LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Wynne's Liberals trumpeted Toronto making it onto the shortlist — 20 seems more like a shorter longlist if you ask me — of prospective cities for the new Amazon headquarters last week as if it was irrefutable proof Ontario is fertile ground for businesses to operate and thrive.  Much of the Canadian mainstream media followed suit, easily excitable over any mention of Canada abroad, reporting breathlessly that it was promising news that the third largest city in North America made a list of 20 cities still in the running to see which jurisdiction can best bend over backwards to seal the deal with Amazon.  Cooler heads at The Atlantic pointed out that the courting of Amazon from hundreds of cities ends up being a quick race to the bottom, so if Toronto, in the case of a miracle (our high hydro rates and Trump's lowering of taxes in the U.S. should easily be disqualifiers), has the winning bid for the new HQ it will not be proof that Ontario is a safe haven for business, but rather further confirmation this province is highly amenable to giving big business a leg up while continuing to poison the lifeblood of any healthy economy: entrepreneurs and small business.

Drenched in irony, as most things are in Ontario politics, the same week the Liberals hailed the Amazon non-newsWynne also puffed out her chest in her unofficial role as protectorate of the proletariat by declaring her government had moved to up the amount of bureaucrats policing businesses to crack down on those businesses violating the "spirit and letter of the law" of her new crippling 21 per cent increase of the minimum wage with little notice.  Wynne, remarkably, even repeated the false statement — at her taxpayer-funded re-election stop in a Liberal-held riding in Ottawa — that these additional 175 Employment Standards Officers are going to ensure businesses (read small businesses being squeezed by government dictates) follow the spirit of the law in Soviet-Union-like-named The Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act.  Let's hope this is merely more grandstanding from the awfully bully-like premier, otherwise we may see enforcement officers interpreting, through their feeling of what Wynne's vision of fairness is, the spirit of the law and punishing mean businesses through extra-judicial, spirited means, perhaps including trashing unfair businesses with nasty Yelp reviews, vandalizing their vicinities, and siccing the premier to publicly denounce greedy business owners on Twitter.

"There certainly aren't any legal repercussion in terms of any business that decides to go against quote-on-quote the spirit of the legislation.  And of course that is a subjective term, what matters fundamentally from a legal perspective is the letter of the legislation," explained Employment Lawyer Jason Beeho explained on CBC's The National last week, in the rolling coverage from the state broadcaster that was filled with sources cheerleading the rash minimum wage hike.

As the Liberal government continues to drill into Ontarians heads, through endless repetition of their mantra via new legislation, tens-of-millions-of-dollars in government ads, and talking points, that they're fighting for a fairer Ontario, alarm bells should be ringing for anyone who's read, and fully understands, the allegorical fable Animal Farm.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

In Ontario — tragically an ongoing recrudescence of this tale — the more equal pigs gorging in the farmhouse are big businesses, public unions, bureaucrats, underachievers, cosmopolitans and politicians.

Big businesses?  Loblaw Companies Ltd., despite lately being exposed for sleazy business practices like price-fixing bread (they'll only get slap on the wrist for) and allegedly avoiding paying $404 million in taxes by using a shell company, is being given up to $75,000 from the Ontario government per electric truck it buys from Tesla, which just so happens to be the company that has an old Liberal aide hired as a lobbyist of the provincial government and was also a beneficiary of the Ontario rebate program that gave affluent Ontarians up to $14,000 off their new luxury electric cars.  But back to Loblaws, an exemplar of some businesses treated more equal than others, the company was also one of the large grocery store chains entrusted to sell alcohol.  Mom and pop stores in typical fashion were given the shaft.  And of course the Beer Store, owned by multinational beer conglomerates, was allowed to keep its de facto monopoly over beers sales in Ontario, continuing to deter microbreweries from competing for bigger market shares and keeping their right to gouge consumers.  I could go on and on here, but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make by picking on the all-too-deserving Loblaw Companies Ltd.

Public Unions?  One need look no further than the lion's share of third-party spending in the last election or how generous their last collective bargaining agreements were to see how much some unions run the show in this province.

