LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

When I was a kid at David G. Burnet Elementary School in Dallas, Texas, we would stand at our desks every morning and do the Declaration of Independence.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands," we'd say, our hands over our hearts.  "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

Some days, we'd practice hiding under our desks, for when a North Vietnamese fighter jet would somehow make its way across the ocean to suburban Dallas, and target David G. Burnet.  We were seven and eight and nine years old.  We'd do that.

We were taught, from the very first day in the very first grade, to respect and support America's armed forces.  It was as indelibly part of the culture as the flag found in every classroom, and flying atop every school.

Now, the notion that Canada and America are different is so true, so self-evident, it barely mentions saying.  We are different nations with different values.

And one of those values centers on men and women in uniform.  We Canadians of course respect and remember those in our armed forces, too.  But not in the way the Americans do. Not as much.

To the American people that's what they always say down there, "the American people," like it is a thing unto itself their armed forces are why they are a nation.  It is at the center of their identity.  And woe unto whomever speaks ill of military service.

The current significance of all this can be traced back to a single day, which was the day Donald J. Trump graduated from the Wharton School in Pennsylvania.  On that single day, the Tet Offensive and what followed had left 40 American men-boys dead.

Trump partied with his friends.

He had reached the age to be drafted, and he was in peak physical health, having played squash and tennis and golf throughout his school years.  He had received four deferments from military service because he was still in school.

But when he graduated, Donald Trump suddenly was fit no longer.  He had developed "bone spurs."

No one has seen the medical assessment that diagnosed "bone spurs."  Trump and his campaign have for years ignored requests for the paperwork that helped him avoid service in Vietnam.

So, we have to take his word for it.  Other politicians-to-be got deferments.  It wasn't unusual.  It wasn't rare.

What is unusual what is exceedingly rare, in a nation that venerates military service as much as the United States does is what Donald Trump is alleged to have said about those who gave life and limb to serve their country in Vietnam.

Those men and women were "suckers," Donald Trump has said.  They were "losers."

The news that Trump had said such things about America's military landed like a bomb on the presidential vote, now about 60 days away.  The Atlantic reported his words first.  Trump and his online fans of course dismissed The Atlantic  which has been publishing for nearly two hundred years, and has won innumerable awards as "fake news."

But then Fox News reported that The Atlantic had indeed told the truth.  Fox independently corroborated Trump's words with senior officials who had directly worked for him.

At that point, things perceptibly changed.  For Trump and his winged monkeys, it became a lot harder to deny what The Atlantic had said.  You know: that American military heroes were "losers" and "suckers."

In American politics, the October Surprise is something that typically happens in the month of October,  just before a presidential vote.  It is something that changes the outcome of the election like FBI Director James Comey's announcement of an re-investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails in 2016.

The investigation was abandoned the day before the vote.  But it installed Donald Trump in the White House.

Trump was already facing myriad challenges as he sought re-election in 2020: a virus that has killed nearly 200,000 Americans, an economy in shambles, a united Democratic Party.  But calling America's men and women in uniform the ones who literally gave their lives, while Donald Trump partied with models and escorts "suckers" and "losers" may well be the end for him.  That may well be the thing that rids us of the pestilence that is Donald Trump, once and for all.

Back at David G. Burnet in Dallas, we were taught to always, always respect the military.  That was one lesson we learned very well.

Donald Trump, perhaps, is about to be taught the same lesson.

Photo Credit: Stars & Stripes

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.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently prorogued Parliament (which sounds painful) so he could have the time needed to concoct a new economic agenda for Canada.

And not just any economic agenda, but one, we're told, that will be a bold and radical departure from anything seen in the past.

As the Toronto Star's David Olive gushingly put it, "the Trudeau government will design not just a proposed economic recovery plan for Canada, but a lasting economic renaissance only a notch or two shy of Sir John A. Macdonald's National Policy in its impact."

So yeah, the guy now mainly known now for his selfie skills, costume changes and socks, will apparently re-invent himself as a genius economic innovator the Karl Marx of the 21st century.

Sounds pretty exciting, but I wonder if Trudeau really has it in him to engage in anything that's too radical or revolutionary or groundbreaking.

After all, a revolution usually involves ruthlessly dismantling the status quo and replacing it with some sort of untried and untested social experiment.

My guess is, such an action would be a real problem for Trudeau, since he's very much a pro-status quo kind of guy, as are his supporters in the mainstream media and in corporate Canada and amongst the "Laurentian elites."

