June 2019 - Page 4 of 5 - Loonie Politics

One wonders if the authors of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report, which alleged, among other things, that the federal government "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons" were as upset about Kyle Lowry being shoved by a part owner of the Golden State Warriors after scoring 23 points in Game 3 of the NBA Finals.

Time will tell whether their report released mere months before the most important federal election in world history will succeed in dividing Canadians and give succour to Trump and his Russian bot allies. For now, the commission's song-and-dance- a "rain dance", if you will has placed a black storm cloud over the Raptors sunshine season. Now, Canadians have to contend with the disagreeable notion that what happened in the distant past of a few years ago is comparable to the Holocaust. It's "Arbeit Macht Frei" instead of "Arbeit Macht Free-Throw".

It's not as though Canadians don't understand the suffering of their Indigenous brethren. Let's not forget how basketball was our game, invented by Dr. James Naismith of Almonte, Ontario, before the Americans stole it. Ever since then, the Americans have sought to "kill the Canadian, save the man," involuntarily seizing sports heroes like Wayne Gretzky away from us much like Indigenous children were ripped away from their parents.

But unlike the authors of the report, we stoically bore the slings and arrows, the slights and biased ref calls, without making a scene in front of everybody. We endured ESPN calling the Leafs the worst sports team in North America. We endured having to pay Rogers through the nose to get live games in HD. We endured the back and forth between Alex Anthopolous and Mark Shapiro. And right now, we're having to endure American TV networks taking a page DIRECTLY from the Trump playbook by implying Our Team was rating poison.

All the while, our Raptors were quietly hoping and working hard, just like our Prime Minister says, to build a great big wide-open patriotism tent for all Canadians, instead of a small, self-interested, narrow, all-or-nothing teepee. Today, the contrast between the jubilation inside Jurassic Park to the killjoy atmosphere on reserves speaks for itself.

How could anyone take a look at Official Raptors Superfan Nav Bhatia and think that Canada in the 21st century could be capable of genocide, unless they had some sort of tomahawk to grind? Nav is the face of Canada to the world now, and he didn't get there by engaging in "Samosa Politics."

In Canada, black men like Drake are given the crucial task of courtside trolling Kevin Durant with a Home Alone themed shirt. Do you think for one second that he'd be able to rise to that position in America, or would he vanish into obscurity after ending up on the losing end of a rap beef with Pusha T?

And only in Canada could a Nigerian-born team president compile a team with only one Canadian-born player, take them to the playoffs, and have them become "Canada's team" after being proclaimed as such by our sports media. Meanwhile, former BC judge Marion Buller, Chief Commissioner for the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, has probably never even made a single three-pointer.

Like most Canadians, I'm not going to bother reading the actual report due to its use of a word that I don't agree with, but I hope that, buried in the 200 recommendations and the 1,200 pages, someone suggested that we convert the reserves into Raptors training camps, where children are taught how to fadeaway so that they won't fade away.

But I guess no matter what you do, some people just can't be satisfied. Just like Jody Wilson Raybould, who was generously given a position of privilege by the Liberals and used that position to try and perpetrate a coup against the Prime Minister. Luckily, wise Canadians saw right through that, and when the Raptors clinch their first-ever championship people will have even fewer reasons to remember these "office cubicle-feuds".

Even so, if the Raptors can't close the deal, we'll know who to blame, won't we?

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.

Click here for more

The month of May ended with the most unexpected of twists: a maligned Ontario Progressive Conservative minister justifying her government's austerity agenda by evoking a revered figure from Canada's political left.

The Financial Post recently published an opinion article penned ostensibly by Lisa MacLeod, Ontario's minister of children, community and social services. It asserted that the late Tommy Douglas, the most idolized left-wing politician in Canada's history, had recognized the merit of running balanced budgets and avoiding debt as Saskatchewan's premier. After all, debt eventually has to be repaid with interest and surely those future debt payments would be better spent improving hospitals, schools and other public services. Avoiding the temptation to fund today's social programs with debt, one could argue, is an investment in tomorrow's common good.

Besmirching the Ontario NDP by citing their historic icon was a cheeky jab, but it carried a serious declaration: that the current party has gone philosophically astray. Even Douglas, the article implied, would likely condemn the current NDP's desire to continue deficit spending.

But do the Ontario Progressive Conservatives genuinely want what Douglas purportedly sought a half-century ago: robust social programs provided without government debt? Taking a broad perspective, the answer would appear to be: no, they do not. They seek less government and fewer public services. Balancing the books is not the end, but rather the means to justify an ideological axe being taken to Ontario's social programs.

