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

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole's propensity to say outrageous things got him into hot water once again, this time over his assertion that the original purpose of residential schools was for "education," and not, you know, the stated purpose of cultural genocide in separating Indigenous children from their parents, language, and culture.  The remarks were made in a video to the campus Conservatives at Ryerson University, which is facing a debate over whether or not to rename the institution because its benefactor, Egerton Ryerson, was one of the architects of residential schools, and O'Toole has taken it upon himself to fight this kind of "cancel culture" (which isn't actually cancel culture).

"I was a little too flippant and partisan on an issue that is very, very important and a sad chapter in our history," O'Toole said a couple of days later.  "On a sensitive topic like that, you have to show thoughtfulness."

But O'Toole has not actually apologized for those remarks.  He justified them as part of his attempt to fight "cancel culture," and in the video to the campus group, told them that "lefty radicals are also the dumbest people at your university," and urged them to say that Conservatives have a better record when it comes to residential schools "in the modern era" than the Liberals, citing that this factoid "silences the Liberals like you wouldn't believe."

Of course, there was very little of factual truth in O'Toole's assertions, as he tried to implicate Pierre Elliot Trudeau in his tit-for-tat game of "my party has a better record than yours," as though there is anything to actually be proud of from either party when it comes to this particular legacy.  In fact, it's a horrifying bit of rationalization and justification when you think for just a second about what it is you're trying to score points over.

O'Toole insisted afterward that he is serious about reconciliation with Indigenous people, but based on statements his party has made in the House of Commons recently, the only time they seem really exercised about reconciliation is if there is a First Nation that they can put in the window as a beneficiary of a resource extraction project or pipeline that others are protesting.  They are very selective in who they quote about who was benefitting with the cancelled Northern Gateway pipeline versus those who were opposed, and they are quick to prop up the supporters of the pipeline going through Wet'suwet'en territory in BC, while ignoring the broader points about rights and title, which are at the heart of the dispute.  It's also quite rich for the Conservatives to be so concerned about the delays in the action plan to implement the recommendations coming out of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report, when they absolutely refused to touch the issue over the nine years they were in power.

Part of why O'Toole thinks he can get away with saying things like he did to those Ryerson students is because he has built a strategy around trying to "own the Libs," and that demands saying increasingly outrageous things, which as we can see are proving to be racist, colonial, or in some cases, anti-Semitic, as they wink and nod to conspiracy theories, whether it's around the "Great Reset," or George Soros.  They don't even realize what it is they're really saying when they do either when MP John Brassard was called out for bringing up Soros in a heckle against Chrystia Freeland, he got outraged when it was noted that this is anti-Semitic, and he insisted it was no such thing.

But it's not only with this we've seen both Pierre Poilievre and Andrew Scheer lately on an all-out assault on the independence of the Bank of Canada, as they try to insist that they have cozied up to the government and are financing the deficit like it's some kind of credit card using printed money.  All of it is completely incoherent as they either have no clue how monetary policy works, or more probably, they have a clue and are simply lying about it as they shitpost and spread memes across social media.  They have a self-reinforcing notion that this is the kind of engagement that will win them the election, as though the entire electorate will develop the same kind of irrational hatred for Justin Trudeau that they possess.

But there has been no acknowledgment that this is ultimately an unsustainable strategy.  Trying to use irrational anger to fuel populist sentiment may seem like a quick way to get votes, but it's incredibly difficult to maintain (as Jason Kenney is finding out in Alberta), and it has the very real possibility of going completely off the rails.  This very strategy out of the United States, where admittedly there is a more polarized population to begin with, has transformed into subcultures that are hoarding guns in the hopes that a race war and second civil war will ignite.  Echoes of these sentiments already exist in pockets within Canada, fed by American media and given encouraging winks and nods by conservative luminaries in this country, but rather than look at how this is shaping up, O'Toole and other conservative leaders in this country signed on to that American culture war and think it will win them power once more.