Please note, up until now the prime minister has done next to nothing that could actually be construed as radical (unless you count his recent decision to cover up his cherubic face with a beard); certainly, he's taken no actions during his time in government that would in any way upset the Lords of Bay Street.

In fact, the entire ideology of the Liberal Party under Trudeau is basically to keep things the way they are for people who are content with the here and now.

Indeed, it's his affection for the present which distinguishes Trudeau from the ideological left and right.

People on the right, for instance, typically don't like present modern times; they pine for a romanticized or glorified past.

Consider former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who tried mightily to stir up national excitement about Canada's past glories, most especially our involvement in the War of 1812.

Or consider U.S. President Donald Trump's "Make American Great Again" slogan, or Conservative Party Leader Erin O'Toole's mantra of "Take Canada Back."

It's all about restoration.

Trudeau, on the other hand, seems to hate the past.

He sees it as a dark time filled with slave owners, racists, residential schools and religious bigotry.

This is why he and O'Toole had such a different take when vandals decapitated Sir John A. Macdonald's statue.

O'Toole's response was quick and forceful, tweeting, "Canada wouldn't exist without Sir John A. Macdonald.  Canada is a great county, and one we should be proud of.  We will not build a better future by defacing our past.  It's time politicians grow a backbone and stand up for our country."

Trudeau, by contrast, waited a few days before commenting on the incident and then he issued a half-hearted statement, saying he was "deeply disappointed."

Anyway, my suspicion is that Trudeau secretly agreed with the vandals, who view Macdonald as "racist, colonial, white nationalist".  (What's more, I bet Macdonald didn't march in Gay Pride Parades.)

Meanwhile, the ideological left like Trudeau also hates the past, but unlike Trudeau they aren't too crazy about the present.

As matter of fact, Marxism preaches that our current imperialistic, bourgeois, capitalist world must inevitably be wiped away, so that, just as inevitably, it can be replaced in the future with a utopian communist society.

Mind you, the establishment of a communist utopian future requires making lots of sacrifices.

As Lenin allegedly put it, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."

And this is why Trudeau isn't a left-wing revolutionary; asking citizens to make serious sacrifices for some distant goal isn't exactly part of his skill set.

He's the fun guy!

If anything, Trudeau's political messaging focuses on the upbeat idea that he offers all gain and no pain.

For example, he's promising to dramatically shift Canada into a "green economy" painlessly and easily, with zero costs.  (OK maybe his environmental plan will destroy Alberta, but unfortunately for that province it's located outside of Ontario and Quebec, so nobody cares.)

With all this in mind, what can we expect from Trudeau's new economic agenda?

Well, it's possible the COVID pandemic will have made the prime minister more willing to take risks, more willing to abandon the status quo and more willing to be a revolutionary.

Yet, I still think at the end of the day Trudeau will still be Trudeau.

Sure, he'll spend a lot of money and explode the deficit to massive proportions, yes, he will boost "green" subsidies and build more solar panels, yes, he will expand social programs and maybe invent new ones.

However, I also suspect his plan won't take into account what's worked or hasn't worked in the past, nor will it consider what it might do to this country in the future.

In short, Trudeau's "economic renaissance" will focus on one thing and one thing only: making us all content with the present.

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.


Last weekend's incident where a sitting MP was broadcasting conspiracy theories containing well-worn anti-Semitic tropes quickly fell out of the news cycle alarmingly so as mainstream Canadian media instead felt the need to instead focus on polls and fuelling the speculation of a potential fall election.  Most outlets didn't accurately portray what it was that had been tweeted, and focused on a half-assed apology that disingenuously portrayed what had taken place, and almost nobody put this incident into a broader perspective that the mainstreaming of this kind of conspiracy theorism has been on the rise, particularly (but not exclusively) in Conservative ranks as they latch onto anything that they hope will "own the Libs," and the full-on embrace professional shitposters who spread these corrosive memes into their ranks.

To recap, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, MP and one-time Minister of the Crown, was broadcasting QAnon and anti-Semitic New World Order conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit new finance minister Chrystia Freeland.  The tweet that Findlay quote-tweeted contained a video clip of Freeland in her journalist years interviewing financier George Soros about globalism, to which Findlay added the phrase that "The closeness of these two should alarm every Canadian."  This was then retweeted by several Conservatives including Pierre Poilievre, and later in the day, apparently after Liberal MP Anthony Housefather reached out to Findlay did she delete the tweet and offered that half-assed apology that didn't include any explanation of why anyone should be "alarmed" by Freeland interviewing Soros.  This after she tried to defend the tweet saying that it was "about economics."