Ironically, the greatest revelation that the Ontario PCs do not share Douglas' vision has emerged from Premier Doug Ford being fiscally reckless, by violating government contracts and forgoing large revenue streams. First, Ford has shown that he is willing to break existing public contracts even if the benefit is barely more than virtue-signaling to his voting base despite that such actions conflict with the Conservative mantra of being prudent with the public purse (and, ironically, illustrating that the province is not actually "open for business").

For example, Ford's imposed changes at Hydro One, including abandoning the planned takeover of American energy company Avista Corp., will cost Ontario residents at least $137 million in fines. Cancelling the White Pines wind farm, despite that the decade-long project was almost complete and nearly half of the turbines had already been erected before legislation was enacted, could cost Ontario $100 million in penalties. The government prematurely ending its contract with the Beer Store looks to trigger hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. And breaking 758 renewable energy contracts will also likely result in hefty payouts.

In addition to incurring the costs of violating legal agreements, the Ford government has also shown it is happy to relinquish large revenue streams due to rigid ideological beliefs. The elimination of the province's cap-and-trade climate program an emissions scheme that Prime Minister Stephen Harper campaigned for federally in 2008 is expected to reduce Ontario's revenue by $3 billion over the next four years, according to the Financial Accountability Office. Further, an alternative climate plan proposed by the Ford government would cost twice as much as the new federal carbon pricing scheme according to Canadians for Clean Prosperity, an environmental think tank.

If the Progressive Conservatives still subscribe to the principle of fiscal responsibility, it is they and not the Ontario NDP who have gone astray.

With upwards of a billion dollars likely to be paid in compensation for contract violations, three billion dollars of lost revenue from cap-and-trade, and a proposed substitute climate plan that would burden Ontario's economy by an additional $120 million each year, Doug Ford suddenly doesn't seem like a politician very concerned with the province's bottom line. These avoidable costs will have to be paid by Ontario residents, either through additional provincial debt or by exacerbating the already-considerable cuts to public services.

Imagine the social programs that could have been spared had this $4 billion figure not been needlessly squandered. Consider the hit to education: nearly $1 billion eliminated from elementary and secondary funding, $440 million from universities and colleges, $600 million from student grants, and $100 million from school repairs. Or reflect on the impact to the province's most vulnerable residents, to whom $150 million in social assistance has been slashed. How about the $1 billion removed from Toronto Public Health, an agency responsible for diseases, immunization, food safety and water quality? Perhaps the $335 million axed from mental health funding, or maybe the $133 million withdrawn from Legal Aid Ontario.

All of these important funding commitments could have emerged unscathed for less than the amount of money avoidably wasted by the Ford government.

For this imprudent regime to attempt to justify its actions by referencing the legacy of Tommy Douglas is farcical. Its agenda is to tear public services down, or reduce them through attrition; instead, Douglas built such programs, many of which came to be implemented across the entire country, while being scrupulous with public funds.

Although the Progressive Conservative government should be commended for striving to end deficit spending and for tackling Ontario's financial disarray, other reckless decisions will compound the brutality of its austerity agenda. The province's poorest residents will be most affected if the slashing of public services is further intensified, rendering "For the People" into a cruel mockery of a slogan.

If Premier Ford is so infatuated with unearthing government waste, perhaps his next target should be the profligacy stemming from his own impulsive agenda.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Click here for more

Whether he likes it or not, from now until Election Day, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer will be compared to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Given how the U.S. president has dramatically impacted the way conservative politics is done in this world, it's simply impossible for Scheer to escape the "He's too much like Trump" syndrome.

So maybe, if the comparisons are going to happen anyway, Scheer's best course of action might be to embrace at least a part of Trump's template, the part that could work here in Canada.

OK, right now, I'm sure you're thinking to yourself, "This guy's an idiot; there's no way Scheer could ever emulate Trump and win an election in Canada; Trump is absolutely hated in this country!"

And yes, I've seen all the polls which show Trump's massive unpopularity among Canadian voters.

But keep in mind, Trump has a boorish, coarse, churlish personality, and that alone would make many Canadians wary of the guy.

Scheer, on the other hand, is much nicer.

Plus, more importantly, certain key aspects of Trump's "Put America First" marketing strategy are geared solely to an American audience.

I highly doubt, for instance, many Canadians care about the rightness or wrongness of building a wall along the US-Mexican border, nor do they care if Chinese trade practices with the US are unfair, nor are they worried too much about whether or not CNN is actually "fake news."