Bureaucrats?  Look no further than the growing Sunshine List last year, despite Hydro One names being removed, and public service job increases to see that this is the case.  Delve a little deeper and it only gets more abundantly clear.

Underachievers?  Minimum wage-earning individuals in Ontario apparently deserve the right to make a comfortable livelihood and career working at a low-skilled job their entire lives, never needing to strive to better themselves.  Those more enterprising individuals working for themselves  and entrepreneurs will just need to pick up the tab for their comrades.  While we're on this topic, why did the servers wage also increase, gouging restaurant's thin profit margin, when they already make far more than back of house workers and way above, on average, minimum wage workers?  Want to go to ever-expanding university campuses with lower and lower entrance standards but your parents can't pay for it?  Well if you want to study in the liberal arts (the government doesn't cover all of engineering and other more promising fields, which don't brainwash you into believing identity politics and other cultural Marxist theory, mind you) and your parents make a combined income under $50,000 and your grades are subpar then congratulations!  You're a winner!  You get free tuition!  You've earned it!  If your parents make slightly more than $50,000 (or your parents just won't pay) and you have above average grades, sorry!  You just haven't earned it yet baby!  Your parents just make a little too much compared to that subpar student's parents.  Get a job or loan or tell your parents to make less.  The government is only making things fairer.

Cosmopolitans?  All heavily taxed jurisdictions end up plundering the rural areas to feather the nests of the city dwellers.  Hog Town — aptly named — votes overwhelmingly Red and Orange for good (self-serving) reasons.  This also explains why the rural areas have been burdened with wind farms and solar farms (where Liberal friends made off like bandits with non-competitive 20-year-fixed contracts), as well as being forced to pay the brunt of the higher hydro rates.

Inevitably, as banks' and (honest) economists' and a former Liberal Finance Minister predictions come true, putting fairness on the backs of small businesses is likely to break them like poor Boxer's did.  Unless Ontarians grow up and start realizing life isn't fair, and success should be emulated, not condemned, they're going to find out just how unfair things can get in a very ugly way.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

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 hasn't been a very competent 2018 thus far for our justice system.

Just this week it was revealed that there was an (alleged) serial-killing Santa Claus operating in Toronto's gay village after months of the cops insisting that there wasn't one.  This came on the heels of an announcement that an attack on an 11-year old Muslim girl was actually a fabrication despite initial police reports to the contrary.

To compound matters for our put-upon police, it fell to my esteemed colleague Graeme Gordon to point out to them that the Santa Claus in question was not, in fact, employed by the Eaton's Centre but the Agincourt Mall in Scarborough instead.

So when the multi-year saga of the gas plant scandal finally sputtered to a halt last Friday, resulting in the conviction of David Livingston, an ex-Chief of staff to a Premier who hasn't been Premier for half a decade, the joyful exultations to the effect that the system works just as well (if not better) than any other had that distinct tone of cognitive dissonance being relieved.

True, the case almost did disintegrate under the weight of prosecutorial bumbling, as Christie Blatchford was forced to point out in her otherwise full-throated proclamation that the verdict proves "common sense" still carries the day.

Had it not been for the stalwart competence and testimony of bureaucrat Peter Wallace, quietly carrying out his due diligence in a most Canadian way while being careful not to make a fuss or bother anyone as he politely suggested to Livingston that deleting the emails was a pretty dumb idea, this trial would have merely been another Ghomeshi affair, another Duffy affair, another Sudbury by-election scandal.

Instead, David Livingston gets to join the tiny circle of mostly anonymous Canadian political lawbreakers who actually get a record.  But you keep trying, Canadian Justice System someday you might actually convict a Premier or a Prime Minister of wrongdoing!

Now of course some cynical person could have asked whether we should have had a trial at all if the central piece of evidence the emails themselves had already been destroyed.

