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

A very curious phenomenon has been happening with this particular government, that I can't say that I've seen before a regular stream of abandoned bills littering the Order Paper, sometimes abandoned because the measures were folded into larger bills, but in other cases, because a flaw was identified in the bill, and rather than simply moving an amendment through the usual process, the whole bill gets abandoned and a new one drafted to replace it.  The very first bill of the current session was such a case, and with the new business aid package in Bill C-9, which is about to hit the Senate, the government has decided to push it through with an identified flaw and to pass a separate bill to fix it afterward.  None of this makes any sense.

To a certain extent, there seems to be a sense that for the past few months, this has to do with the rush with which bills are being rammed through Parliament because of the pandemic.  The government has repeatedly abused process to ensure that bills are passed as swiftly as possible, which has meant very little public scrutiny.  For much of the pandemic, they would float draft bills past the opposition and get input and make any necessary changes before officially tabling it in the Commons, and then passing it swiftly at all stages, though they may deign to subject the bill to a couple of hours of speechifying as opposed to actual debate or legislative scrutiny.  One of those bills was abandoned after agreement couldn't be reached on aspects of it, which was the early attempt at new disability benefits.  Those benefits were greatly improved upon in later legislation, but advocates point out how long the measures ended up taking before those benefits flowed (though one should also remember that this was another example of the federal government needing to kludge together an imperfect solution with the limited levers available to them because this is largely an area of provincial jurisdiction).

We also need to point out that there seems to be a real problem with sloppily drafted bills, some of which can be attributed to the haste inherent in the pandemic.  One of the emergency bills that was passed, for example, contained sunset clauses in two different parts of the bill, but each were written in completely different manners, and it looked very much like two different drafters each submitted parts of the bill that were then mashed together and nobody went through to ensure any consistency in drafting language throughout and that does seem to be a problem.  Mind you, the fact that there were so many Senate amendments passed to bills in the previous parliament, there have been a lot of questions asked about why the process seems to have been less robust for this government's legislation than previous ones (though we cannot ignore that part of this is because this government actually did accept amendments whereas the previous one was not willing to in most cases, and flawed bills passed that needed amendments in future bills as well).

With Bill C-9, and the commercial rent subsidy contained therein, it was only after the bill had passed the House of Commons that it was flagged that there was a flaw therein that businesses needed to have paid the rent before they could be reimbursed, which didn't help businesses who are having liquidity issues and who don't have the money to pay it in order to get it refunded.  Of course, when Erin O'Toole started tweeting about this and demanding changes, it was a bit of a self-own because you would think that the official opposition would have actually studied the bill and flagged issues in it especially as this was a bill that was actually going through something that resembled a proper legislative process rather than being rammed through in one fell swoop as with previous emergency bills.  Mind you, Pierre Poilievre, the finance critic, spent Chrystia Freeland's Committee of the Whole appearance to needle her about the deficit and debt, as well as the Bank of Canada's operations which are independent from government rather than the bill itself, so that shouldn't be too surprising.  None of the other opposition parties were any better, using their questions to go after their particular pet grievances rather than studying the gods damned legislation, like it's their gods damned job to do.

Which brings us to where we are now.  A problem has been identified after the bill passed third reading and has been sent to the Senate.  Because Parliament is not sitting this week, the Senate opted to do a sort of "pre-study" of the bill even though an actual pre-study would be done before the bill passed the Commons so that amendments could be forwarded to the Commons committee and implemented then.  Regardless, it should be simple enough for the Senate to deal with an amendment, particularly if the government forwards it by way of the Government Leader or whichever senator is sponsoring the bill.  But no.

"We have an interim solution to ensure that rent payable is an eligible expense from day one," Freeland told senators at the Senate's national finance committee.  "After C-9 is passed…we will publish and swiftly introduce legislation to formalize rent payable as an eligible expense.  Given that this is our clear and publicly stated intention, we are confident that the Canada Revenue Agency will consider rent payable as an eligible expense from the moment the new rent program is launched there will be no delay."