In other words, Trump is making absolutely no attempt to woo or to impress Canadians, so there's no reason why he'd popular in Canada.

Yet, that said, the more universal aspects of Trumpian ideology could easily be transplanted onto Canadian soil.

For example, Trump is known for his bashing of "elites" and I suspect this tactic would resonate here in Canada too, since, let's face it, nobody likes those rich, greedy, profit-driven elitists who operate this country's soulless and faceless mega-corporations.

As a matter of fact, there's already a Canadian precedent for this anti-elitist approach.

To take one example, here's what Liberal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna posted on Twitter after Scheer met with a group of oil company executives: "Andrew Scheer has been caught scheming behind closed doors with wealthy executives to gut environmental protection laws, silence critics, and make pollution free again."

Darn those wealthy executives!

At any rate, if you don't like anti-elitism, maybe Scheer could add a little Trump-style protectionism to his agenda.

This too, it should be noted, has already been done here.

Recall that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau imposed tariffs on American steel not too long ago to offset American tariffs.

And although, when defending this blatantly protectionist measure, Trudeau didn't actually use the words "putting Canada first," certainly he beat the drums of economic nationalism, the same drums Trump likes to beat.

And finally, there's the issue of securing national borders, which, of course, is at the very heart of Trumpism.

Could Scheer win political points by demanding stronger security along our borders?

Well, recent polls have indicated Canadians seem to be getting antsy about the possibility of increased immigration, so the answer to that question is yes.

Indeed, perhaps in response to such polls, Trudeau recently announced that his government was going to make it tougher for asylum seekers to enter Canada.

Interestingly, a spokesman for Amnesty International expressed alarm at Trudeau's tough stance, saying "It would be very concerning that a country like Canada, particularly â€¦ the government of Prime Minister [Justin] Trudeau, makes this kind of dramatic shift into becoming a more restrictive, conservative policy that is denying the rights of people to seek asylum in Canada."

Sounds like the kind of complaint that's usually leveled against Trump, doesn't it?

Anyway, as you can plainly see, opportunities certainly exist for Scheer to copy part of Trump's agenda in the next electionâ€¦. hey, wait a minute â€¦ something just occurred to meâ€¦. it's the Trudeau Liberals who attacked Scheer for being in the pocket of the rich; it's Trudeau who imposed tariffs; it's Trudeau who tightened up border security.

Hmmm, maybe, just maybe, it's not Scheer who should be compared to Trump.

Photo Credit: Kevin Dietsch

Click here for more

Last week, Andrew Scheer gave another in his series of "economic vision" speeches, this time focusing on the state of the Canadian federation. In Scheer's estimation, it's not good because prime minister Justin Trudeau has allegedly been picking fights with the provinces, which is fairly risible if you've bothered to follow the news for the past two years. Scheer promised that as prime minister, he would appoint a minister of interprovincial trade whose sole responsibility would be to negotiate with provinces to get a binding deal like NAFTA, CETA or the TPP, to which my response is to wish him the best of luck. Federal governments have been promising to tackle interprovincial trade barriers since 1867, and some make incremental progress, but that's about it, and if Scheer thinks that it would be different just because he appoints a minister, well, that's the stuff of fantasy.

It's not like governments haven't been aware that reducing these internal trade barriers would be good for the economy. The Bank of Canada has estimated that removing these barriers could add two-tenths of a percent to Canada's potential output annually on par with the economic benefit of CETA. Recently an IMF figure has been floating around that it could add four percent to our GDP, but your mileage may vary. After the original Free Trade Agreement with the Americans, Brian Mulroney was alive to the fact that it was easier to do cross-border trade than it was cross-country, but improvements to the situation under successive ministries has been halting at best.

It's not as though the current government hasn't accomplished a number of things on this file. Building on negotiations between the provinces that began late in the Harper era, the Liberals managed to secure the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect on July 1, 2017, and it was a dramatic shift forward in reducing barriers, whose defining feature in terms of regulatory harmonization is a negative list in other words, free trade between provinces is automatic, with a list of exceptions that are enumerated for the first time. What this does is put all of the regulatory and non-regulatory trade irritants out in the open so that provinces can work to reduce them on an ongoing basis because they're right there for everyone to see. This is actually a pretty big deal. Add to that, they put into place a regulatory harmonization body within Treasury Board to carry on that work, and yes, they appointed an internal trade minister Dominic LeBlanc (currently being exercised by Bill Morneau while LeBlanc is undergoing cancer treatment).

