LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

As we inch ever closer to the writs being drawn up for the 43rd general election, I find myself wondering if this election is going to be fought over any actual Canadian issues, or if once again, it will play out with a bunch of staffers in the party backrooms trying to LARP (live-action role playing) the West Wing  or quite possibly Veep, given the level of competence that each of the campaigns has been demonstrating to date.  Given the weeks-long drama that has just played out over comments made by Andrew Scheer about his comments about same-sex marriage and the debate about whether the party would allow any abortion-related legislation has shown that the appeal of importing the American culture war is evident in the campaign backrooms, as the staffers who decided this would be the perfect trap for Scheer seem to be getting high by huffing the fumes of whatever political effluent is coming from south of the border.  It leaves one to wonder whether there is anything Canadian to fight about?

The fact that Canadian political operatives are enamoured with American politics should not be any surprise given just how inundated our popular culture is with Americana, and how much American news drowns out our own.  Many of our understandings about how politics works are coloured through American lenses, whether it's false constructions about how things like campaign financing works, the nature of lobbying, or those racist emails and Facebook posts that go around that complain that soon there will be enough Muslims in Canada that they could elect one to become prime minister (never mind that it's both untrue and doesn't grasp our electoral system in the slightest, and simply replaced "America" with "Canada," and "president" with "prime minister").

The wistful longing about how "exciting" their politics are takes on a life of its own here, while political journalism here starts trading in pervasive Americanised terms, whether it's things like "checks and balances," or using wholly incorrect terms like "prime minister-elect."  Political parties have long-since turned our leadership contests into quasi-presidential primaries, complete with the fact that the successful leadership candidates have behaved increasingly presidential in the ways that they have centralized power in their parties.  Meanwhile, every party convention for the past several years has had some American campaigners come up to talk to Canadian parties even if they're not really equivalent about their successful campaign tactics, as though the ways in which our elections are run are at all analogous.

To an extent, every Canadian election becomes one about healthcare in one shape or another, and there is always a promise to uphold our system from privatization, without necessarily delving into the nuances of the problems with our system as it exists.  Likewise, when it comes to gun control, we tend to use American terms without necessarily understanding the ways in which things like handguns are already restricted in Canada.  In many ways, the current debate over pharmacare is piggybacking on the American rhetoric around "healthcare for all," particularly in how different parties are positioning themselves.  This aside, there are plenty of other ways in which the Canadian parties are looking to fight this election on American memes and talking points.

For the Liberals, it's clear that off the start, they are trying to use the American culture war to their advantage, laying out a lot of markers around abortion and LGBT rights, while trying to paint Andrew Scheer as being a misogynist or homophobe, and Scheer's inability to manage this particular issue has made it all the more likely that the Liberals will keep it up.  And for all of their professed love of data, they have previously built campaigns around American memes about middle-class stagnation and economic figures that were true for Americans, but not Canada.  We'll see if they keep this up.

The Conservatives also seem to relish in importing the culture war memes and talking points, so much so that there have been "lock her up" chants in Canada among their base (particularly in Alberta and Ontario, where there were women premiers to be ousted).  More recently, there has been a great deal of time and attention to the situation with irregular migration and the asylum seekers, where the Conservatives have been insistent upon using the rhetoric of "illegals" despite the fact that even though the action of irregularly crossing is illegal, the ability to make a refugee claim inland ensures that the notion of "illegal immigration" is not really a Thing in Canada.  Nevertheless, they are hung ho to use the term.  The kinds of climate denialism that pervade the Conservative ranks are also largely traded upon American talking points, and only sometimes do they bother to attach Canadian statistics to it.

