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

In a number of exit interviews with departing MPs over the past few weeks, we're seeing many of the usual complaints about how Parliament could be better it's too partisan, the rules are too obscure, there is too much "wasted time" voting, and right up to the hyperbolic assertions that late-night votes will eventually kill somebody.  No, seriously.  There are the usual calls to change the rules, but throughout this, there is an attitude of what appears to be learned helplessness on the part of MPs, and an unwillingness to really take any personal responsibility in the atmosphere in the Chamber, particularly when it comes to partisanship.

Learned helplessness is defined as being characterized by "the subject's acceptance of their powerlessness: discontinuing attempts to escape or avoid the aversive stimulus, even when such alternatives are unambiguously presented."  And in the case of these MPs, it's apparently a notion that they are powerless in the face of rank partisanship or centralized power structures, and therefore they just accept it and complain to the media about how awful things are without acknowledging that each of them has the power to change the way things are if they really wanted to and I'm not always sure that they do.

After all, very few MPs believe that they're overtly partisan, and almost all of them don't believe that they heckle during QP even when it's pointed out to them that they do, they make excuses for it.  In one of these exit interviews, departing Conservative MP Larry Miller moans that he's tired of the "political BS" on all sides, and yet Miller is an MP who will exhibit extremely partisan views, to the point that he is a frequent conduit for "fake news" over social media because it fits with the partisan frame by which he views the government so much so that it overrides his critical thinking when he shares these kinds of articles or memes.  He also complains that the only ones who benefit from QP are the media, while it's his party who now uses QP as a means of gathering clips for their social media post far beyond what use QP is to the media these days.

The complaints about travel and Friday sittings are also not new, but I also never see MPs looking to make up the time with things like evening sittings.  The other thing that this ignores is that there is already tremendous flexibility built in for MPs to deal with Fridays, particularly if they are from the West Coast or the North.  The parliamentary calendar is structured so that there are no committee meetings Monday mornings or Fridays, which frees up a vast number of MPs to use that time to travel, and those MPs that are most affected by Friday sittings are any parliamentary secretaries from the West Coast who generally need to be present when the ministers aren't (though I will note that ministerial attendance at Friday QP over this past parliament has been consistently exceptional).  In an interview, outgoing Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner suggested revisiting an old proposal from Stockwell Day that the Commons reorganize its business so that private members' business is only dealt with on Fridays rather than an hour every day, but one imagines that this too will lead to complaints of unfairness for those MPs from distant ridings.

As for the usual complaints of wasted time, some of them are legitimate that the constant churn in ministers, senior officials and bureaucrats means that too much time is lost in bringing people back up to speed on any given file but some of them are not, which is again the complaints about voting.  It never ceases to amaze me that MPs, whose primary job is to vote on things in the Commons, complain about having to do it particularly over standing votes, which are the biggest source of complaints especially because there are many times when a voice vote or a vote on division (meaning there is disagreement but acknowledging that it's going to pass regardless) would have sufficed.

Many keep demanding electronic voting, but they ignore both the symbolic effort of standing votes that MPs should be seen to stand for what they believe in but also the notion that there is power in the act of standing to vote.  Electronic voting may be speedier, but it lacks symbolism, and there's also a potential lack of accountability, for example, if an MP from a neighbouring desk votes for his or her absent seatmate or worse, the slippery slope of allowing MPs to vote remotely, because votes are one of the only times when all MPs are in the chamber, and it allows them to both be social with one another and to do important things like buttonhole ministers about issues that need addressing.  That can't be underestimated.

What amazes me, however, is that of all the complaints of wasted time, nobody bothered to address the fact that MPs spend far too much of their days reading vacuous speeches into the record in the Chamber, rather than engaging in meaningful debate.  To me, that is the bigger crime than the time spent voting, but again, it's learned helplessness nobody seems willing to want to stand up and speak extemporaneously about the subject at hand and to engage in a thoughtful back-and-forth on the matter rather than reading what's in front of them.  MPs could change that if they wanted to but they apparently don't.

As we saw this parliament, we will no doubt see in the next one another attempt by MPs to change the rules in order to assert that they're making their lives easier, that they're being more "family-friendly," or that they are "wasting" less time, but none of it will ever address the real problems with our system, both the very real problem of our leadership system creating the centralization of power, or the fact that MPs have all the power they need in order to make the place run better but simply choose not to exercise it, either by ignorance or learned helplessness.  Changing the Standing Orders won't fix those problems.