It's nonsense, and this doesn't make it go any faster than the Senate passing the bill as amended, and sending it back to the Commons for approval, which can be done in an afternoon, just before Royal Assent.  I am starting to wonder about the quality of procedural advice that this government is receiving, and whether they have simply started to make it up as they go along.  If that's the case, then we are in serious trouble as a country who is supposed to have a grown-up parliament, especially if the opposition can't be bothered do their jobs 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.


Progressives beware: a wolf in sheep's clothing is amongst you.

No, I am not referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or anyone else in his Liberal cabinet.  After over five years in office, it is now well-known that the Trudeau grits have not always been as progressive as promised.

Of course, when it comes to virtuous oratory, Trudeau and his Liberal cohort can certainly talk the talk.  But when it comes to delivering concrete results, they have not always lived up to their pledge to ensure social and economic justice for all Canadians.

This is old news though, and I have no wish to beat a dead horse.

The new wolf of which I speak is no Liberal in leftist drag.  Instead, rather, it is Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole.

Yes, you read that correctly.

In a bid to win over non-traditional Conservative voters and expand the big-blue tent, O'Toole has embarked upon a new campaign strategy.  Employing rhetoric usually reserved by social democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, O'Toole has pivoted away from the usual conservative talking points to appeal to low-income and working-class Canadians.

Hoping to secure more of their support, O'Toole has taken a page from the progressive playbook and is suddenly voicing his concern for several traditional leftist causes, including the perils of free trade agreements, sky high income inequality and the decline of private sector union membership.

It all began shortly after O'Toole's August inauguration as party leader.

During his recorded Labour Day message, O'Toole bemoaned the exploitation of everyday Canadians at the hands of "big business" as well as the greed of "corporate and financial power brokers, who care more about their shareholders, than their employees."

He also went on to state that "The goal of economic policy should be more than just wealth creation.  It should be solidarity and the wellness of families" which includes "higher wages."

Not all of O'Toole's message was progressive of course.  Like any modern-day conservative, O'Toole could not help but attack "big government" in his speech.  However, it would be unrealistic to expect him, let alone any Conservative leader, to not hammer away at such a notion, no matter how absurd in today's neoliberal age.

Still, O'Toole did prioritize a significant portion of his speech to denounce wealthy elites and promote the need for increased income equality.  That in itself was extraordinary.

O'Toole went even further a few weeks ago, when he delivered a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto.  Throughout that address, O'Toole stated that:

"It may surprise you to hear a Conservative bemoan the decline of private sector union membership.  But this was an essential part of the balance between what was good for business and what was good for employees.  Today, that balance is dangerously disappearing.  Too much power is in the hands of corporate and financial elites who have been only too happy to outsource jobs abroad."

I cannot believe I am going to say this, but O'Toole is largely right, both in his explanation for the travails of today's society, and in the shock factor of his delivery.  I mean, can anyone really imagine Stephen Harper, or even his much milder understudy, Andrew Scheer, uttering these truths?  I sure as heck cannot.

Granted, at least they did not hide their antipathy towards unions.  That was never in doubt.  Nor did they have the gall to distort their true beliefs on organized labour, all to further the conservative agenda, as O'Toole has done.

After all, it was not all that long ago that O'Toole was declaring himself his party's "true, blue" standard bearer; a leader more fiscally conservative than Peter MacKay, which really was not all that difficult to believe, especially after witnessing his support for the suppression of unions and his endorsement of corporate-friendly trade agreements, all while under Harper's leadership.

If spoken from a red tory, someone like a Joe Clark or a Peter Lougheed, O'Toole's shift in language would be greatly welcomed.  It would finally signal that Conservatives had taken a real interest into the continued well-being of the working-class.

