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

The Liberal Party distraction machine hasn't exactly operated at full capacity this year.  Overworked throughout the SNC-Lavalin scandal and nearly driven to shutdown by Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion's report, it took nearly two full weeks before producing a story that shifted everyone's focus to Conservative leader Andrew Scheer.  Finally, last Friday, someone poked the old girl with a broom handle and she got moving at last.

The distraction in question was a clip of a speech Scheer gave in the House of Commons in April 2005, outlining his opposition to same-sex marriage (hereafter called SSM to spare my fingers), which was legalized that same year.  Scheer declared that no matter whether or not SSM were made legal, marriage "in reality" would remain a strictly heterosexual institution, since only straight couples can bear children.  Why he believes this feature of heterosexual marriage is more "inherent" than any of the others is less clear.  Whatever you might think of the substance of his argument, he ultimately arrived at it for two reasons: religious, as he is a devout Catholic himself, and political, as it was (according to him) the will of his constituents.

Does any of this matter today?  All he has said lately is that SSM is a settled issue and he has no interest in revisiting it with legislation, nor does most of the rest of his party.  That's cold comfort to LGBTQ Canadians who believe the Conservatives do not have their best interests at heart.  They have made efforts to build trust with this community, mostly condemning acts of blatant discrimination in places like Russia and Brunei and it's not exactly a profile in courage to call Vladimir Putin homophobic.

Which brings us to the Liberals, specifically Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, who first shared the 2005 speech.  It didn't take long before he was beset by critics pointing out his own history of voting against pro-LGBTQ legislation.  Unlike Scheer, of course, Goodale has very clearly changed his tune, if only to avoid being a pariah on his own bench.  But if his intention was to make the overall Liberal record look better, he chose the wrong framing not just because of his previous record, but because of his party's current one.

As of this writing, men and trans women are forbidden from donating blood if they have had sex with a man in the preceding three months.  The waiting period used to be one year until Health Minister Ginette Pettipas Taylor announced the reduction in May.  Despite the Liberals' 2015 promise to end the "blood ban" altogether, it was Canadian Blood Services and Hema-Quebec, not the federal government, who initiated the change.  In the meantime, countries including Spain, Portugal, and Italy have adopted a blood donation model that screens for dangerous sexual behaviours on an individual, gender-neutral basis.

Switching to this model would not only correct a significant injustice, but potentially improve both the quantity and quality of donated blood, the product of a voluntary and community-oriented act that the Catholic Church happens to support wholeheartedly.  LGBTQ Canadians have noticed the Liberal stalling.  There's plenty of time for the government to make up for it before the election campaign kicks off in earnest.  Apparently they don't think it's worth the bother when fear-mongering against an improbable SSM reversal from the Conservatives costs nothing.

At first, one might view this as an idea the Conservatives can steal for themselves, which even the LGBTQ community would have to admit is an improvement on Scheer's hemming and hawing about SSM.  But don't expect them to try it.  Any grand gestures of LGBTQ goodwill would be viewed in the Conservative war room as a distraction from their central campaign message of GST-free home heating.  Plus, they would reap little benefit, seeing as open LGBTQ voters are more likely to be urban and university-educated and, by extension, Tory-unfriendly.  No, the real profit would be for the Liberals, giving LGBTQ voters a reason to go to the polls without making themselves look desperate.

It may seem crude to frame blatant discrimination against LGBTQ blood donors as a source of political profit for anyone.  But this is an election year, after all, and pressing an issue just because it's the right thing to do won't take you very far.

Photo Credit: Valley News Live

Written by Jess Morgan

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.


Sometimes the numbers just refuse to fit the narrative.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been hinting darkly that the previous NDP administration left the province's finances in far worse shape than expected.

This week Finance Minister Travis Toews released the first quarter fiscal update, saying the numbers don't paint a rosy picture.

The numbers actually paint sort of a blah beige picture.  Compared year over year, revenues held steady at $13.4 billion.  Expenditures went down a tick, sinking $364 million to $14.3 billion.

The provincial deficit stood at $835 million, around $365 million less than the deficit figure in first quarter 2018.