Even if they do form government again federally within the next couple of election cycles, the fact that they have become so dependent on mischaracterizations, bent truth and outright lies can't be doing themselves any favours if they want the voting public to be able to trust them, rather than to simply be mad at the Liberals.  We're living through that in Ontario right now a vacant campaign devoid of policy and fuelled instead by this irrational homophobic and misogynistic anger toward Kathleen Wynne, egged on by the very same professional shitposters that O'Toole went on to hire, brought in Doug Ford, who has proven to be completely incompetent to the point where thousands of people have now died unnecessarily in this pandemic.  This is what O'Toole is looking to replicate federally, and we can't be confident that he will be any more competent than Ford has been based on this behaviour.

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

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.


Back when the NDP were in office, then-opposition leader, Jason Kenney, used to arrogantly refer to his progressive rivals as Alberta's "accidental government."  With the imperiousness of a Roman emperor, Kenney would slag the NDP any chance he could get for them somehow not deserving their 2015 victory.

In Kenney's eyes, the NDP could never have succeeded winning an election in "conservative" Alberta.  At least if faced against a proper, united center-right force.  As such, any triumph of the NDP's was both unintentional and unrepresentative of the voting public.

That this was all nonsense goes without saying.

The NDP won the 2015 election, fair and square.  True, they secured their majority mandate under the flawed first-past-the-post electoral system; a system which desperately requires reform, both in Alberta and across the country.

But the plurality of votes the NDP won was more than deserved (one need only recall Rachel Notley's impressive debating chops and far from radical political platform) and is entirely representative of the provincial electorate.

After all, Alberta is no longer the one-party conservative state it used to be.  Demographic changes, driven by interprovincial and international migration, has resulted in Alberta's population becoming increasingly young and urban.  And by extension, more progressive.

It is why citizens in both Alberta's two largest cities, Calgary and Edmonton, have re-elected liberal-minded mayors in recent years.

It is also why the NDP were elected in the first place.  And why, even in opposition, they still maintain a sizeable presence in the legislature — and in the voting intentions of Albertans.

Not only is their opposition caucus the strongest in decades, (arguably the most formidable since Laurence Decore led the provincial Liberals) but with their steady and secure base of supporters, they are almost guaranteed the possibility for further growth.

In fact, according to recent polling data, that rise in support may already be well underway.

Earlier this month, Research Co. released its polling findings after surveying 600 Albertans.  They found that a full 43 per cent of respondents stated they would vote for the NDP, compared to 40 per cent who claimed they would do the same for the UCP.  Considering that the UCP defeated the NDP by more than 20 percentage points just 20 months ago, this tightening of the polls is a stunning development.

Research Co. was not the only polling firm to discover such findings either.  Similar results were shown by the Angus Reid Institute.  According to their polling, the NDP is neck and neck with the conservative government, with the UCP maintaining only a slim lead over their centre-left rivals.

How does one explain this significant shift?

For one, Kenney has never been a particularly appealing leader.  He has routinely polled below his party in terms of favourability, and if anything, weighs down their chances of success.

Furthermore, his neo-conservative crusade, complete with his reckless corporate tax cuts and childish "war room" antics, have proven popular with only the most fervent of his supporters.

In contrast, Notley has been unwavering in opposition, and has held this government to account with skill and fortitude, all while offering a plethora of attractive policy alternatives.

All these factors, among countless other UCP missteps, have taken a toll on this government's popularity.

Still, the primary explanation for the UCP government's reversal in polling fortunes has been from a result of its poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kenney's delay in implementing necessary restrictions, even as provincial COVID numbers were sky rocketing, damaged his reputation immeasurably.  So too did his dithering to denounce the dangerously self-absorbed protests of anti-maskers.

No wonder the Angus Reid Institute found that only 41 per cent of Albertans approve of Kenney's handling of the pandemic, which is pretty damning, considering that only respondents in Manitoba ranked a government more poorly.

In contrast, almost all other provincial governments witnessed a boost in voter approval.  Perhaps because, whatever their various, respective faults in responding to the pandemic, they have not evaded responsibility quite as shamefully as Kenney has.  Voters tend to take a dim view of politicians that not only catastrophically screw up but deflect blame for said screw-ups.

As vaccines continue to be doled out, the pandemic and its destructive legacy will one day be a thing of the past.  With time, Albertans may yet forgive Kenney for his failed display of leadership.  Second chances do happen.

Yet, if Kenney continues his downward spiral, and Notley continues to shine, Kenney might find that his UCP becomes Alberta's next "accidental government."

Photo Credit: Edmonton Journal

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.