But we have to help Canadians maintain the fiction that justice is being meted out fairly by our system (because it's OURS, dammit) and that it is ABSOLUTELY NOT a shield for powerful Liberal-connected public servants who have to be treated lightly because they are in the words of one Chuck Guite, who actually went to jail for about 5 minutes for his role in the sponsorship scandal "at war to save the country".  For these slightly overzealous but well intentioned patriots, we have to have these long, drawn-out and criminally expensive dog and pony shows every so often where the possibility of the whole thing embarrassingly crumbling to dust because of some legal screwup haunts the proceedings from start to finish.

If we don't have these trials often, and if we don't get convictions often, well, that's only because we are just a little closer to heaven than our neighbours to the south (unless of course you are a Conservative like Dean Del Mastro).

As such we cannot send a guy like Livingstone to jail even though he pretty clearly trampled over every rule in the book to protect his bosses.  That's why, even though his deputy Laura Miller's boyfriend was the guy who actually wiped the drives containing the emails, she luckily missed some crucial meetings Livingston had with Wallace and as a result gets to go home without a record.

But even Livingston, who after all this symbological wrangling ended up convicted of picky nothing burger charges like "illegal use of a computer" (and really, who among us hasn't used a computer in ways that SHOULD be illegal, am I right?  Eh?  Ehhhh?) will stay out of jail, if his lawyer, Brian Gover, has anything to say about it.  Livingston's "good character" which is obvious from his behaviour should be sufficient assurance of that.  And if anyone doubts the goodness of Livingston's character, just think if he hadn't deleted those emails, despite warnings not to, Tim Hudak might be Premier today!!!

So we shall go on, in this curious Canadian way, with our political trials resembling pantomime dinner theatre than the high drama of the Mueller investigation, and perhaps there is some poetic justice in that, if not actual justice.

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

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.


As Democratic Institutions minister Karina Gould prepares to have her first child, the first sitting cabinet minister to give birth while in office, the issue of parental leave for MPs has come up yet again.  We've heard it a lot in the past couple of years NDP MPs Christine Moore and Niki Ashton have recently had children, as has Bloc MP Marilène Gill.  Like no time we've ever seen, we're seeing infants in the Chamber during Question Period and votes, and more spaces for childcare have been allocated in the Centre Block.

The issue of parental leave keeps coming up because it's not something that MPs are entitled to.  The reason why is pretty simple they don't pay into the Employment Insurance system, so they can't take advantage of it, which is mostly because MPs aren't employees.  And this is where the discussion needs to start, and to be reiterated constantly MPs aren't employees.  Parliament is not a "workplace."  And you can't equate this issue to how things happen in an ordinary workplace because you're comparing apples and goats.

Currently, the Parliament of Canada Act stipulates that MPs will start getting their wages docked if they miss more than 21 sitting days, but that clock stops if they can prove that they were ill or if they're engaged in service with the armed forces.  This is where the discussion around parental leave tends to lead, and the desire to amend the Act to put in that leave provision, but nobody wants to say how long it should be.  And this is one of those places where it gets sticky because the job of an MP requires one to be present in Ottawa to vote and to do the important things that MPs do, like participating in debates and attending committees, and being away for a protracted period of time isn't really an option.

Some MPs have missed very little time after giving birth.  Gill managed to time things so that she gave birth while Parliament wasn't sitting for several weeks, so she didn't wind up missing any sittings.  Ashton missed the whole of December (and Parliament does not sit for nearly all of January), while Gould plans to be away for the duration of March and April, which works out to about five or six sitting weeks, depending on when she comes back.  That may not sound like a lot, but it's quite a lot on the parliamentary calendar, during which she will miss the bulk of the debate around the budget some of the most important work of Parliament (though, as a cabinet minister, she is in the role of having to defend the spending as opposed to trying to hold government to account for it).  But we don't have a good sense of what a proper amount of time "should" be.

One point of comparison was the Ontario Municipal Act, which allows for up to 20 weeks of parental leave, which I would think would be unfathomable for Parliament (even though that may work out to ten sitting weeks, depending on the time of year).  Can you imagine missing the equivalent of half a year in a position that only lasts for four years under the current fixed election cycle?  I'm not sure that people quite understand the gravity of what such a proposal would be asking in a parliamentary context, particularly given that these MPs know that this is the reality they face when they make the decision to have a child while they're sitting MPs.