The other thing that's important to realize is that there's not much left in the way of low-hanging fruit for Scheer to claim any victories on with this file. While the "free the beer" campaign of alcohol liberalization gets all the headlines, the simple fact is that provinces don't want to give up the revenue from the alcohol sales. There are also huge issues with labour mobility, particularly around things like training standards for skilled trade apprenticeships and the like around the country, and some of those disagreements are in good faith. (It's also why the federal government has little say over accrediting skilled immigrant doctors and engineers, and why Scheer's promise around that is another hollow one).

The other inconvenient fact for Scheer in particular is that Supply Management is one of the biggest trade barriers between provinces you know, the system that he promised to protect and which he says won him the Conservative leadership over Maxime Bernier when the dairy cartel got out the votes for him. There are other agricultural marketing boards that are similarly problematic, but Supply Management is one of the biggest and most visible ones, and he'll either have to dismantle it, or break his promise on interprovincial trade. I wonder which he'll choose.

Add to this the theatre production that is the conservative premiers promising to totally start making internal free trade happen if Scheer forms a government this fall. Brian Pallister in Manitoba went so far as to have civil servants put out a release praising Scheer for his speech a partisan exercise that is a shocking abuse of his authority. Jason Kenney and Scott Moe put on a big show of harmonizing oil rig regulations between their provinces, but if Kenney was at all serious about actually reducing internal trade barriers, then he would immediately announce his support for the national securities regulator, and start the process of Alberta's joining the system as it gets up and running. The fact that this has yet to come up in anything Kenney has promised so far is pretty indicative that this is just for show, much like Doug Ford's declaration that he would welcome an internal trade deal. It bears reminding that if these premiers were serious about ending these barriers, they could do so today without the federal government's involvement. But they won't, because this is all an act for Scheer's benefit.

So what can Scheer do that Brian Mulroney, Jean ChrÃ©tien, Paul Martin or Stephen Harper couldn't do? That's the real question, and unless he's proposing that the provinces give up their sovereignty on these issues, or that he plans to buy off them off in some fashion something that will be exceedingly difficult to do given his deficit hawk rhetoric and promise to balance the budget within five years I don't see any reasonable path to success here. The truth is that Scheer's promises here are hollow at best, and snake oil at worst. He's pushing the falsehood that Trudeau has been a failure on this file which is demonstrably untrue as part of his overall narrative that Trudeau has been a failure and "not as advertised" overall. Scheer is lying in the hopes that people will believe a message that he repeats over and over again, like the Conservatives have done time and again, and he's lying by saying that he can succeed where every other prime minister since Confederation has failed, apparently by sheer force of his personality. Don't fall for it.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

A lot of people seem to think Donald Trump is prone to vulgar, irrational and insulting outbursts based on nothing more, as far as I can see, than the stuff he says and Tweets. Which maybe we need to keep in perspective. It could be a lot worse.

The "Trump is the end" crowd might find that sentiment as hard to follow as the MAGA hat people find any criticism of this great man. But one of the perils of democratic debate is that we lose all perspective and demonize people over minor policy differences and comparatively trivial failings.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for holding politicians firmly to account and I'm frequently criticized as perfectionist because I like my "Conservatives" to adhere to at least a few recognizably conservative principles. And while I don't want to dwell on Trump, it's hard to resist, not least because he alternately appalls and delights.

For instance he just got considerable grief for calling London mayor Sadiq Khan a "stone cold loser" (and misspelling his name). But as Khan had just issued an appallingly ill-mannered objection to the president of the United States making a state visit, I frankly rather enjoyed that breach of protocol.

By contrast, I was very upset by a recent warning that someone's "lunatic ravings and babbling nonsense will only end up in the trash can of history." Now, was that Trump in an overheated Tweet? Or some foreign or domestic "never-Trumper" losing their cool over him?

No. It was directed at the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. And not by Sadiq Khan or AOC. By a spokesbully for the Chinese foreign ministry.

What's remarkable here is not just the context, namely Pompeo saluting the bravery of those massacred in Tienanmen Square 30 years ago, which the Chinese government in classic totalitarian fashion has not misrepresented but erased from public consciousness. It's the tone. This abusive, lying tirade was the shameless official Chinese response to the senior diplomatic representative of a foreign nation.

OK, what's remarkable is that the tone is not remarkable. Certain governments talk in this manner all the time, a nasty swaggering sound-track to accompany nasty swaggering actions. And we don't even notice, let alone draw relevant conclusions.