And the NDP?  Bereft of any actual policy ideas since "Good, competent public administration" failed to take off under Thomas Mulcair, they have increasingly grasped at anything that the Democrats in the US are doing and trying to make it work in Canada, whether it's things like the "fight for $15" minimum wage campaign (never mind that the $15/hour figure doesn't actually mean anything in Canadian terms), and anything that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweets suddenly becomes NDP policy.  The Democrats pushing for a "Green New Deal" has suddenly become NDP gospel, so much that Jagmeet Singh has branded his election platform a "New Deal for People," never mind that Canada never had a New Deal, and it's a wholly American term he's trying to claim.

Add to this, the fact that the parties are trying to make this election about "affordability" makes me wonder if this isn't also importing the American culture war of "economic anxiety," while trying to round off the nastier edges of racism that pervade the American progenitor.  After all, if that's what was so exciting about the last American election, surely it could make our own election exciting too!  This kind of thinking, and the kind of LARPing that it engenders, ensures that the unique challenges that Canada faces will be once again be ignored while the campaign is fought on American terms, in the hopes that it's "exciting."

Photo Credit: Marie Claire

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.


As the foremost civilization on Earth, the envy of the world and the crossroads between America, Europe, Russia, and China, Canada naturally bears a responsibility for all that is both good and bad under heaven.

Humanity relies on us to educate them about multiculturalism, assymetrical federalism, the importance of fact-checking in journalism, and the right tools to purchase at Canadian Tire.  And thus we must take all and any pains to avoid even the slightest temptation to disunion, for as goes Canada, so goes the world.  The Brexiteers, for example, were determined to succeed at succession where the Parti Quebecois failed in 1995.  Trump would never have gotten to where he is today if not for the example of Rob Ford.  Indeed, even populism itself was created by Preston Manning and the Reform movement in the 1990's.

The same nation that created basketball also created Alexandre Daigle.  Canada gave the world insulin and electroshock therapy.  Before Tim Horton's, nobody would have thought to market dipped donut holes separately from the donuts from whence they came, but the tar sands necessitated the birth of environmental activism.  Unlike the Party in George Orwell's 1984, Canada did not invent airplanes, but we did invent the Avro Arrow, so….close enough?

When we consider the epidemic of white supremacy sweeping the globe, we must accept that it, like all the world's ills, originated in some part of Canadian culture that fell short in spreading the virtues of civility and tolerance.  Someone, or something, responsible for the education of Canadians did not go far enough in telling Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and the rest of the increasingly marginal Canadians involved in the alt-right to say NO to this dangerous rhetoric, the same way we would say NO to a Maxime Bernier billboard saying NO to mass immigration.

And so, I went back to the founding documents of our nation to find the source of this corruption.  I watched every Econoline Crush video, read the complete works of Catherine Parr Traill and painstakingly recorded every creak of Glenn Gould's chair on the recording of Schoenberg's Op 19/1.  It was only when I was halfway through the 1987 episodes of Mr. Dressup when I realized that at no point in the seminal and widely praised children's TV show did Mr. Dressup ever address the growing problem of white supremacy.

As I continued to watch I realized that, through no fault of his own, Ernie Coombs set the stage in many ways for today's poisonous discourse.  Take, for example, Chester the Crow, who was constantly depicted as a scheming trickster and must have been responsible for the formation of countless racist associations.  Then we had Casey, whose gender was kept a mystery for years, sending the message to young people to stay silent instead of asking for the hormone blockers they required.

But worst of all is how the titular Mr. Dressup changes clothes once an episode to spread disinformation about who he really is.  Sometimes, he impersonates a member of a regulated professional group without the necessary expertise or training to do their job.  Other times, he changes into the terrifying Terrible Tootle Troll, signaling that "trolling" is acceptable.  More than anything he establishes a hierarchy where he, as a white male, is always at the top and the puppets are too afraid to question him.

Imagine how much better the world would be if we had had a Mr. Dressup who encouraged children to speak out about climate change, or to push for a living wage, or to reject #ScheerNonsense in October's super important federal election by not putting money into the Conservative Cola machine down at the hockey rink like this guy did in the latest Unifor ad.