There are a couple of good signs in the update personal income tax revenue and oil and gas revenue were up a bit, possibly due to a strengthening economy and a narrowing price differential on Alberta oil.  There are some warning signs the debt servicing number is $93 million more than the year before.

But the numbers, and there are far fewer of them than recent administrations of any political stripe have offered up, don't look that horrible.

Scant wonder then that Toews skated pretty quickly over the actual fiscal update in his extremely brief opening press conference remarks.  Instead he wanted to talk about debt numbers, historical and projected into the future, dire enough to make a fiscal conservative blanche.  The NDP plan would have resulted in a debt topping out at $120 billion by 2024, he stressed several times.

He had those numbers memorized but when asked about the province's debt to GDP ratio he replied he didn't know that figure off hand.  Really?  A finance minister tasked with reporting on the province's fiscal position can't pull that measure of fiscal health out of his head.

Of course the figure wouldn't fit the narrative.  Alberta has one of the lowest ratios among Canadian provinces.

"I don't believe this should be a race to the bottom," Toews told a reporter challenging the debt level issue.

While the fiscal report's scant pages did include debt projections, other revenue and economic projections which would normally be included were absent.  Nothing on the expected price of oil going forward, for instance, a staple at most budget related newsers in the province.  That sort of long view won't be available until the fall budget.

The overriding message and the narrative going forward, is the one Kenney has been hitting hard for months.  The province has a spending problem and spending must be reined in to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt.

While front line service cuts would be a political liability, the UCP face a problematic shadow on the revenue side.

Toews pointed out that revenues were flat year over year for first quarter.

But galloping up on the flank through the budget year will be UCP election promises to hobble those revenues further.  The province's carbon tax was axed.  Unless the UCP kills every measure, incentive and grant associated with that tax, that will affect the equation.

And more telling, the UCP has promised to cut the corporate tax rate from 12 to eight per cent over four years.  The government is convinced the lower taxes will spur the economy and make up that for the revenue shock.  But Toews admitted it's not expected the corporate tax revenue line will recover to pre-UCP levels for about four years, and that's based on robust business growth.

The government vowed to speed up the cut if the economy comes roaring back more quickly than expected.  But Toews made it clear that the inverse is not true.  If the tax cut doesn't bring economic growth and more jobs it will go ahead anyway because the UCP campaigned on it.

Oh and for anyone out there quietly whispering "sales tax" save your breath.  That isn't happening.

David Eggen, the NDP finance critic, called the scanty fiscal update an "absolute joke".  The NDP is arguing that the numbers vindicate the NDP plan to bring the province's deficit down since there was a downtick on the deficit number from last year.

It's a bit thin to argue that on a quarter over quarter basis.  There are factors here that make even these vanilla numbers a bit shaky, including the whole general slowdown on program spending which resulted from the change in government.

The budget numbers should be a bit more complete and reveal a bit more of the balance sheet story.

But the budget narrative, the epic tale of politically driven debt-slaying and tax cutting economic stimulus, is the one that Albertans will be living for the next few years.

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.


Did the New Democrats commit a strategic blunder last week, or instead engineer the foundation of a cunning leap in popularity?

With the NDP sagging in public opinion polls as it prepares to contest a federal election in less than two months, the party recently made a bold announcement: it would not cooperate with Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament.  There would be no potential coalition between Jagmeet Singh and Andrew Scheer, nor a confidence agreement, and perhaps even informal support would be in short supply, if you can forgive the fiscal pun.

The NDP's refusal to work with the Tories is a calculated gambit.  New Democrats hope the announcement will boost their popularity, even if it means diminished negotiating power in a potential hung parliament.

The NDP has been floundering in opinion polls.  When the Liberals recently unveiled an attack ad featuring Andrew Scheer now leader of the Conservatives delivering a 2005 speech in the House of Commons opposing same-sex marriage, the NDP saw opportunity and pounced.  Instead of just criticizing the Tories as the Liberals did, the NDP instead upped the ante by refusing to cooperate with the Conservatives if the autumn federal election results in a hung parliament.

