder what would happen if, a few months from now, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ends up winning a slim minority government.

More specifically, I'm pondering how minority status would impact on Trudeau's political legacy.

Would it make him seem a better leader or worse?

It's an interesting question, I think, because, after all, governing with a minority requires that a prime minister possess a certain kind of tactical political skill set.

Indeed, it's kind of like playing a game of 3D chess, you make a move, your opponents make moves, and sometimes fate makes a move, and all it takes is one miscalculation to bring the whole edifice crashing down.

This is why running a minority government will test a leader's skills to the max.

I'd argue, for instance, that former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who ran a minority government from 2006 to 2011, passed that test with flying colours.

A superb political tactician, he masterfully and successfully used a combination of bluff and bluster, to keep the Opposition parties continually off balance.

So despite the precarious nature of his political situation, Harper looked strong, while his opponents looked weak.

Then there's the counter example of former Prime Minister Joe Clark, whose total lack of tactical political skill and strategic forethought resulted in his minority government collapsing after just nine short months.

At any rate, this brings us back to the Trudeau question.

If, hypothetically speaking, he were faced with running a minority government, would he thrive, like Harper, or would he wither like Clark?

Well, my guess would be to say, Trudeau is no Harper.

In other words, I don't think Trudeau has the skills to navigate through the choppy waters of minority government.

For one thing, a minority prime minister needs a certain degree of diplomatic dexterity.

And, let's face it, diplomatic dexterity doesn't seem to be one of Trudeau's strengths, given how, during his term in office, he's managed to make enemies out of China, Saudi Arabia, India and the USA, not to mention the provincial  governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and not to mention Jody-Wilson Raybould.

Then there's the whole work ethic thing.

I'm not saying Trudeau is lazy, but he has always come across, at least to me, like a leader who enjoys the fun part of politics — the pomp and circumstance, the photo ops, the dressing up, the parties — more than he does the tough, nitty-gritty trench warfare stuff.

And guess what?  Much of running a minority government is tough, nitty-gritty trench warfare stuff; it's forging compromises, it's wheeling and dealing, it's a lot of hard work.

I'm doubtful Trudeau can adjust to a less than fun reality.

And finally, can he put aside his ego?

We all know Trudeau loves to be the star of the show, but in a minority government he'd have share at least part of the limelight with Opposition party leader Jagmeet Singh (or maybe with Elizabeth May).

That too might be a difficult adjustment.

And keep this in mind, if I'm wondering about Trudeau's minority leadership skills, maybe his Liberal comrades are too.

Is it possible, if Trudeau wins only a minority government, it might set in motion a mutiny within the Liberal ranks?

This is not a totally idle question, considering that, according to a recent media report, Liberal "insiders" are already mulling over the idea of replacing Trudeau with former Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney.

And this is months before the election!

Anyhow, for all the reasons outlined a Trudeau minority government would likely crash and burn.

Mind you, it's possible I'm totally wrong in my analysis, perhaps Trudeau would make for a brilliant minority prime minister.

But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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.


So let me get this straight, no pun intended.

Premier Doug Ford, the day after saying he doesn't believe politicians should ever march in parades (apparently forgetting all the times he, a politician, has), went to the York Region Pride Parade.

Notably, pointedly he marched with the uniformed York Region Police, alongside his local MPPs.

This was no accident.

Pride Toronto, like other Prides throughout the world, has mandated that uniformed police officers are not welcome to march.  They cite a history of police violence against queer and marginalised communities as their rationale for why.  Stonewall itself fifty years ago was a riot against police brutality against queer communities.

You can choose to agree or disagree with this decision; the LGBT community itself is split on the matter, with the motion that mandated the decision a narrow one.

But Pride is for the LGBT community and their allies.  It is our decision to make — not a straight, white man with a history of homophobic comments.  (Who can forget his repeated references condemning "buck naked men" as this understanding of the Pride Parade when he was a Toronto city councillor.)

What Doug Ford did this weekend seemed to many like the equivalent of showing up to a vegan's house with steaks.  He showed up thinking he could dictate what was right for the LGBT community, and that's wrong, that's not allyship; that's white, male, heterosexual privilege incarnate.

It is odd to me that a straight man who is not an ally to the LGBT community felt it was his place to use the weight of his office to tell the LGBT community how to celebrate the progress we've made, progress that started with a riot at Stonewall about, in part, police violence.

But odder still is this political trope we see where commentators and progressive staffers call on the likes of Ford or Andrew Scheer to march in Pride.

I have a simple question: why would we want them there?

If you do not support LGBT rights, if you voted against equal marriage, if you rescind modern sex ed, if you have a history of homophobic comments — I do not understand why people think simply marching in a parade is a good idea, much less that it washes away all those sins.