It should be noteworthy that new Conservative leader Erin O'Toole did not actually comment on the incident (even though Findlay actually tagged O'Toole in her original quote-tweet).  When pressed by journalists during his press conference when he announced his new leadership team, he said that he called leaders from the Jewish community, but didn't say whether he spoke to Findlay about the issue.  It wouldn't really matter, however, because we need to remember that one of the people that O'Toole hired as part of his leadership campaign staffers was Jeff Ballingall, who runs those Ontario Proud/Canada Proud shitpost accounts, who is also actively involved in The Post Millennial, a hard-right "news" site that has actively promoted conspiracy theories in the past.

This has been building for a while.  During the previous leadership race, the debate over Motion 103, which tasked the Commons heritage committee to look at ways to combat Islamophobia, was treated by some of the leadership candidates as an "singling out Muslims for special treatment," and was falsely billed as creating "blasphemy laws" and would impact freedom of speech.  While the Interim party leader, Rona Ambrose, did repudiate those claims, the direction that the party was headed in was pretty clear, considering that many of the leadership candidates were onboard with demonizing a benign non-binding motion.

When Andrew Scheer became leader, the broadcasting of outright conspiracy theories began with his official imprimatur, most notably around the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, where Scheer proclaimed repeatedly that this was about surrendering the sovereignty of Canada's borders to the UN, when it did nothing of the sort.  Scheer was also amplifying the messages of the so-called "Yellow Vest" movement, which rapidly attracted white supremacists to the cause as one of the grievances was about the flow of irregular migrants across the border, in addition to complete falsehoods about carbon pricing, and the bizarre notion that prime minister Justin Trudeau needed to be tried for treason a theme that has since been amplified by QAnon and other conspiracy theories.  (It also took Scheer weeks to denounce those white supremacists, for what it's worth).  During the election, Scheer's constant lies about fictional plans that the Liberals were alleged to be hatching around a capital gains tax continued the trend of being willing to say anything, no matter how far-fetched, so long as it discredited the Liberals.

Also recall that as part of his bitter farewell speech on the night of the Conservative leadership results, Scheer urged people to forego mainstream media in favour of hard-right outlets like True North Initiative and The Post Millennial, which have also been involved in broadcasting conspiracy theories, including the M-103 and UN Global Compact falsehoods.  One of True North's contributors was very recently trying to spread the falsehood that the government's COVID-19 contact tracing app would allow the government to track Canadians' movements, even though the Privacy Commissioner explicitly stated that it didn't, and it was safe enough that even he would download it.  And it was certainly noted after Findlay's quote-tweet that MPs were certainly leading by example in amplifying the messages of these outlets that trade in dishonesty, disinformation, and conspiracies.

With this in mind, it would seem to me that O'Toole has not exactly been keen to tamp down on this kind of talk from his caucus in part because he's in bed with Ballingall, whose professional shitposter activities actively amplify this very material.  All of it is thinly sourced and quoted out of context in order to present false portrayals of what the Liberals have done or are supposedly planning to do mostly unnecessarily because there is plenty that the Liberals have done can be legitimately criticized (particularly aggravated by their inability to communicate), but there is an inherent willingness to say anything, no matter how ludicrous, in the hopes of scoring points.

There is a dangerous precedent being set by O'Toole's tacit silence on his party's part in broadcasting these conspiracy theories, especially as it's being alleged that the Canadian Ranger member who stormed the grounds of Rideau Hall was likely radicalized by QAnon conspiracies.  There is no way to have a rational discourse in Canadian politics if it becomes mired in the filth of these kinds of conspiracies, replete with their anti-Semitic overtones that date back to the propaganda text "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  Clearly O'Toole has hitched his wagon to the shitposters who are willing to amplify these messages and to muddy the waters around what is and is not true in politics, but no good can come of following this road to its conclusion.

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


There seems to be some discomfort with the beheading of statues of Sir John A. Macdonald even from people who are not fans of Sir John A. Macdonald.  And rightly, because disorder in the streets is not an innocent thing.

In the United States it is a great deal more serious than in Canada.  And I am of course aware that it was triggered there by legitimate concerns about racism and police brutality particularly in combination.  But just because an action is based on legitimate concerns does not mean the action is legitimate.  The ends do not justify the means… on either side.