"We're all in this together," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians back in April, an attempt to offer comfort as the first wave of the pandemic ballooned and people feared for their financial security.

But eight months later, for Canada's poorest residents, such reassurance ultimately proved insincere.

Canada's financial support for those affected by the pandemic uncannily reflects the Liberal party's predominant demographic interest: the middle class.  Many people most in need of assistance have found themselves to be an afterthought, exposing the Prime Minister's rosy words as nothing but hollow rhetoric.

As the pandemic became severe this past spring, the federal government's goal was to suppress the virus by asking people to stay home and providing financial support to those whose income had been interrupted.  Downtown thoroughfares in the country's largest cities were eerily quiet, as a once-in-a-lifetime spending program was created to alleviate the looming public health crisis.

But in hindsight, far too many Canadians fell through the strands of a social safety net that was not woven tightly enough.  Those in greatest need of government support would inexplicably go without.

"No Canadian should have to worry about paying their rent or buying groceries during this difficult time," Prime Minister Trudeau stated back in March.  Apparently he was not addressing Canada's most impoverished residents, nor those who abruptly changed careers in 2019.  He must not have been speaking to Canadians who had just completed their education, nor to new immigrants.  The Prime Minister certainly could not have been appealing directly to entrepreneurs who had recently started a small business, nor those whose existing and profitable commercial ventures had sputtered the previous year.  For these were all people who ultimately discovered they did not qualify for government pandemic assistance during the greatest financial crisis of their lifetime.

Canadians from comfortable, middle-class backgrounds of privilege were seemingly the focus behind the government's financial support.  During later months, when the government presented fiscal updates, we learned of people who normally earn up to $200,000 annually receiving Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments, while self-employed Canadians who last year made less than $5,000 net income would be on their own.

At least one private, for-profit golf course managed to squirrel away more than $1 million after receiving the government's Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).  In total, corporations that received the CEWS disbursed more than $50 million in shareholder dividends.  Meanwhile, those at the bottom rung of our socio-economic ladder with genuine difficulty affording rent or groceries were often informed they did not qualify for COVID support payments.

Left without financial help, many Canadians have had to dip into personal savings, withdraw their pensions early, utilize lines of credit or over-extend their credit cards.  People who lack such safeguards have been forced into bleak choices, including risking eviction from their home during an economic and public health catastrophe.

Telling people in such dire circumstances to "find a job", when we should really be paying people to stay at home to curtail the pandemic, is absurd.  That's especially true when many of the country's poorest postal codes have unwittingly served as COVID hotspots, due to overcrowded transportation and workplace conditions.

Sure, CERB (and its replacement, the Canada Recovery Benefit) was meant to supplant lost income, not serve as general welfare payments.  But that decision was a grave mistake quite literally.

Had there been no minimum requirements to receive COVID support, we could have enabled all non-essential workers to remain home.  This would have been far more effective at curtailing the pandemic, and would have kept a roof over most people's heads.

Instead, we now find ourselves with a second pandemic wave spiralling out of control, after months of provincial politicians rushing us back to workplaces far too early, while many of the poorest Canadians endure 15-minute online eviction hearings that offer scant compassion.

That the Liberals would deem some people too poor to require financial assistance, while simultaneously filling the coffers of such bourgeois institutions as private golf courses, is unconscionable.  This is a government that is more interested in keeping comfortable people comfortable, than it is supporting the truly vulnerable.

Perhaps this should come as no surprise.  In recent years, the Liberals often speak of helping the middle class, including aspirational rhetoric aimed at voters who seek to rise to such economic status.

But while people whose income remains below the middle-class threshold may be a target of Liberal voter identification efforts come election time, apparently they are not the focus of government assistance during an unprecedented pandemic.

Affixing a financial floor and a subsequent means test to COVID support was the calculation of an uncompassionate government.  A universal basic income, even if only temporary, would have proven far more effective at protecting the economy, alleviating poverty, keeping people at home, and thwarting viral spread.

"We made a promise early on in this pandemic that we would have people's backs, and that we would be there as much as it took, as long as it took, until we got through this," Prime Minister Trudeau said last week.  "And we're serious about that. … We're going to make sure we are there to support the most vulnerable every step of the way."