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.


Anxiety over national unity is an enduring feature of Canadian politics.  It's no wonder, for when it comes to trysts with separatism, Canada is no virgin. 

In fact, almost immediately upon toasting the success of confederation, Canada's federal leaders were forced to contend with a secessionist threat. 

In the country's first election, Nova Scotian separatists won 18 of 19 federal seats.  Anti-confederation candidates secured a further 34 of 36 provincial seats.  The bonds of nationhood appeared to be fraying at the seams.

Fortunately, the always crafty John A. Macdonald was at hand to stich the country back together.  He dissolved Nova Scotia's separatist threat, rather astutely, by offering its esteemed leader, Joseph Howe, a seat in his government's cabinet.  It didn't hurt either that Macdonald made assurances for Nova Scotia to receive a higher than promised annual subsidy.  Whoever said patronage doesn't have its perks? 

Canada's brush with secession would again rear its ugly head, though this time in Quebec.

In 1976, Pierre Trudeau confidently declared that "Quebec separatism is dead."  He couldn't have been more wrong.  A few short months later and there was Rene Levesque; holding the keys to the National Assembly with his legion of sovereigntists in tow.  In the ensuing decades, the country was drug through the muck of two divisive referendum campaigns, bruising constitutional debates and the arrival in Ottawa of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. 

Now these were crises of national unity.

Recently though, Canadians have been led to believe that they must brace for another impeding wave of national turmoil, what with the passage of Bill's C-69 and C-48 into law.

To be fair, these two pieces of legislation, one which modifies how regulatory authorities assess resource projects, and the other which imposes a moratorium on oil tanker traffic off B.C.'s coast, are highly controversial.

But according to Alberta's Premier Jason Kenney, this legislation is more than just contentious.  Rather, it is undermining national unity itself. 

Without a doubt, Albertans have been feeling some frustration these days, with much of it deserved.  The province was hit hard in 2015 with recession.  Pipeline obstruction from neighboring B.C. certainly hasn't helped either.

But such frustrations do not warrant Kenney's dire proclamations.

After all, the Alberta Independence Party barely registered any support in the province's 2019 election.  Nor is there a viable party in Ottawa advocating for Alberta's secession.  Despite whatever Kenney and his not so jolly gang of Conservative premiers have warned, there is no national unity crisis. 

Perhaps it's because Albertans recognize that the two primary political parties in Ottawa, as well as those in the provincial legislature, are all in support of at least some pipeline construction to help its ailing economy.

And perhaps it's because Albertans recognize that abandoning one's own country is a lesser path for a lesser people.

Instead, as former Prime Minister Joe Clark has long since foretold, "Alberta, by contrast will not drift away.  It's instinct is to stay and fight."

It might be easy for Kenney to score cheap political points by sounding off on national unity.  But his hyperbole does nothing to soothe Alberta's alienation.  It only inflames it. 

Peter Lougheed had a more effective approach.

As Premier of Alberta, Lougheed faced no shortage of challenges.  In 1981, the province was left reeling from severe recession and a world-wide collapse of oil prices.  The previous implementation of the National Energy Program only exacerbated Alberta's economic difficulties.

Similarly troubling, was that some newspaper polls found that separatism had spiked to 23 percent amongst Alberta's electorate.  This sentiment coalesced in political form under the newly created Western Canada Concept (WCC) party.

In 1982, Gordon Kesler became the party's first MLA after winning a by-election seat in Olds-Didsbury.  He defeated candidates for both Social Credit and the Progressive Conservative by impressive margins. 

Yet Lougheed remained unperturbed.  He understood it was a passing phase.  Not a crisis of unity.

As such, Lougheed refused to engage with Kesler or his party's separatist platform.  He also refused to be part of an all-party leader's debate, which would have provided Kesler the soapbox he so craved.

In short, Lougheed refused to breathe oxygen into any discussion on Alberta's separation.  Instead, he sharpened his focus on winning concessions for Alberta in both the energy and constitutional negotiations with Ottawa.  And throughout it all, Lougheed always reiterated his support for a strong Alberta within a united Canada.

