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.
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.
During the lengthy interview with former prime minister Joe Clark on the CBC's West of Centre podcast over the weekend, there were a number of very interesting things that came up for discussion, but something that I find of particular interest was something that largely got overlooked in the write-up, which is what Clark diagnosed as one of the changes in the nature of political parties in this country, and what effect that has on national discourse within the country and it's something that we should be paying attention to.
Around eighteen minutes into the interview, Clark made the following observation:
There's been a quite significant change in the nature of our political parties, and that has had a significant impact on the sense of participation and contentment in the nation. We're accustomed, political scientists in particular, to looking at countries in terms of our formal institutions. One of the realities about political parties when I first began to get involved, was that they were very important informal instruments of reconciliation in the country. They were parties that would, on the one hand, let anybody in they didn't distinguish ideologically. People were quite fierce in their affiliations but they were not closed-minded.
He went on to say that one of the greatest economic debates in our country's history happened within the Liberal Party itself, and pointed to the hard work of Progressive Conservative Party leader Robert Stanfield in defending the Official Languages Act in the parts of the country where it was difficult to do so.
"The parties were determined to not only welcome people, but to reconcile differences," Clark added. "Its deterioration coincided with the growth of interest groups in the country. Interest groups have made a lot of profound, positive change a lot of important issues, the rights of women, the environment, others were not getting enough attention until interest groups embraced them, but nonetheless, they have eroded the breadth of national political parties. People draw their own in."
And this, I think, is starting to narrow in on a definite change within parties that has weakened their ability to be useful vehicles of federalism, and of good governance through bottom-up, grassroots engagement in this country. But it's only part of the problem. It also goes hand-in-hand with the way in which parties undermined themselves the more they moved toward American presidential primary-style leadership contests, which centralized power within the leaders' offices and drew it away from the grassroots.
Clark has a very good point about interest groups, quoting Stanfield's warning that political parties are being replaced by interest groups, and citing that political parties reconcile interests, and interest groups insist on them. Clark cited the environment and women's rights as two successful interest groups that succeeded where parties failed in their traditional approaches to find some kind of consensus among their membership to drive policy, but I think it also speaks to how forces outside of the political system bolstered these interest groups. After all, if we look at what abysmal civics education we get these days, people are taught that the way to make change is to sign petitions and join these interest groups, rather than joining a party and agitating for change from their grassroots process. That has become self-reinforcing.
But this also couldn't happen without the power within parties shifting from the grassroots to the leaders, where bottom-up policy development has become top-down, and leadership contests involving full slates of policies that said leader intends to impose on the party. When your focus is on the leader, the grassroots imperative toward reconciling positions, policies, and even regional differences, withers.
It's also something that former Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray diagnosed in a 2011 interview when he heard about the horrific gong show in how Alberta's PC leadership contests were being run, where people were buying memberships between the first and second ballots.
"Where's the cohesion in that?" Murray asked. "Where is the commitment? If the membership of a political party at the constituency level is so fluid and so amorphous, how can that political party play its essential role of acting as an interlocutor of the people of that constituency and the caucus and government in Ottawa or Edmonton, or Toronto, or wherever? The short answer is that it can't."
This feeds directly into the problem that Clark diagnoses about the ability for parties to act as instruments of reconciliation. These leaders, sometimes interlopers to the caucus who have never held a seat before, come in without an agenda of reconciling themselves to their own caucus, let alone their positions with those of the grassroots. Their assumption is that the grassroots voted for them, and therefore their word is law within the party. And when Clark talks about how there used to be a stronger sense of "us" in a party, and that is now turning into a sense of "us" and "them" both within and outside of the party the ability to engage the country's points of division become strained.
To this end, Clark diagnosed part of the Liberals' problems in engaging with Alberta as part of this loss of an ability to reconcile within its own membership. In turn, he sees that Alberta's interests are exacerbated when they appear to be ignored (though I would argue that the Liberals have not ignored them, but they simply didn't tell many Albertans the lies they wanted to hear, and those Albertans turned to those who did).