How can the Prime Minister utter such empty words with a straight face, when financial support programs have been intentionally designed to exclude many of the most vulnerable Canadians?

One thing is for sure: Canada's most impoverished residents, neglected by the government's obsessive focus on the middle class, won't be having a very merry Christmas this year.

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.


Imagine you are a two-term Member of Parliament.  Imagine you last spoke in Parliament in December 2019, over a year ago.  Imagine you last voted in the House of Commons in January 2020.  Imagine you go on medical leave from work on January 31, 2020.  Imagine providing a doctor's note explaining that you required one month of medical leave.  Imagine then providing a new note every month to extend your leave.  Imagine not informing your constituents you could not work.  Imagine no one realizing that you had not been at work for a full year.

That is the curious case of Bloc Quebecois MP Simon Marcil, who was elected twice to represent the Quebec riding of Mirabel.  We now know this is happening, thanks to a scoop by the National Post's Christopher Nardi.

The main issue is not about Simon Marcil's illness.  Everyone should be able to take leave from work in case of illness which is far from being the case, sadly.  Neither do Canadians need to know what ailment has hit Simon Marcil.  It is none of our business.  We can only wish Mr. Marcil will recover and be able to return to work on behalf of his constituents, a return now expected to be January 10, 2021.

That's not the problem here.  The real issue is that no one not Mr. Marcil, not his office, not the Bloc Québécois, not the Speaker   no one disclosed this information publicly.  Bloc Whip Claude DeBellefeuille said that the party chose to keep the absence secret to protect Marcil's privacy.

That is simply the wrong call.  Voters have a right to know their elected representative is out of commission.  Leaving constituents in the dark, in the middle of a pandemic no less, is not only unfair, it is a failure of duty.

Contrast that with New Democrat Nunavut MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, who announced last October that she was "struggling with some personal health problems" and would be taking at least eight weeks off.  Her office has issued regular statements since, reminding people of her absence and updating citizens about her status.  Qaqqaq's office recently announced that her leave would continue until Jan. 4, 2021 before beginning a "progressive reintegration into full time work."

Why did Marcil and the Bloc act this way?  What is the upside?  The fact that it took this long for anyone to notice has prompted many to wonder how useful and effective that MP (or his party) was to begin with.  Taking a leave without disclosing you are doing it, for health reasons or otherwise, will raise many eyebrows.  Especially if it takes a year for people to realize.

It raises questions and provides fodder for speculation.  The Bloc might have had good intentions for not disclosing anything about Marcil.  But they did him, and his constituents, an immense disservice.  It also leaves the impression that the Bloc and Marcil had something to hide.

Something like a secondary residence used by Marcil?  The Post brings the spotlight on the fact that despite being on medical leave from work, therefore not showing up in Ottawa, Marcil has claimed $14,150 in expenses so far in 2020, for a secondary residence in Mulgrave-et-Derry, one hour north of Ottawa.  Not his cottage, surely.

Considering Mirabel is 90 minutes from Ottawa, one can wonder how a secondary residence which reduces Marcil's commute by only 30 minutes, can be used as his pied-à-terre in Ottawa.

All legal and approved by the House of Commons, the Bloc says.  I don't know why exactly, but somehow this reminds me of Mike Duffy.

Sadly for Marcil, the way this was handled also feeds into a narrative that had been setting in about the MP for quite some time.  For instance, four different Bloc Québécois sources told the National Post that, before Marcil went on medical leave, he seemed uninterested in being an MP.  Worse, they all used the same word to describe him: lazy.  "I don't even know what Simon Marcil looks like," one of them quipped.

Another former Bloc worker told me that, during the 2015 election, the BQ HQ realized that Mirabel could be taken from the NDP.  Plans were rearranged to bring Gilles Duceppe's tour bus to the riding to help their candidate win.  These plans were then cancelled when the Bloc officials realized that Marcil didn't even have a campaign office.

Mirabel Mayor Jean Bouchard, who himself had to take a long leave for medical reasons, though he announced it publicly had been wondering where Marcil was all this time.  Bouchard was also blunt about Marcil's work ethic:  "I've always gotten the impression from Marcil that he doesn't care about the work at all", Bouchard said.  "How can a two-term MP like him just disappear?"

Indeed, how?

Photo Credit: National 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.