Speaking of means, it should be noted in passing that the current American upheaval may achieve the highly unintended end of re-electing Donald Trump.  Polls are uncertain and since I denied he could even become the Republican nominee in 2016 you can take my prognostications about 2020 with all the salt available.  But it is worth noting that half a century ago popular disgust with rampant violence, from riots to muggings, helped elect Richard Nixon at a time when the public was not by and large inclined to vote Republican.  And it might do so again; for what they are worth polls suggest that the riots are strengthening the GOP in places and among demographics where they normally struggle in vain.

One may double down and say this response just proves in 2020, as in 1968, that the public are bigots and thugs who deserve a rock in the face.  But if you do so, you are unlikely to win friends or influence people… except to vote against your preferred candidate.  For that reason, I think Biden's condemnation of the rioters was weak.  His bad-people-on-both-sides echoed Trump's good-people-on-both-sides and, in both cases, fell dreadfully short of what was needed.  Both men should have named names and, I want to emphasize here, both should have been particularly scrupulous about denouncing those thugs who claimed to be on their side or that they were on the thugs' side.

The only semi-reputable politician who cheered at the toppling and beheading of the Sir John A. statue in Montreal was the head of the Bloc Quebecois, one Yves-François Blanchet, who seems determined to prove that separatism is not mainstream but a weird resentful branch of the left.  (But I repeat myself.)  When Alberta premier Jason Kenney offered to take the statue, Blanchet sneered "I'm ready to put it in a nice crate with some feathers — I'll let him provide the tar" with, my National Post colleague Chris Selley added, "typical grace and restraint."

By contrast Montreal mayor Valerie Plante, not exactly a right-wing fanatic, said "I strongly condemn the acts of vandalism that… led to the John A. Macdonald statue being torn down.  Such gestures cannot be accepted nor tolerated" though "I am also in favour of adding monuments that are more representative of the society to which we aspire."  And our PM, not exactly a bourgeois conformist, said "We are a country of laws and we are a country that needs to respect those laws, even as we seek to improve and change them, and those kind of acts of vandalism are not advancing the path towards greater justice and equality in this country."

Somewhat uncharacteristically, Trudeau hit the spot here.  What is it that's so wrong with disorder in the streets?

Of course there's the obvious practical matter that you might get smashed in the face by one of these obscenity-hurling, middle-finger-brandishing, mindlessly-angry "protestors".  (I use the scare quotes because normally a protestor has a cause and some capacity to articulate both its premises and its program.  For these people, rage seems to be the alpha and omega.)  Or especially if you're poor, black and American, you might see your place of business destroyed leaving you destitute.  But there's more.

Ordinary people here grasp something that often escapes our revolting elites, in the Christopher Lasch sense that it is now the privileged who are most resentful of the society that has showered them with benefits.  (Thus the state-funded CBC in its "Kids News" speaks cheerfully of "Sir John A. Macdonald and other political leaders with racist histories".)  Namely that to rampage around destroying historical monuments, burning down stores and attacking government buildings, to denounce the rule of law in principle and trample it in practice, is monstrously arrogant.

In fact it is the embodiment of the deadly sin of pride, not to mention wrath as well as envy.  To look at Sir John A. Macdonald, a towering figure with some clay in his feet, and sneer that if I'd been around I'd have been so much better than him that I should smash his statue in resentment, is an amazing piece of self-conceit.  Who decided you were so great?  Oh. You did.

Of course there are some historical figures I condemn with few or no reservations.  And not just obvious ones like Stalin.  I have been a fierce critic of Thomas Jefferson for decades over his wicked hypocrisy on race (and yes, I have the lecture recordings to prove it).  But I do not stand before students and say I was better than Washington, Franklin and Lincoln combined.  Instead I warn them that if such people could have flaws that seem both grave and obvious in retrospect, we certainly do as well.  To me, the failings of past giants is cause for humility not arrogance.

As I argue in a different context in The Great War Remembered, it is very easy to mock the performance of Allied generals in the First World War… provided we are careful to remain ignorant about the tactical, strategic and geopolitical problems they faced.  But the more we know, the less inclined we are, or at least should be, to say well if I'd been there I'd have told Haig a thing or two and we'd have won the war in a walk in 1915.

By the same token, I may be very frustrated by the philosophical and policy errors of those around me today, many of whom will I am confident not have statues erected of them later.  As they are confident I will not.  But I do not consider myself so obviously superior to them that I should shout them down, "deplatform" them with fire alarms and bullhorns, or just plain old break their faces and windows.  Who am I to do such a thing?  If I were on a mission from God it would, at best, be to harangue people, not to hang them.