"The Liberal Party in the past, much like the Progressive Conservative Party in the past, used to be much broader than that," Clark said. "It used to reflect the whole of the country. It was a reconciling instrument in a country that always needs reconciliation. I'm quite disappointed about all of the parties in that sense."
He's right in that this loss has impacted our political institutions, but when he said that our political system requires significant changes, he didn't really elaborate as to how. I think we do need change, but that change has to be getting us to the place where we used to be where leaders were not dominant, where the grassroots could engage, could reconcile, could have broad tents that drew in Canadians to the conversation. Simply doubling down on how things have devolved will only serve to further stress and strain our system.
Photo Credit: The Chronicle Herald
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 rumors swirling around Ottawa are correct, a federal election might be hitting us as early as this June, which means we'll all soon be treated to yet another round of that unique Canadian political game I like to call, "Who's the true Canadian?"
You know what I'm talking about, right?
It happens in virtually every federal election; one political leader (who always happens to be a Liberal) will dramatically claim that his rival (who always happens to be a Conservative) doesn't support or represent "true Canadian values."
It's just good old fashioned nationalistic drumbeating.
Of course, there's nothing unique about making nationalism an issue during elections; it happens in just about every country, with one side pushing an internationalist/globalist, hands-across-the-border vision, while the other promotes a more flag-waving, nationalistic "we need to look after our own country first" point of view.
But here's what makes the debate in Canada a little bit different.
In other countries, the side pushing nationalism is almost always located on the right side of the political spectrum and is often associated with populism, think of France's National Rally Party led by Marine Le Pen, or of Germany's AfD Party or of the Trumpian wing of America's Republican Party.
Yet, here in Canada, it's the left-wing-leaning, progressive, "postnational" Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Justin "I'm a global citizen" Trudeau, which adopts a strident nationalistic tone.
Mind you, it's not the sort of nationalism that's linked to anti-immigrant policies or to protectionism (though, lest we forget, the Liberals were once vehement economic nationalists), it's more of a nationalism that's linked to fanning the flames of anti-American feelings.
In short, during elections the Liberals love to demonize our neighbours to the south as a threat to our way of life, because they believe (probably correctly) that fomenting such an "us vs them" tribalism is a good way to win votes.
So, Liberals first paint America as a scary country packed full of gun-toting rednecks, bible-thumping evangelists and demon-eyed Trump supporters and then claim their Conservative rivals are nothing but American lackeys, who have a secret plan to drag Canada into the nightmarish American vortex.
The horror!!
Nor do the Liberals actually need any evidence to back up this serious charge.
All they need to do is put the words "American-style" in front of every Conservative policy proposal.
Hence, you'll regularly see Liberal warnings about Conservative Party plans to implement "American-style health care" or "American-style gun laws" or "American-style capitalism", all of which, they will claim the Conservatives promote with "American-style" election ads.
Meanwhile, the Liberals present themselves as the only true defenders of Canadianness.
Such attacks usually put the Conservatives on the defensive, as they constantly have to defend their loyalty to Canada.
Indeed, one of the Conservative Party's great weaknesses during elections is that, unlike just about every other right-leaning political party in the world, it can't properly play the nationalistic flag-waving card.
After all, it's hard for Conservatives to wave the flag, when (as the Liberals love to gleefully point out) they actually opposed adopting the Maple Leaf banner back in 1965. (For the early part of its history Canada's conservative party associated nationalism with extolling our place in the British Empire.)
Besides, nationalism in Canada is inextricably intertwined with left-wing policies.
So, unless you fully embrace socialist health care, the welfare state and just about any other government intervention in the economy, you risk being labeled a traitorous American sympathizer.
Basically, my point is, the Liberals have a monopoly on exploiting nationalistic feeling.
Former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to solve this dilemma by creating a conservative-style nationalism, one that celebrated Canada's history.
Remember those War of 1812 celebrations?
Alas, it didn't stick because Canada's ruling elites have deemed that celebrating Canada's history is akin to endorsing white supremacy.
This is why statues of Sir John A. McDonald have to worry about more serious things than just pigeons.
Harper also tried to link Conservative nationalism with nationalist sentiment in Quebec, but unfortunately for him, Quebec's brand of nationalism is almost exclusively reserved for Quebecois.