The discussion about how to make parliament a friendlier place to young families is also an ongoing one, but it's one that I think often misses some of the realities of what the situation really is.  For example, these young parents frequently complain that the daycare on Parliament Hill doesn't accept children under 18 months, and there was a proposal for an on-call babysitter for MPs (that they would pay out-of-pocket for), but without recognizing the logistical nightmare for that person (or people if there is sufficient demand) to not know from one day to the next how many children they are expected to care for, in a job that has irregular hours already because of the way the sitting calendar is spread out.  But never, in any of these conversations, has anyone mentioned the fact that these MPs have the resources and financial wherewithal to hire a nanny.  I wonder if this is because there is a reluctance to have this conversation because it sounds too elitist and they would rather an institutional fix to a perceived problem when they already have options and solutions that are out of reach of many Canadians.  While one supposes that there is a potential "optics problem" of an MP having a nanny, it should be countered with the fact that it's the most flexible solution for the job that we're asking MPs to do.

Which brings me to my final point MPs do have a job to do, and that job is in Ottawa, which is why the additional demands that MPs who have small children be allowed to work and vote remotely should be anathema in this conversation.  If we make it acceptable for MPs to start doing their work away from Ottawa, we will very quickly destroy the fabric of Parliament.  We've already seen what happens when attempts to make the institution more "family friendly" by doing things like eliminating evening sittings happened, which was to deal a severe blow to the collegiality of the institution because nobody dined together anymore.  If MPs start thinking they can vote remotely or attending committees by Skype or FaceTime instead of being there in person, what remains of collegiality will quickly be smothered because they'll no longer be interacting with one another in person, or meeting with witnesses at committees and making those important face-to-face connections or having conversations along the sidelines.

Because MPs will immediately start deciding that they have "really important work" to do in their ridings instead of being in Ottawa, the House of Commons will quickly be reduced to a small cadre who are forced to show up to fulfil quorum while everyone else stays home.  Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but history is on my side on this one.  These MPs went into the job knowing that their job is in Ottawa, and even more to the point, they decided to have children with this fully in mind.  This was a conscious choice, and that's why we need to be very careful to limit what parental leave is on the table, before we trigger the eventual hollowing out of the institution.

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.


 

(SCENE: The New Democratic Party of Canada war room, January 10, 2018.  JAGMEET SINGH enters, happily whistling "Moves Like Jagger."  He takes his seat.)

SINGH: So! I'm sure you're excited to hear what I have in store for you.

SPOKESPERSON JAMES SMITH: You're not going to make that our 2019 theme song, are you?  It has the line "Kiss me till you're drunk" in the chorus.

(SINGH pauses before taking an orange Post-It note out of his pocket and crumpling it.)

SINGH: So much for those dance lessons.  No, what I actually wanted to talk about is something I've planned for next week.  I think it's going to go over huge.

PARTY PRESIDENT MARIT STILES: Really?  What is it?  Our demands for the North Korea summit?

SINGH: No.

SMITH: More check boxes for the Canada Summer Jobs program?

SINGH: No.

STILES: Joining Trudeau and Scheer to defend NAFTA?

SINGH: Hell no!

SMITH: OK, I'm dying of suspense.

SINGH: Well . . . (bashful smile) That's when I'm going to ask Gurkiran.

SMITH: Wow!

STILES: Ohhh!  That's wonderful!

SINGH: Yeah, I'm really excited.  I have it all planned out.  First I'm going to take her to the restaurant where we went on our first date.

STILES: Love it.  It's adorable.

SINGH: I've reserved a private room, and I've invited a couple dozen of our friends and family members to be waiting for us.

SMITH: Oh.  Well, that's big.

SINGH: But I haven't told you the best part.

STILES: Yes?

SINGH: OK, check this out: (lowers voice) I'm going to invite the media.

(A heavy silence falls.)

