LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Jason Kenney lobbed a political grenade about the threat of Alberta separatism at the beginning of the August long weekend.  Then he tweeted happy uplifting messages from Edmonton's Heritage Days and a big powwow celebration for the rest of the holiday.

It was just another week of Kenney's increasing efforts to create turmoil in the federal election campaign, while pretending to focus on the more mundane concerns of his day job as Alberta's premier.

On Saturday Kenney put out a video on Twitter that ended with the declaration: "Rather than focusing on Alberta separating from the Canadian federation, I'd like to focus on separating Justin Trudeau from the Prime Minister's Office."

All pundits seized of course on the "Alberta separating from the Canadian federation," perhaps as Kenney intended.

The idea for this mini social-media address to the province, which looked like it was filmed in the premier's office, was likely spurred by an Abacus Data poll that came out early last week showing 25 per cent of Albertans would vote to leave Confederation.

There's not much context for that sentiment, expressed in the dog days of mid July.  Sure there's Alberta alienation out there — lots of oil sector workers going through tough times are chafing over the lack of an export pipeline and recent federal legislation they feel specifically targets the Alberta economy.

But surely it takes more than a couple of years of recession to rip a province out of the middle of the country.  If you're unhappy because your economy is a bit of a mess, taking that kind of radical and impractical action isn't a sure-fire path back to prosperity.

Still, Kenney, who is determined to be the guy who ousts Justin Trudeau out of the prime minister's chair, saw an opportunity.

"Albertans have been rightfully frustrated by the unfair deal we are getting in the Federation going as far as to even express support for separation.  I don't want to let @JustinTrudeau push us out of our country," he tweeted.

While he's been busy crisscrossing the country in the last couple of months in support of federal Conservative candidates, Kenney's video/tweet appeal, delivered in an official setting while wearing a snappy silver tie, ratchets up the ante.

Raising the separatism spectre may be hyperbole, but it is also playing into the narrative of an angry minority of the province.

Kenney's call to arms about separating Trudeau from the PMO ends with the statement: "And I think that's a challenge for Albertans in the next three months."

If his point is that Albertans need to vote against the Liberals in the fall election, it's a pretty safe bet he will win the day.  The Liberals, who now hold three seats in the province, may well be wiped out in the province in the fall.

Kenney isn't really moving the electoral dial in terms of his home province with this show of bravado.  He's rather creating an inflamed environment in Alberta which could bring Trudeau's ability to lead a united country into doubt.

It's pretty unusual for a premier to step this far over his provincial boundary to play on the federal stage.  But Kenney, late of the Stephen Harper Conservative government, apparently feels comfortable jumping the traditional divide.  Some observers and pundits suspect the long game could see Kenney crossing that divide once again in a future bid to take the leadership of the federal CPC and assume the prime ministership himself.

The August long weekend tweet certainly isn't without risk.  The social media channels are buzzing with protest from moderate Albertans declaring their allegiance to Canada and their displeasure with the premier's raising of the separatist spectre.

If enough Albertans on the fringes believe the premier's assertion that Alberta is getting a "raw deal" in confederation, Kenney might be igniting a movement that will be tough to unwind.

And there's also the post-election issue.  If the Liberals win, the rift between Trudeau and Kenney could be tough to bridge, not that Kenney would shrink from a continuing political brawl on the national stage.

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.


I must be a sucker for lost causes, otherwise why would I waste my time writing this column to defend free election speech?

And yes, in Canada, free election speech is definitely a lost cause.

As a matter of fact, over the years, Canadian governments have imposed an array of rules, regulations and restrictions I call them "gag laws" which make it essentially illegal for private organizations or individuals to effectively express their own opinions through paid advertising during federal elections.

Basically, Canada's gag laws give political parties a monopoly on election debate, meaning everybody else, from environmental groups, to labour unions, to church associations, to taxpayer advocacy organizations are forced to sit on the sidelines as passive spectators instead of active participants.

To my mind, this is wrong.  And yup, I make this argument before every federal election.

In a truly free and democratic society all citizens not just professional politicians should have the freedom to fully engage in the free market place of ideas.

Keep in mind, the word democracy means "rule of the people" not rule of the political parties.

Indeed, the idea of censoring election speech is so blatantly anti-democratic it's kind of shocking that anyone who believes in democratic rights would actually support the idea.

Yet, tons of important people in Canada do support election gag laws.

Courts support them; all mainstream political parties support them; the media supports them.

Mind you, none of them would come out and openly say and they support censoring ideas; instead they justify restrictions on free speech by saying they want to stop the "rich" from buying elections.

In other words, without gag laws, they argue, wealthy groups would flood the country with political advertising, thus brainwashing gullible voters into carrying out all sorts of unspeakable atrocities, such as voting conservative.

However, I suspect the real motivation behind gag laws is a lot less noble, i.e. politicians just don't getting like criticized.

This is why the Liberals are always seemingly on the verge of panic every time they see activity from a feisty conservative activist group called Canada Proud.

Just a few weeks ago, for instance, the Liberals lodged a complaint with Elections Canada because Canada Proud and its subsidiary group B.C. Proud had (horror of horrors) sent out nearly identical mass emails asking for donations.

In its letter of complaint to the commissioner, the Liberals noted how "B.C. Proud has incurred partisan activity expenses in excess of $500, triggering the immediate requirement for registration as a third-party federal campaigner."

So apparently, under gag laws, even sending out a fundraising letter is a potential crime!

Now I don't want to pick too much on the Liberals here, because I have to say the Ontario Progressive Conservatives were equally riled up by the actions of the left-wing advocacy group, Working Families.

Anyway, my point is in a sensible world, no one would fear allowing "Third Parties" to have their say during elections.

For one thing, little evidence exists to suggest that allowing "Third Party" groups to spend as much money as they please on election ads could in anyway harm or undermine democracy.

Sure, spending money on ads will expose an idea to the public, but it won't necessarily persuade the public.  Just ask the marketers who promoted the box office disaster Dark Phoenix.

Secondly, even if no gag law was in place, it's unlikely Third Parties would raise anywhere near as much money as either the Conservatives or the Liberals, so the idea they could somehow inundate the air waves with their propaganda and thus drown out all over voices is laughable.

Besides, if anyone out there is truly worried about non-political parties unduly impacting on elections, then maybe you should be focused on the power of the media.

The media, after all, has the power to make or break a politician.

Consider how in 2016 Donald Trump rode to political prominence, not because he spent lots money on his campaign, but because he enjoyed an estimated $5 billion in free media publicity.

So what happens if in the upcoming Canadian election powerful elements of our media the CBC, the Toronto StarMaclean's magazine decide their going to help ensure a Liberal victory?

Is that good for democracy?

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting we censor the media, I'm just saying it'd nice to level the playing field.

If it's OK for the Toronto Star to run an editorial extolling the virtues of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, why should it be illegal for me to place an ad in the same paper to criticize him?

By the way, that's just a rhetorical question.

No matter what arguments are brought forward to defend democracy, for good or for ill, free election speech in Canada is dead.  (Spoiler alert: It's for ill.)

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

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.