Of course, if a federal election does occur in June, current Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole might try to whip up a bit of vaccine nationalism.
All he has to do is point to the Liberal government's horrendous record on vaccine procurement, and say something like, "We're in 38th place world-wide when it comes to vaccinating the public, that's embarrassing for Canada!!"
Might work.
Certainly, the Conservatives need to do something to thwart the Liberal nationalist attacks.
Otherwise, they'll always be at a disadvantage.
Even in this supposedly globalist age, voters like to put their country first.
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.
It was supposed to be a relatively quiet election. Certainly, that was what Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey assumed and hoped for when, on January 15th, he called a snap general election for February 13th.
His Liberals were miles ahead in the polls, up by more than 40 points over Ches Crosbie's Conservatives, by more than 50 points over Alison Coffin's NDP. Other premiers who had gambled and rolled the dice on a pandemic election had won, and won big.
As a member of the Atlantic bubble, the pandemic was under control: Newfoudland skated over the holidays without any significant outbreaks. "The past month was a period of great risk," Dr. Janice Fitzgerald, the province's chief medical officer of health rejoiced on January 13th. "You all stepped up your efforts and it is paying off." Two days later, an election was called. A month later, it is a complete fiasco.
Early on during the election, opposition leaders denounced Furey's election gambit as an unnecessary risk, motivated by the Liberals' appetite for uncontrolled power. The argument didn't have much traction then. But suddenly, in the dying days of the campaign, COVID-19 cases were on the rise on the Avalon peninsula and a sense of panic had set in. Something had to be done about the election!
Chief Electoral Officer Bruce Chaulk certainly made a mess of it all. At first, Chaulk was passing the buck on his responsibilities, stating that the authority rested with Dr. Fitzgerald to postpone the election. Chaulk then tried to get the leaders to act, pleading with them on February 11th to meet with the Lieutenant Governor to find a "constitutionally sound mechanism" to address the rising problem. Whatever that meant.
A few hours later, Chaulk was postponing unilaterally the election in 18 districts on the Avalon peninsula, creating in effect a two-tier election as the campaign would keep going in these districts while the rest of the province voted. The next day, Chaulk, faced with polling staff revolts and walkouts, decided he had no choice but to cancel in-person voting across the entire province and move toward mail-in ballots, prolonging the election past the extra two days allowed by law in case of an emergency. Indeed, all of these actions seem beyond the powers given to him by Law, something Chaulk himself was arguing a few days before! Think about it for a second: the election happening right now in Newfoundland and Labrador is illegal. There are no statutory, regulatory or legal provisions of any kind for what is happening now.
Worse, Chaulk made the province-wide postponement announcement on CTV News Channel not to local media without first informing the party leaders and without a real plan on how to proceed. One would think that, in a pandemic, contingency plans would have been put in place to ensure the integrity of the election, come what may. It would appear that 'fingers crossed' is not a sustainable plan.
So Elections NL is left scrambling, changing procedures and rules on a daily basis, putting the onus on confused voters to request, receive and return mail-in ballots. Many remote communities are worried about vote suppression as a result of these decisions. Bruce Chaulk should not remain in his position: his days at the head of NL elections are numbered.
The last week has been a week of complete and utter chaos, putting at risk the integrity of the election. It might be beyond repair, and may lead to many legal challenges. While Chaulk bears some responsibility, ultimately, this whole mess is on Andrew Furey's head. Politically, the prolonged election rests squarely on the Premier's decision to go ahead with the early election call. The unnecessary risk argument put forward by Crosbie and Coffin carries more weight with voters now. If I was a Liberal strategist, I would be worried.
Perhaps voters will be magnanimous and reward Andrew Furey nevertheless. Everybody is rewriting the rulebooks on the fly during the pandemic, even a year in. But the courts might not be so kind, if challenges are brought forward. Whatever happens, the conditions are set to create political instability in Newfoundland and Labrador for the foreseeable future. Elsewhere in the country, Blaine Higgs, John Horgan and Scott More are counting their lucky stars. And Justin Trudeau might now think twice about forcing a Spring election.
Photo Credit: CTV 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.