You don't get to walk the parade route if you don't walk the walk in your policies, votes and rhetoric.  The parade is not a place for pandering if you do not follow through in real life.

I felt the same way about former Conservative leader Patrick Brown, when he made a big deal of showing up to Pride, notwithstanding his opposition to sex ed or his anti-LGBT rights votes in Parliament, which (to my knowledge) he never apologised for.

Here's my bottom line.  If you want to walk in Pride — do the work, don't just show up and think the mere act of walking down Yonge Street in a boa absolves you of your record.

This is not complicated.

LGBT people and Pride itself are not props for Conservative politicians to virtue signal that they're inclusive, notwithstanding their votes and their policies.

Pride is an inclusive event, but it is also a political one.  It is a march for our rights, and a celebration of the history that has pushed those rights forward.  You need to be LGBT or an ally in order to attend, and if you attend as a straight ally, quite frankly you should know that you are there to support the LGBT community, not to dictate your views back to the community.

To quote Doug Ford himself when an LGBT protestor was roughed up at Ford Fest in 2014: "I apologize to him for what happened but you can't go into any event, a sporting event even, taunting people" — as if the "Ford Nation" folks were on one team and the LGBT protestors were on the other.

In other words, if you're a straight, white man going to go to Pride — much less a Premier with a history of homophobic remarks and anti-LGBT policies — you're there to support the LGBT community, not to dictate your preferences.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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.


On Sunday at 10:30 PM, after hours of an extraordinary session where MNAs debated all night long, the National Assembly adopted Bill 21 by 73 votes against 35, the CAQ government was supported by the Parti Québécois in its endeavor.  Bill 21 effectively bans the wearing of religious symbols by certain public servants in positions of authority, overriding their Charter rights.

The adoption of Bill 21 followed the adoption of another controversial measure at 4:10 AM on Sunday morning.  Bill 9 aims to reduce the processing time of immigration files, while allowing better selection of immigrants, to be chosen based on their economic profile and the workforce needs of Quebec.  Bill 9 also reduces the number of immigrants by 40,000 and eliminates 18,000 current cases, representing 50,000 people.  These people will have to re-apply and start from scratch under the new law.

Despite a barrage of opposition protests, both Bills, sponsored by Immigration, Diversity and Inclusiveness Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, where adopted by using closure to suspend the normal democratic rules for adopting legislation.

Simon Jolin-Barrette, nicknamed Simon Jolin-Bâillon (Jolin-Gag) by Quebec Solidaire MNA Vincent Marissal, was not ashamed one bit to shut down debate and force it down the throats of the Opposition.  He even casually went jogging on the Plains of Abraham while debate was ongoing.

Jolin-Barrette also surprised everyone by bringing last-minute amendments to the secularism law, putting in place an enforcement mechanism, more or less setting in place a niqab police, in charge of being on the lookout for contravenors to the law, and imposing  penalties on government employees who contravenes the law.

This is basically the flipside of Iran's GaÅ¡t-e Eršād,  the religious police established to impose Islamic dress codes, particularity regarding the hijab, patrolling to find women who are deemed improperly dressed according to the dress code.

In Quebec, improperly dressed now means wearing any religious symbols for many public servants.  The law now prohibits teachers and public school directors, police officers, prison guards, lawyers and judges to wear these symbols.  But fear not, it doesn't actually apply to employees who held these positions at the end of March who have been grandfathered.  And everyone can still wear a wedding band, somehow.  Because not all religious symbols were created equally.  A two-tier secularism law, applying unequally to the same categories of employees, with some symbols excluded.

The law also contains the notwithstanding clause, exempting it from the application of the Canadian and Quebec human rights charters.  But if the Legault government believes this will stop all judicial recourse, it is wrong: a court challenge was already moving forward by Monday afternoon.

The Federal Liberals, meanwhile, are agitating again, denouncing Bill 21.  Quebec Liberal MP Anthony Housefather stated that it was "a sad day for Quebec" and that the law "violates individual rights and shatters some people's dreams."

Interestingly enough, Housefather also didn't issue his statement in french.  But the question is, after denouncing the Secularism Law so forcefully, as Prime Minister Trudeau did in the past, what will the Federal Liberal Government do about it?

Four months before the next Federal Election, chances are they will do nothing.  Liberal strategists know full well what happened to Tom Mulcair in 2015,  when he stuck his neck out to defend the rights of religious minorities.  The NDP became instantly the target of both Conservative and Bloc attacks, while Trudeau was hiding behind simple boilerplate statements about values, flying under the radar.

For Trudeau to step up now would require the usage of the power of disallowance to wipe it off the statute book.  This power has not been used by the Federal government since 1943.  The Federal Liberals' rhetoric about the Charter is apparently based on strong values, but the Liberals' strongest value is their hunger for power. 

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.