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

The Green Party of Canada has momentum like never before.

The Green caucus of one has doubled with the by-election victory of Paul Manly in Nanaimo-Ladysmith.  And they are nipping at the heels of the NDP in all the latest polls.  Provincial success in B.C., Ontario, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island has only boosted the party and its profile.  So too has the escalating urgency of climate change in the mindset of voters.

And now, the Greens have recruited ex-Liberal political strategist Warren Kinsella, the famed "Prince of Darkness" himself, to help them with their campaign.

If the Liberals and the NDP are not wary of the ascent of the Greens, they should be.  For the Greens pose a significant threat to the electoral fortunes of both its more established, progressive rivals.  For while it remains highly unlikely the Greens will form government, let alone the Official Opposition, they are in a position to significantly increase their seat count.

As such, the Liberals and the NDP have some soul-searching to do.  For it is the inherent disappointment in both these parties which have helped fuel the Greens.

For the Liberals, condemnation from the left is nothing new, even with their impressive list of progressive achievements.

After all, a gender-balanced cabinet was implemented.  Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees were brought in.  Cannabis was legalized, as was medically assisted suicide.  And 278,000 children were helped out of poverty through a revised Canada Child Benefit. 

Still, on a number of policy fronts, the Liberals have been (justifiably) lambasted for their failure to deliver on a number of election promises.

Foreign aid remains vastly underfunded.  So too does government spending on indigenous reconciliation.  Decades of corporate tax cuts, undertaken by previous Liberal and Conservative governments alike, all remain in place after four years of the Trudeau Liberals.  And of course, the promise of electoral reform was crassly broken.

Furthermore, while the Liberals have admirably introduced a national carbon tax alongside other environmental policies, drawing the ire of countless conservatives, the truth remains that far more action is necessary to counter the effects of climate change.

Evidently the Liberals have failed to deliver on countless progressive policies.  And this failure has only helped propel the fortunes of the Green Party.

Of course, it is not just the Liberals who have failed to please progressive voters.

The NDP deserves its fair of responsibility for the Green momentum.

Ever since Jack Layton became leader of the NDP, the party has increasingly moved closer to the political center, all in the hopes of unseating the grits as the progressive party of choice. 

With Layton's blessing, the Dippers removed "socialism" from its party's constitution.  Unwisely, it would seem.  Especially in a time of unheard of income inequality and the rise of passionate and unabashed democratic socialists, like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

Unfortunately for the NDP, the allure of electoral victory proved blinding.

In more recent years, the NDP has maintained its commitment to centrism.  Layton's successor, Thomas Mulcair, was a provincial Liberal before he was a federal New Democrat.  He was also known to have sung the praises of Margaret Thatcher and her fiscal policies.  It never really did shore up with his image as a social democrat.

Then, during the 2015 election campaign, Mulcair refused to join the Liberals in promising tax increases on the wealthiest, or to run even temporary deficits.  It sank the NDP campaign.  And ever since, the party has floundered. 

The election of Jagmeet Singh, the party's would-be savior, has done nothing to uplift NDP spirits.

His leadership has simply proven underwhelming, particularly as Singh is better known for his stylish wardrobe than for his progressive convictions.  The NDP would have been better served seeking out a leader with some gravitas. 

But after failing to achieve electoral success through a Liberal-lite platform, the NDP chose to mimic the Liberals through its choice of leadership.

It's a poor strategy for electoral success.

One need only observe the NDP's polling numbers, which have flat lined.  Or its fundraising donations, which have all but dried up.

With so much disenchantment amongst former Liberals and New Democrats alike, it is the Greens who are in a prime position to make electoral gains and become a real player in the House of Commons. 

Perhaps their greatest deterrent to success will be Liberal fear-mongering over the evils of a Conservative victory, which has a way of swaying "promiscuous progressives" back to the grits.  That may yet still happen.

But if it doesn't, and if the Greens succeed in significantly increasing their seat count, then the Liberals and New Democrats will have only themselves to blame.