By contrast, when angry radicals gain power on a mission from God or lack of same, from Robespierre to Mao to ISIL, they do hang people.  Or guillotine, starve, shoot and otherwise abuse and kill them.  They are in the grip of a rampaging, monstrous ego that reduces others past and present to dust and offensive dust at that, and grinds it underfoot.

This argument is not an effort to whitewash the past.  Canadians should debate whether Sir John A. Macdonald's aboriginal policy was appalling, enlightened for its time, or both.  And whether "enlightened for its time" is good enough, if it was, or can we legitimately say he should have done better, as William Wilberforce did?

These are fair questions.  And they may fairly be answered with an indignant no to the first and yes to the second, as well as yes and no, yes and yes or no and no.  But they may not be answered with an f-bomb and a rock, denying both historical figures and contemporaries any semblance of respect and sweeping aside our fellows' right to free speech, free assembly, freedom of opinion and the rule of law in the name of "direct action."

There are of course situations in which one ought to defy the law.  But as Martin Luther King Jr. showed us, in a self-governing society that aspires to respect human rights, flaws are best corrected by non-violent civil disobedience that calls citizens to heed the better angels of their nature.  In a tyranny the reverse is true and subversion, conspiracy and clandestine or mass violence are appropriate.  But when people who live in the former think they live in the latter and act accordingly, something vile has broken its bonds.

That something, I submit, is the sin of pride.  And normal people find it very frightening.  If elite figures cultural or political do not, it is perhaps because they too are in its grip.

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.


Alberta's deficit this year is forecast to be $24 billion.

It's a mind boggling figure, unprecedented in the province's history.

But the number everyone in Alberta is losing their mind over is two: the two-metre Covid safety zone for kids heading back to school.

Alberta has a culture usually obsessed with money.  Balancing a budget is the holy grail for provincial politicians.  Former Premier Ralph Klein made it into an all-powerful political mantra during his mandate.

But right now the pandemic crisis is refocusing Albertans on what really matters the health and safety of their kids.

The deficit number was revealed in a fiscal update in late August.  It can be argued it is no big surprise.  Every government is hobbled by the frozen economy and the increased expenses of the pandemic.  Alberta, thanks to the double whammy of crap oil prices, has the bleakest of economic outlooks in the Canada at the moment.

No one is making particular political hay out of the United Conservative Party's big picture fiscal disaster here.  It's difficult for the average voter to conceive of $24 billion to begin with.  It's just not a relatable figure.

So the oppositions and critics can chip away at small examples of public wastage here and there exacerbating the situation, but the bulk of the red ink was not really preventable.

However, the UCP is suffering a thousand cuts from the circumstances under which Alberta children are headed back to school.

About 30 per cent of students are staying home because their families aren't comfortable with the way the UCP has relaunched the school year.  Most contentious is no caps on class size and confused rules on how far apart students will be while in class.

A weekend health order sent out by Alberta's chief medical officer Deena Hinshaw says "an operator of a school does not need to ensure that students, staff members, and visitors are able to maintain a minimum of 2 metres distance from every other person when a student, staff member or visitor is seated at a desk or table."

The bottom line is that students don't have to wear masks when they are seated at desks in rows and not facing each other, even if they are within two metres.

The order, which Hinshaw argues was always part of the back-to-school plan, has caused an uproar, further antagonizing parents who are increasingly angry that the province doesn't have a plan for class-size cap and considerably more stringent rules on social distancing and masking.

But that would require a major infusion of money into the education budget for new teachers and alternative teaching spaces.

Premier Jason Kenney has kept his head down through much of the back-to-school controversy, leaving Hinshaw to do the heavy lifting, but protesting parents and outraged teacher representatives are not shy about laying the issue at the premier's door.

They argue that the government's priorities are all wrong.  The UCP Covid recovery plan pours millions into traditional economic stimulus plans.  Highways are being twinned at a ferocious rate.  The government bought a share of a pipeline for whopping $1.5 billion.

The NDP is proposing a back to school plan that they claim could reduce class sizes to a maximum of 15 students and cost $1 billion.  Naturally they're comparing that to the cost of the UCP's Keystone Pipeline $1.5 billion investment.

The government says a 15-student cap would cost $4 billion.

Issues like the back-to-school plan and the Alberta government's protracted battle with the Alberta Medical Association over doctor's pay are fuelling a mounting dissatisfaction with the UCP.

An Angus Reid poll released this week shows Jason Kenney's poll numbers are sinking.  Kenney's approval rating is 42 per cent, the lowest it has been since he was elected and the second lowest approval rating among Canadian premiers.