Far from it. In writing in Britain's left-wing standard Guardian newspaper on June 1 that it was "so un-British to be rolling out the red carpet this week for a formal state visit for a president whose divisive behaviour flies in the face of the ideals America was founded upon", Sadiq Khan wrote "Donald Trump is just one of the most egregious examples of a growing global threat. The far right is on the rise around the world, threatening our hard-won rights and freedoms and the values that have defined our liberal, democratic societies for more than seventy years."

Now I stand to be corrected. But I don't recall Khan issuing any warning against the aggressive Chinese dictatorship comparable to what he just said about the elected, accountable obnoxious president of the United States. There's your lack of perspective. Trump threatens decency and the survival of mankind whereas the Chinese communist tyrants our PM admitted in an unguarded moment to admiring for its efficiency and environmentalism, heck, they're our good buddies, allies in saving the climate, promoting peace and human rights and enhancing prosperity.

If you are old enough to remember the Cold War, or are up on its history, you'll remember the exquisitely awful quality of their unending stilted abuse. Like the 1939 authoritative Stalinist History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) that called a number of Lenin's early stalwart companions like Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotskii himself "the Trotsky-Bukharin fiends", "Whiteguard insects" and "contemptible lackeys of the fascists".

On signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Stalin actually admitted that it would be hard to explain since they'd spent years "pouring buckets of shit over each other's heads". And indeed endless buckets of this unselfconsciously self-parodying verbiage poured out of Radio Moscow, Cuba etc. as if, pace Orwell, from a machine. And it still does from North Koreaâ€¦ and China.

Remember the Chinese ambassador to Canada hectoring us for "Western egotism and white supremacy" and "mocking and trampling the rule of law". Can we not even hear this language, or understand what we're hearing? Lu wasn't politely declared unwelcome, let alone ordered to get out as the sniveling lackey of a belligerent, corrupt and totalitarian regime.

Totalitarian is not too strong a word. Despite decades of economic "reforms" designed to make the lunge for world domination more vigorous, the government in Beijing is murderous, even genocidal (unlike our own), appallingly ambitious in its objectives including thought control and contemptuous in its brazen dishonesty.

It is disquieting the extent to which the Politburo seems to have stuffed Tienanmen down the memory hole. Perhaps more Chinese know about it privately than they let on when some dopey Western journalist sticks a microphone in their face and says, are you ruled by ruthless lying killers? Or perhaps not. But in any case their government knows it happened, isn't sorry, and pours buckets of that stuff Stalin mentioned on the heads of senior American statesmen who tell the truth.

I'm not excusing Trump's vulgarity or carelessness with the truth and with orthography. It's wrong in principle and it does not help our mission. But as the Democrats lurch toward impeaching Trump as unfit for the office he holds I rather feebly point out that unfitness for the office is not technically grounds for impeachment and if it were a surprising number of Presidents would have been shown the door.

If Trump is that bad, it shouldn't be hard to beat him in 2020. But whatever you do, don't go impeaching him as worse than the worst thing ever, then cuddle up to Xi Jinping's ranting assassins.

Photo Credit: The Epoch Times

Click here for more

Irony can be a capricious trickster.

In politics it hands opponents pointy sticks to poke you with.

Just ask Premier Jason Kenney. May 30 was supposed to be a hot sunny day in Edmonton â€” a perfect backdrop to tout the Alberta advantage by announcing the official repeal of the provincial carbon tax at a city gas station.

And then the wind swept in enough smoke from northern wildfires to turn the skies a sickly brown colour, oddly reminiscent of Blade Runner 2049.

The UCP cancelled the planned outdoor press conference/photo op. Headlines naturally ensued, all using the same theme as this one from The Star Edmonton: "Kenney cancels carbon tax repeal celebration due to ominous wildfire smoke."

Naturally Twitter lit up with the optics of the situation. Alberta is suffering through an unusually early wildfire season, resulting in evacuations in northwest Alberta, and abysmal air pollution metrics around the province.

Environmentalists contend this third year of severe wildfires in the province, the result of three years of hot, dry springs, are a result of climate change, the very thing that the previous NDP government cited as the reason to impose the carbon tax in the first place.

Kenney argues that carbon tax isn't the right measure to actually curtail carbon pollution. Rather than altering emission-heavy behaviours, the levy just hurts Albertans going about their everyday lives, he contends. But he chose to make that contention in a somewhat off the cuff connection between the tax and fires.