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.


In the upcoming federal election, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer is going to face a unique challenge.

And no, I'm not talking about his clear need to jazz up his vapid and boring Pillsbury Doughboy persona.

The unique challenge which I am referring to can be best illustrated with an imagined hypothetical scenario.

Let's say at some point during the 2019 election federal campaign an 89 year old white male, who happens to be a Conservative Party volunteer, goes on Twitter and tweets, "We have too many immigrants coming into Canada."

For Scheer, such an occurrence would be a potential PR disaster.

Indeed, it'd only take a few minutes for the old guy's tweet to be plastered all over the CBC's twitter feed, and by the next day it'd be on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

Meanwhile, Scheer would be besieged by the media, who'd demand to know if that tweet represents the Conservative Party's true view on immigration.

Of course, his first reaction would likely be to deny it, leading to headlines such as "A beleaguered Scheer vehemently denies that he's a racist, Nazi, white nationalist."

OK, admittedly, I'm exaggerating a bit here to prove a point, but you get what I'm saying, right?

Like it or not, Scheer will be accountable not only for his words and actions, but for the words and actions of anyone around the globe who's even remotely connected to the conservative movement.

If, for instance, during the fall election, US President Donald Trump makes some sort of outlandish comment (and yes, it's likely this will happen) the media will instantly pounce on Scheer, demanding to know if he disavows Trump's opinion.

Or if former Prime Minister Stephen Harper muses out loud that Canada needs to balance the budget, the media will instantly pounce on Scheer demanding to know if he secretly supports slashing social services to the bone.

Or if an obscure church pastor, whose nephew is running as a Conservative candidate, writes a letter to the editor calling abortion a sin against God, the media will instantly pounce on Scheer demanding to know if he hates women.

So yeah, there could be lots of pouncing.

And by the way, Scheer is the only candidate in the upcoming race facing this particular dilemma.

In the case of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, he's just too far off the radar for the media to care about.

As for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, unlike Scheer, he really doesn't have to worry about controversial comments emanating from his party or from his supporters, mainly because the Liberal Party of Canada is so bland.

Yes I know, it's odd to consider Liberals as "bland", given how Trudeau has a reputation for being an exciting, charismatic, rock-star-style type of leader, but when you think about it, the Liberal Party's dogma is really pretty boring; it can basically be summed as "always support the status quo and never say anything that deviates even slightly from social/economic/cultural norms of progressive political orthodoxy."

Hence, there's not much any Liberal can say or do that the media would find even remotely contentious, especially since much of the media also adheres to the social/economic/cultural norms of progressive political orthodoxy.

Plus, the Canadian media has created a narrative based on the notion that Conservatives (and only Conservatives) harbor a "hidden agenda", meaning they're constantly vigilant for any signs that it's emerging into plain view.

So when it comes to linking Trudeau to the words of others, the prime minister is pretty secure.

The only glaring exception to this would be if some Liberal, somewhere, openly criticized former Liberal cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

That would definitely land Trudeau on the hot seat.

Anyway, getting back to Scheer and his problem, how should he deal with having to constantly react to the opinions of others?

In other words, how does he cope if the media constantly tries to put him on the defensive and off message?

Well, what Scheer definitely shouldn't do is repeatedly deny, disavow and disclaim; as they say in the political communications business, "If you're denying, you're dying."

What he should do is stay positive on his message, while attacking Trudeau.

To show you what I mean, here's how he should handle the media should they try to link him with some outlandish statement:

Reporter: Mr. Scheer, one of your supporters recently tweeted his opposition to immigration, are you a fascist?

Scheer: My record and the record of my party is clear, we welcome immigrants to Canada, they make our country stronger and better; unfortunately it's Mr. Trudeau who uses this issue to divide Canadians in a cynical bid to win voters.  It's shameful.

See what I mean?

My point is, a little communication savvy can go a long way to solving even the toughest of political challenges.

Photo Credit: CTV 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.