The announcement was designed to buttress NDP popularity in two ways.  First, it was meant to earn plaudits from progressive voters, particularly in LGBTIQA+ communities.  Ideally this would elevate the party's polling numbers and also galvanize its voter base, the latter crucial for arousing members to volunteer during the campaign ahead.

Second, the statement was intended to differentiate the NDP from the Liberals and Greens.  The NDP hoped to frame itself as being more aggressive on protecting human rights than Liberals, while also demonizing the Greens for being open to cooperating with the Conservatives.

However, any improvement in popularity for the NDP may come at a price: diminished negotiating leverage in the event of a hung parliament.

The federal NDP has historically only wielded power during minority governments, acting as kingmaker.  At the conclusion of such elections, the Liberals and Conservatives might both offer policy concessions to the NDP in exchange for their support.  The NDP's most profound impact in this role was felt during the Lester Pearson minority Liberal governments of the mid-1960s, in which social healthcare and a national pension plan were two prominent outcomes.

But by already refusing to work with Conservatives, the NDP has curtailed its leverage with the Liberals in potential governance negotiations.  Justin Trudeau's party would be in a position of strength and thus likely to offer few concessions to the NDP.  New Democrats would face a stark choice in such a scenario: either prop up a much larger and hard-bargaining Liberal government with only minimal policy input, or trigger another election that could result in the NDP having no power at all.

To cite an example from BC provincial politics: imagine how little leverage the BC Greens would have had in governance negotiations with the BC NDP, had the BC Greens already ruled out cooperating with the BC Liberals.

While New Democrats would like nothing more than to govern unilaterally, unless public opinion shifts greatly over the next eight weeks, the party's best hope is to become the junior partner of the Liberals once again.  We shouldn't rule out the possibility of polls changing drastically both the federal and Alberta elections of 2015 witnessed stunning shifts in sentiment during the campaigns but unless the usual script is ripped apart, the NDP's best outcome will merely be to extract policy concessions from Justin Trudeau.  This is why entering potential negotiations with little leverage could greatly undermine the NDP's ability to secure grand concessions as seen during the 1960s.

It's arguably also hypocritical of the NDP to advocate for proportional representation an election system that encourages multi-party governments while refusing to even negotiate with one of Canada's two big-tent parties to ensure a hung parliament would be functional.

With its announcement, the NDP has potentially sacrificed medium-term power for short-term popularity.  Strategically, was this an astute decision?  We won't know until the election has concluded and the next government has formed.

However, initial indicators aren't promising.  A public opinion poll conducted by EKOS the day after Singh's announcement pegged the NDP at 10.4 percent popularity the party's worst result in almost a month, and tied for its third-worst result in almost three years.  Subsequent preliminary polling by EKOS between August 25-27 had the NDP down to 8 percent, according to a Twitter post by EKOS president Frank Graves.  If this figure holds, it would be the worst polling result for the NDP in at least a dozen years.

So if the NDP's strategy was to sacrifice leverage in favour of popularity, that popularity has yet to materialize.  In fact, it's getting worse.

Ironically, the NDP's refusal to work with the Conservatives may actually encourage Canadians to vote Liberal, because a third party with less leverage increases pressure to vote strategically.

Many Canadians already feel compelled to vote not for their favourite party, but instead for the least-worse of the two larger parties, due to our antiquated election system that causes "vote splitting."  The NDP's newly-diminished negotiating leverage arguably exacerbates this, as voters whose main priority is to keep the Conservatives out of power may question the wisdom of investing their vote in a party likely to command little respect during a hung parliament, if such a vote also risks splitting the vote and handing victory to the Tories.

Perhaps it would have been wiser for the NDP to draw policy "red lines" that it would refuse to compromise on in the event of a hung parliament, rather than completely rule out working with one of Canada's two big-tent parties especially with polls suggesting a hung parliament is likely unless public sentiment swings wildly in the weeks ahead.

The lesson future politicos may learn from this strange saga is whether it is better to have less negotiating leverage and a larger caucus, or more negotiating leverage and a smaller caucus.  But unless the NDP can improve its popularity soon, it appears unlikely to achieve either.

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.