"They've had a carbon tax in British Columbia for 10 years. It hasn't made a difference to the pattern of forest fires there â€¦ or in Alberta. And we've always had forest fires. We always will," Kenney told a Calgary audience.

He then went on to link the fires to the fact we have "old boreal forests".

"All of the forestry experts will tell you that these regions of Alberta have been overdue for a major forest fire and our forests have been growing older."

This ominously sounds like he might be yearning to turn chainsaws loose to cut down old growth forests in the province.

The repeal of the carbon tax was a major election platform promise from the UCP. They adamantly disagreed with the NDP policy which was backstopped with studies that carbon levies are effective tools to reduce carbon emissions.

This week gasoline prices in Edmonton slipped down to the $1.05 per litre range in the wake of the carbon tax coming off. Promise kept, crows the UCP.

But simple as a tax repeal sounds, it's not going to be all that easy for the new government. To maintain even a modicum of credibility in today's smoky old world, the UCP will need to produce a more detailed range of policies than have been unveiled to date. So far they are maintaining a tax on heavy industrial emitters, favoured by Tories in the pre-NDP era, and vaguely relying on technological change to turn the carbon tide.

The repeal is producing a few other knotty problems for the government.

The NDP weren't particularly good at communicating what they actually used the carbon tax revenue for. Apparently a portion of the tax was going to provide a cap on the consumer price of electricity. The UCP says it will keep the 6.8 cents/kWh cap in place, but the cost of doing that will have to come out of the general public purse.

And then there's the nasty old federal government to contend with.

Like residents of other provinces without a carbon tax, Albertans will have to ante up for a federal carbon tax, vows Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.

"We know we're feeling the impacts of climate change. In Alberta, you have forest fires this year that have started earlier than before, major concerns about the impacts of these fires this year," she said.

"We're going to work as quickly as possible to make sure it's no longer free to pollute."

There's nothing simple about the causes of wild fires. Glib linkage of the current fires and climate change, while likely true in the big trend sense, feels a bit like making political hay out of Albertans' misery.

But there's also nothing simple about the puzzle of how to reduce carbon emissions. Failing to address the issue is leaving Kenney and Alberta open to the slings and arrows of opponents and pundits.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Click here for more

In the wake of the news that ousted Liberal Cabinet ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott would be running as independents in the upcoming election, we saw a host of comments about how the presence of more independents in Parliament could somehow make things better. As well, as both of the ousted ministers made comments about electoral reform and how they wanted to do politics differently, there seemed to be a particular lack of understanding as to both how the system works currently, and what they hoped to achieve, because there seemed to be a complete disconnect between what their words and the reality of the situation.

Throughout the Double-Hyphen Affair and its aftermath, there has been a particular sense running through the narratives put forward by both Philpott and Wilson-Raybould in that they don't like the way politics is done, and both are hoping for something less partisan and more consensus-based as a process. It's one of those recurring sentiments that people keep bringing up, particularly around discussions of electoral reform, but it's fairly divorced from reality on a number of respects. For one, it treats all partisanship as a bad thing, which is a bit of a false construction partisanship in the extremes, where it borders on tribalism, is certainly a bad thing, but when practiced responsibly, it is largely a contest of ideas, which is good in politics. For another, this notion of more consensus in politics ignores the other side of democracy, which is accountability.

One of the guiding principles of our system of responsible government is that parties form in order for a government to gain and maintain confidence in the House of Commons. If you didn't have parties, you would need to form some kind of ruling faction. Where Canadian politics has evolved is that we have big tent parties, which are themselves coalitions aligned along certain broad themes and values, and internal differences are worked out. Without that structure and the disciplining of power therein, you would be in a situation where a government in a chamber of "loose fish" would need to promise favours or outright vote-buying (be it with infrastructure programmes in a riding or funding for pet causes) in order to get enough MPs on side to maintain confidence. This is the simple practical management of a system where you don't have parties to rely on, no matter how much you think that consensus and persuasion will win the day.

The other guiding principle of our system is accountability that if a government has performed poorly, then we have the ability to turf them from office. In fact, our system is one of the most responsive among comparable democracies for that result. Other systems, which rely on coalitions to maintain power, often shuffle partners around while the central party or parties can stay in power for decades, which mutes the exercise of accountability. As well, the consensus model that Wilson-Raybould in particular likes to tout is one that is far less accountable overall. After all, when everyone is responsible for a decision, then nobody is accountable.