The strategy proved a success when not a single WCC candidate won a seat in the following election.  Western alienation might not have been extinguished.  But any notion of separatism was swept back to the margins, right back where it belongs.

And it's where it belongs today.

Jason Kenney was fundamentally wrong to have invoked any such mention of national unity.  It's not only a gross misrepresentation of the situation.  But it's simply counter-effective to stoke such flames. 

Peter Lougheed knew better.

Photo Credit: Calgary Herald

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.


If I had to offer up one bit of advice to a wannabe political strategist, it'd be this: When planning a campaign put yourself in the shoes of your opponent and ask yourself, "What brilliant plan would I concoct to beat me?"

In other words, try to figure out what the other guy's most effective, most persuasive, most impressive campaign might potentially be and then plan your own strategy accordingly.

If you do this, you're ready for just about anything the other side might do.

This only makes sense, right?

In fact, it makes so much sense you'd think the strategists of both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer would adopt this prudent approach when preparing their own respective electoral campaign plans.

Yet, it's possible that might not happen.

The fact is, sometimes party strategists get lazy; rather than making the effort to imagine their opponent's best game plan, they will take the easy way out and simply assume the other side will run an incompetent campaign.

In other words, instead of preparing for his or her side to win, a lazy strategist will wait for the other side to lose.

Such laziness, for instance, seemed to infect the Hillary Clinton campaign in the 2016 US presidential election.

Simply put, Democratic strategists kept hoping Trump would eventually screw up.

Indeed, it could be argued this was also the strategy the Conservative Party adopted in the last Canadian federal election.

Remember, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the election six weeks earlier than necessary, and I'd argue he did so partly because he wanted to give his opponents NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau plenty of time to screw up.

Of course, as we all know, Trump didn't screw up, nor did Trudeau.

At any rate, the point I'm making here is that adopting a passive, "We hope the other guy messes up" strategy is inherently risky because an underestimated opponent can sometimes end up surprising you; just as Trump surprised Clinton, just as Trudeau surprised Harper.

Yet, that said it still might be awfully tempting for both Trudeau and Scheer to get lazy.

In the case of Scheer, he probably looks at Trudeau and sees a gaffe machine that's falling apart.

Indeed, Trudeau has, in fact, committed many unforced errors of late and has suffered through more than his fair share of communication miscues, which at least partly explains his recent drop in the polls.

So, Conservative strategists might be saying to themselves, why should we do any strategic heavy lifting, when it seems pretty obvious the inept Trudeau will continue to implode and thus victory will easily fall into our laps?

And yes, Trudeau might very well continue to unravel.

Or maybe he won't.

Please note, Trudeau still has a lot of things going for him: he has an affable personality, the media still likes him and he's still the master of the cute photo op.

Isn't it possible then Trudeau could turn things around and run a solid, media savvy campaign that rekindles the flames of Trudeaumania?

It could happen.

Are the Conservatives prepared for such a contingency?

They weren't in 2015.

Mind you, Trudeau himself might also be guilty of underrating his opponents, specifically, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

Keep in mind, both Singh and May pose a real strategic threat to Trudeau's re-election chances since they could, in theory, drain away progressive voters from the Liberal base.

Yet to date, Trudeau barely mentions them preferring instead to focus all his fire on Scheer.

And you can certainly understand Trudeau's thinking here.

After all, ever since he became NDP leader, Singh has been something of a bust, certainly he has failed to gain any traction with Canadian voters; May, on the other hand, is a quirky politician who leads a fringe party.

So it would be easy for Trudeau and his strategists to discount and underestimate both of them.

Easy, but perhaps short-sighted.

Who knows, perhaps voters and the media will find May's quirkiness endearing and maybe that will help make her a star.

As for Singh, well, maybe he has latent political skills that will emerge in the heat of electoral combat or maybe he'll find a way to galvanize and energize leftists disillusioned with the Trudeau regime.

Is Trudeau prepared for a Singh or May upsurge?  Is he ready for an assault from the left?

The point is nobody knows what will happen when the writ is officially dropped, no one knows who will rise to the challenge, no one knows who will over perform.

That's why strategists should be ready for all contingencies good and bad.

Scheer should be prepared for a Trudeau comeback; Trudeau should be ready to protect his left flank.

Otherwise, both leaders could be in for a shock.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail."

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.