Today, we live with the results of Mr. Dressup leaving himself open to co-option by the CPC, as they disrespectfully refer to Prime Minister Trudeau as the "Mr. Dressup Prime Minister."  It shows that even a beloved children's entertainer can fall victim to the white supremacist agenda if they fail to appropriately predict the future.  This is why, as uniquely gifted Canadians, we must constantly reflect on how everything we do might be used to justify similar atrocities someday.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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.


If the upcoming federal election were to be decided solely on the basis of which political party produced the most kickass pre-campaign TV ad, then right now I'd say the Liberals would win in a landslide.

I'm making that bold statement after reviewing the first salvo of election-style TV ads recently released by the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP.

And yes, I know more ads will be coming down the pipeline, but right now based on what I've seen, the Liberal campaign message, as exemplified in its first TV spot, is head and shoulders above the rest.

Why do I say that?

Well, let's analyse each party ad beginning with the Liberal spot.

The Liberal TV ad, which sports some good production values,  features a montage of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (looking at his Sunny Ways best) meeting and listening to a bunch of regular, diverse, Canadians from his Quebec riding, intercut with shots of him riding on a bus, speaking directly to the camera, i.e. us.

Delivering his lines with aplomb, Trudeau first offers up his usual "I'm for the middle class" speech, saying: "I got into politics to help people like the people I've served here in Papineau for more than a decade, people who work hard to make ends meet, parents who want to build a better life for their kids, Canadians who want our country to stand for something positive in a world that's grown darker."

Then, he gets a little nasty and takes a shot at the Conservatives:  "The Conservatives like to say they're 'for the people,' but then they cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for everybody else".

After that, Trudeau returns to a hopeful theme: "In October we've got a choice to make — keep moving forward and build on the progress we've made, or go back to the politics of the Harper years. I'm for moving forward, for everyone."

Overall this is an excellent spot.

It's visually interesting; it's positive, it's forward thinking, it's energetic and it lays out the stakes in clear ideological/class terms.

The message is also perfectly in sync with Trudeau's personality and with his brand.

OK, so now let's talk about the Conservative TV spot.

In this case, I can sum up my review in one word — dreadful.

Yes, the Conservative ad is terrible.

For one thing, it's painfully dull — the entire ad is just a single shot of Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer rambling on about his "plan."

Says Scheer: "My plan for Canadians?  Lower the cost of living and leave more money in your pockets,  I believe Canadians across the country are so frustrated because they're working so hard and they're following all the rules, but they feel like they're falling further and further behind, or they're barely getting by."

He then goes on to say: "I have a plan to lower the cost of living to make life more affordable, to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians for their kids, for themselves or for your aging parents, because it's time for you to get ahead."

All I could think of while watching this ad is a) this looks like it was made by a party with a shoestring budget, not by one which reportedly has amassed huge amounts of cash b) why no mention of the carbon tax? and c) Scheer is no Ronald Reagan; simply put, he's bland and he just not good enough a  communicator to carry an ad all on his own.

What's more, the Liberal ad features subtitles to highlight Trudeau's key points, meaning you could watch the ad with the sound down and still get the message versus the Conservative ad which just showed Scheer yakking.

Plus, and this is actually an appalling oversight, the ad doesn't even include the party's website.

Overall, the contrast of the Conservative ad to the Liberal spot is startling.

Whereas the Liberal spot has eye-catching visuals, the Conservative ad is visually boring, whereas the Liberal ad has a clear optimistic narrative; the Tory message is vague and uninspiring; whereas Trudeau looks comfortable and confident; Scheer comes across as stilted.

Heck, the Conservative spot is even worse than the NDP ad, which looks like it was put together by a teenager on his laptop.

If nothing else the NDP ad indicates party leader, Jagmeet Singh, actually stands for something, which is kind of refreshing.

At any rate, that's my take on the three party ads, and although we still have lots of ads to see before Election Day, one thing at this point seems clear the Liberals are ready to play.

To compete, the Conservatives will have to up their ad game, by a lot.

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.