"Oh, but what about Nunavut and the Northwest Territories?" is the inevitable protest to that kind of statement of how the system works. The reality there is that both of those territorial legislatures are tiny 19 seats in the Northwest Territories and 22 in Nunavut and both consist largely of Indigenous populations for whom consensus is the established model of decision-making. This is not something that can be ported to Ottawa and its 338 MPs, largely from backgrounds that are not consensus-based. And given the state of much of Nunavut's politics, the lack of accountability that a usual Westminster-system provides could explain why there are so many problems with the state of governance there (though we did recently see the unprecedented removal of the premier by the Assembly and a new one chosen).

With this in mind, we turn to the issue of electoral reform, which Philpott in particular was speaking to in the days since she made her declaration to run again. But let's cast our minds back to the December 2016 report of the Electoral Reform committee (which, I will remind you all, was hot garbage). The call was for the government to design a yet-unheard of system that was low enough on the proportional representation scale (virtually impossible without a constitutional amendment to remove the provincial allocation of seats), with "top-up seats" that didn't come from a party list, with the Greens and NDP pushing for a system that would see the "best loser" filling those seats in other words, making it impossible to vote someone out because they could still get elected regardless. None of this would do anything to blunt the influence of parties, or to make MPs more independent of centralized power, which both Philpott and Wilson-Raybould profess to be goals. And neither will electing more independent MPs have any effect on parties or leaders it simply creates loose fish that won't sit on committees, and whose only hope at influence is the slim chance of a hung parliament where they can be bought off for support.

Contrary to what some activists are pushing, none of this will actually do a thing to improve things in our Parliament, because it ignores the actual root of where the problems lie in our system, and that is with the leadership selection process. So long as we have leaders who were elected by a nebulous and ephemeral membership/supporter body, they remain accountable to nobody, and can claim a "democratic legitimacy" to wield power as they see fit, and to expect their caucus to bow down before it, and for the staff of the leader's office to exercise power on his or her behalf. That is what has hollowed out parties into personality cults, and centralized power away from individual MPs (who, it needs to be stated, willingly gave up that power because they believe in the false "democratic legitimacy" of the leadership election). That is where change in our system needs to happen, and more independent MPs will have zero effect on that.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Click here for more

The next time you hear political pundits prattling on TV about how policy platforms will decide who wins the next Canadian federal election, feel free to ignore them.

I say that because the next election won't be won or lost based on any policy platform instead, it'll be decided on the basis of personality.

More specifically, it'll be decided on whether or not voters still love Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's seflie-taking, costume-wearing, photo-op posing, cutesy-wutesy persona enough to re-elect him.

And make no mistake, Trudeau won the last election, not because of his policies, but because Canadians simply loved his distinctive, celebrity-style, affable character.

Why shouldn't they?

With this matinee idol looks, his rock star charisma, his abundance of youthful enthusiasm, Trudeau is totally lovable.

Plus, let's face it, in the last election the Canadian media basically amplified Trudeau's winning personality, as they fawned over him like a bunch of love sick groupies.

So, with the media's assistance, the Liberals were able to package Trudeau as some sort of divine-like figure, worthy of awe and worship.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

Indeed, ever since the dawning of the age of television, winning an election on the basis of a popular and attractive personality is a time-honored political tradition; think John Kennedy, think Ronald Reagan.

Simply put, if people like you, they're more apt to vote for you.

Yet, governing has a way of eroding even a celebrity-god's likability.

Certainly this might be the case for Trudeau, who over the past year or so has suffered more than his fair share of bumps, scrapes and bruises.

To put that another way, various scandals and gaffes, along with general voter fatigue have all served to erode Trudeau's cuteness advantage.

Clearly this state of affairs gives an opening to the Conservative Party which can now implement a two-part strategy: Part One: Do everything possible to undermine Trudeau's likability through well-crafted attack ads; Part Two: Make the next election a referendum on Trudeau's personality.

Why would this work?

Well, given how Trudeau is apparently already dropping in the polls, a Conservative attack can build on and accelerate an already existing anti-Trudeau mood.

In other words, no heavy lifting is required.

Plus if the Conservatives can persuade Canadians to sour on Trudeau's persona, it'll make them less likely to believe the prime minister when he says we need a carbon tax, make them less likely to trust his foreign policy skills, and make them less likely to have confidence in his ability to run the economy.

In short, if voters don't like Trudeau, they're less apt to vote for him.

So that's all good for the Conservatives, yes?

This is why any journalist or pundit who criticizes Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer for having a vague economic policy, or for pushing an ambiguous immigration plan or for adopting a sketchy environmental agenda, is totally missing the point.