That number is all too relatable for the UCP.

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.


While the investigations into the WE Imbroglio are slowly burning themselves out, the opposition parties starting to turn to conspiracies as the lack of a smoking gun presents itself, the Liberals have nevertheless managed to step on yet another rake in the process of trying to control the damage to them and their brand.  Prime minister Justin Trudeau may preach full transparency, but it's not what he's practicing, and ever so slowly, he and his party are becoming everything they used to hate.

The release of pre-redacted documents to the Finance Committee as part of their investigation into what transpired around the Canada Student Service Grant was the latest self-own in a series of escalating self-owns by this government, but this one has a particular gravity that dwarfs the simple embarrassment that most other self-owns have tended to generate because it is flouting the will of parliament.  The committee order was for the complete documents to be presented to the Commons' Law Clerk to do any necessary redaction so that they could be assured that there was a neutral third party doing it and not the government trying to cover its ass and yet that order was ignored and the documents showed up with redactions already in place.  Even the Liberal committee chair, Wayne Easter, has been critical of the government disrespecting the will of the committee and has called on the government to release the unredacted documents as swiftly as possible.

It seems that blame has been attached to the bureaucrats, who do this sort of thing regularly with Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) releases, which have become increasingly problematic as time goes on, and the Liberals' promise to fix the system have largely been for naught.  Once again, it's a case of being all talk and little-to-no action in this case, they did pass a very flawed bill that has done nothing to remedy the situation.  "Transparency by default" and "proactive disclosure" have become hollow buzzwords that have resulted in little meaningful action, and the inertia in the civil service around disclosures continues to be unabated.  The thing with inertia is that a significant external pressure needs to be applied to force it to change course, but that remains elusive under the Liberals as they have not exactly been diligent in applying it.

So why does this matter?  Who cares if there were some extra redactions?  It matters because the government didn't respect a committee order to turn over documents, and accountability is the raison d'être of our committees and Parliament itself.  Governments who try to evade accountability and not respect committee orders particularly in a hung parliament like we currently find ourselves in may find themselves to be in contempt of Parliament, which is a Very Big Deal.

It was in 2011 that Stephen Harper's government found itself to be in contempt of Parliament  a determination found by the Procedure and House Affairs committee after they refused to turn over documents related to the costs of their law-and-order agenda, their corporate tax cuts, and the planned procurement of F-35 fighter jets (which continue to haunt us still).  This was a big deal the first government in comparative Westminster parliaments to have been found in such contempt.  An election was fought over it.

The unfortunate part is that the electorate didn't end up caring that Harper was found in contempt, whether it's because their visceral dislike of Michael Ignatieff was too strong to counter Harper's misdeeds (especially among traditional Liberal voters who stayed home instead of voting), or because there was already a fatigue around the fact that absolutely everything that happened under Harper's watch and there was a hell of a lot that happened was treated as a giant scandal, and voters reached the point where if everything was a giant scandal, nothing was a giant scandal.  In either way, the contempt charge didn't stick, and Harper went from a hung parliament to a majority one.

I am certainly not advocating that Liberals treat this as permission to do the very same thing and hope for the same result that people will be so inured to the constant cries that everything is a giant scandal and that they won't punish the government over this, or that they would punish the opposition instead.  Lightning rarely strikes twice, and Trudeau's government has made so many mis-steps and stepped on so many rakes that they shouldn't count out the possibility that the voting public has tired of the rake-stepping and want to get rid of Trudeau in order to get a break from it all.  Rather, I am warning the Liberals that they are starting to turn into the thing that they hated most.

It's like the closing scene in Animal Farm, where the pigs have started morphing into the very same humans that they displaced, once they declared "four legs good, two legs better."  The tendency of this government is to say "Yes we did it, but we meant well and we're sorry," hope that all will be forgiven, and hope that it differentiates them from the Harper Conservatives.  After all, the impression was largely that Harper didn't mean well, and he continues to be treated like a Bond villain because of it and Trudeau could never be perceived the same way, right?

Trudeau promised he would be different when it came to respecting Parliament, and sure, returning to the practice of have ministers make speeches inside the Chamber and not off of Parliament Hill in front of a branded piece of vinyl backdrop as a good change, but it was the bare minimum.  Respecting parliament means more than just using the Commons as a backdrop it's about giving MPs the tools they need to do the jobs that they were elected to do, and if Trudeau finds that to be too much of problem, then he may find that he too has morphed into the very thing that he displaced.

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.