Unfortunately, Conservative advisors have made it abundantly clear that O'Toole is no red tory.  Nor is his newfound concern for reducing income inequality and strengthening unions at all genuine.  Instead, it was developed solely for the purpose of winning elections and advancing conservative policies, completely at odds with his recent rhetoric.

It is a clever strategy, I must admit.  And one that if executed correctly, could pay dividends for O'Toole in the next election, potentially even pushing the conservatives into majority government territory.

With that in mind, progressives better be careful.

An even more dangerous wolf than Prime Minister Trudeau is among the leftist flock, and he is bleating as convincingly as the best of them.

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.


Of all the remarkable political developments that have taken place recently south of the border, one in particular caught my attention.

I'm talking about how Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (better known in this age of initialization as "AOC") is thinking about quitting politics.

To my mind, that bit of information symbolizes how the victory of Joe Biden will dramatically change the dynamics of American politics.

What will change you ask?

Well, once right-wing populist Donald Trump whom the American Establishment desperately wanted to topple is safely out of the Oval Office, left-wing revolutionary thoughts will quickly fall out of fashion.

As history has shown us time and time again, once a revolution has succeeded, revolutionaries are no longer needed.

Hence, prominent left-wing figures like AOC, who were media stars during the Trump era will, for the foreseeable future be relegated to the sidelines.

After all, the only reason AOC became a media darling in the first place is that, as young, hip, articulate and attractive politician, she was the perfect poster child to personify the anti-Trump "resistance."

Basically, AOC's progressive agenda coupled with her celebrity-style looks propelled her to media stardom.

Her face adorned magazine covers, she was a sought-out guest on cable TV news outlets, and her every utterance was guaranteed to make headlines.

But now, with Biden about to take over the presidency, AOC no longer really serves a purpose.

If she defends Biden's policies, the media would consider that boring; if, on the other hand, she starts attacking the new president for any ideological failings, the largely pro-Biden media would likely deem her as too radical.  (This is basically what happened to Bernie Sanders.)

It's the old, if "you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.

By the way, the same goes for the left-wing group ANTIFA, which likes to voice its political opinions by smashing windows; during Trump's presidency, the media tended to portray this group's members as folk heroes, but if they decide to wreck a downtown core to protest Biden, they'll be deemed dangerous thugs.

At any rate, I suspect this partly explains why AOC is pondering quitting politics; she realizes the media will no longer saturate her with effusive praise.

The same sort of situation unfolded here in Canada with Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

Recall that while Stephen Harper was prime minister, May received tons of positive media coverage whenever she lashed out against the governing Conservatives.  The more outrageous her attacks, the more the media liked it.

However, once media favourite Justin Trudeau replaced Harper, May saw her media appeal rapidly dwindle.

There were no more Conservatives for her to kick, and the media had no interest in amplifying her criticisms of Trudeau.

Yet, while the electoral success of left-wing politicians ultimately tends to stifle the voices of strident left-wing agitators, like AOC and May, it also provides a wonderful opportunity for activists on the right.

Conservative agitators, such as Ezra Levant over at Rebel Media, can bash away at the Liberal government with reckless abandon, generating lots of donations in the process.

I know this from first-hand experience, since back in the early 1990s, while I was working with a conservative advocacy group called the National Citizens Coalition, the best thing we had going for us was former Ontario NDP Premier Bob Rae.

All I had to do was mail out Rae's name on a sheet of paper and our supporters would send in donations to help us stop his "ruinous socialist agenda."

It was a Golden Age for us, and when Rae was defeated in 1995 and replaced by the more conservative Mike Harris, the NCC's donations plummeted.

This is why American conservatives should take heart, despite Biden's win.

With Trump gone, some of the most active leftist voices, such as AOC, will be muffled, yet, with Biden in the White House, conservative advocacy organizations will likely be more energized than ever.

All this simply reflects the iron laws of politics: political opposites feed off each other.

Photo Credit: The Guardian

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.