In the upcoming election, none of those things will help Scheer win.

Indeed, it'd be a huge error for the Conservatives to make any detailed policy announcements.

I know that sounds a little wacky, but my point is, if Scheer starts releasing wide-ranging, well-thought out, comprehensive plans to cut the deficit or to fight climate change or to reform immigration laws, he risks losing his momentum, he risks losing votes.

Why?

Well, it's an iron law of politics every specific policy announcement you come up with, might provide wary voters with a reason not to vote for you.

Imagine a voter thinking thusly, "Well I was going to vote for that Scheer guy, but now I hear he'll stop funding the Canadian-Scandinavian cultural centre. My ancestors came from Oslo and I'll be darned if I'll vote for an anti-Norwegian bigot!"

Hence, Scheer should keep his policies vague, simple and safe; his main goal should be to keep reminding voters as to why they don't like Trudeau.

To paraphrase James Carville's famous line, the Conservative motto should be: "It's Trudeau's personality, stupid."

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

Click here for more

I want to connect a bunch of disparate things in the news lately because boy is it all a bit annoying right now out there in #cdnpoli.

Let's start with a new axiom: Conservative policies are not popular. That's perhaps why, last year, Doug Ford's Ontario Conservatives didn't put out much in the way of a platform. It's why he promised no one would lose their job, and you could basically keep Kathleen Wynne's social programmes but somehow cheaper â€” and also beer.

But after a year of Conservative chaos, cuts and callousness, Ford's polling numbers are worse than Wynne's were at the end of her five-year mandate, and the end of fifteen-years of Liberal government. Never before has a political fallen so fast so quickly.

Turns out implementing a Conservative agenda, especially if done in a chaotic manner, is not popular. That's seemingly why Ford tried to run as something other than a Conservative.

Meanwhile, Jason Kenney is less than a month into his premiership of Alberta, and for some unfathomable reason, he is spending his time campaigning for Andrew Scheer in suburban Ontario ridings. It's bizarre, and if Wynne or Rachel Notley had done the equivalent, they would have been savaged for campaigning rather than governing. As it is, Wynne took heat for campaigning for Trudeau in her own province; I cannot imagine what grief she would have faced had she campaigned in Alberta.

Yet, one cannot help but view Kenney's intervention as an implicit criticism of the actual Tory premier of Ontario; they had to bring in outside help because Ford may be toxic to Scheer.

More generally, Scheer needs to recognise the pickle he's in. It's a bad look for him to have the impression created that he needs to rely on the two big boys on campus to get elected. True, Justin Trudeau did lean on Wynne a bit in 2015 at the beginning of the race, but he never felt like he was deferring to her or using her as training wheels. Scheer, on the other hand, looks like he's the kid brother to Doug and Kenney, even as he goes through an effort to position himself as a possible future prime minister through his vision-statement-style speeches.

It's all a bit odd: we have a premier of Ontario who wanted to be mayor of Toronto, a premier of Alberta who wanted to be prime minister of Canada, and a Conservative leader who wants to be his own man but looks like he's reliant on the big boys.

And to extend the convolution a bit further down Bay Street from Queen's Park â€” we have a mayor of Toronto who wanted to be a Conservative premier who some pollsters insist on testing whether he'd have a lead in a prospective Ontario Liberal leadership race. Those same polls show the agreed frontrunner running in last place, and the polls themselves make no attempt to ensure their segmenting includes people who are actually entitled to vote in a Liberal leadership race, ie Liberal Party members.

Apropos of nothing, by the way, one of my favourite podcasts is 538's and I love the section they do called "good use of polling or bad use of polling".

As we mercifully transition from a long winter into summer, with a campaign now more weeks than months away, the Liberals still have their own troubles, turning the page from the SNC Lavalin never-ending story and finishing up the business of government to the realities of campaigning.

I guess what I'm feeling is a sense that Canadian politics is somehow a bit unmoored, things are a bit farcical and I'd really like politicians to mercifully give us all a break this summer.

At the same time, every day we learn that the climate crisis is here, it's worse than we thought, and this country still lacks a robust plan to do anything about it; instead, we're debating pollution pricing like it's somehow controversial and not the universally agreed best but bare minimum policy from an ecological and economical standpoint.

Jason Kenney tried to give a press conference abolishing a carbon tax as Alberta burned this week. I suppose that's our generation's equivalent of Nero and his fiddle.

Photo Credit: Toronto Star