SINGH: Well?  What do you think?

(Silence.)

SINGH: Soooo, yeah, I'm picking up kind of a weird tension here.

SMITH: It was great, Jag, really great . . . until you mentioned inviting the media.

SINGH: Why?  I think it's a great way to introduce Canadians to their next Not First Lady.  Great publicity for Gurkiran's line, too.

SMITH: I mean, I'm sure she'll love it, but . . .

STILES: The thing is, you know, if I were in her position, I'm not sure I'd want my engagement to be that, um, public.

SINGH: Well, we might as well get her used to it.  She's going to be married to a guy who's in the headlines all the time.

SMITH: (under his breath) We wish.

SINGH: What?

SMITH: Look, Jag, I don't think this is going to play the way you think it will.  The headline isn't going to be "Jag's engaged!"  It's going to be "Jag brought the media so he could show off!"

SINGH: Oh, come on, they wouldn't say that.

SMITH: Yeah, they would.  They may not give it a think piece or anything, but they'll have opinions.  (frowns) Actually, someone probably will give it a thinkpiece.

STILES: And then there's the public.  This could play really badly with women.  Most women want their engagement to be personal, and special.

SINGH: Of course it's going to be special!  That's why the media will be there!

STILES: (sighs) Special for just the couple.  You'll get congrats, of course you'll get congrats, but a lot of people are going to feel bad for her for being put in the spotlight at that moment.  The risks outnumber the upsides.  That's it.

SINGH: (heavy sigh) Well, it's too late now.  I already tipped off CP and Toronto Life.

SMITH: What?!

SINGH: Yeah. And I can't wave them off now because they already reserved drink tickets.

STILES: (facepalms)

SINGH: Look, if anyone makes a stink about it, can't we just say this was our personal choice and we'd appreciate it if everyone could respect that?

SMITH: Yeah, we could, if you weren't giving everyone an open invitation to judge you!

STILES: OK, let's be real about this.  Yes, people will react.  Yes, some of them will criticize you.  But think of everything else that's going on: NAFTA, #MeToo, every new thing Trump says.  By the week after, nobody will be talking about it anymore.

SINGH: You think so?

SMITH: You know what, Marit's right.  We're not even living in a 24-hour news cycle anymore; it's barely even a six-hour news cycle.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge deal.

SINGH: Yeah, I guess you're right.

(Everyone sits back, frowning.)

SINGH: The theme song idea sounds pretty good now, doesn't it?

STILES/SMITH: NO!

Photo Credit: CBC News

Written by Jess Morgan

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.


Canadian conservatives are perpetually perplexed at the perceived double-standard exhibited by their liberal progressive counterparts when it comes to religion.

And if you're a conservative you know exactly what I'm referring to.

On the one hand, liberal progressives seem to celebrate and accept Islam, while on the other, they seem to hold Christianity — more specifically Roman Catholicism in something approaching thinly veiled contempt.

Some conservatives blame this double standard on political correctness, while others contend it's just a case of old-fashioned political pandering.

And yes, those two things might play a part in it, but in my view, the liberal progressive attitude towards religion is based on something far deeper, something far more primal.

OK, at this point, I should point out that to understand where I'm going with this argument, you'll probably need to get a hold of history book.

I'll wait.

Alright, if you check your history book, you'll find that liberal progressives have basically been waging an ideological blood feud against Roman Catholicism for about three hundred years.

To put that another way, ever since the "Enlightenment", people who consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive" have seen the Roman Catholic Church as humanity's greatest mortal enemy.

And it's easy to see why this is the case.

Liberal progressives have traditionally seen themselves as standing for progress, for science, for democracy, for equality, while they have traditionally seen the Roman Catholic Church as standing for stagnation,  superstition, tyranny, and intolerance.

Simply put, the Catholic Church, with its inquisitions and heretic burnings, its decadent popes and medieval mysticism; its hierarchical structure and anarchistic moral values, has basically always been perceived by liberal progressives as an institution that's irredeemably entrenched in a "Dark Ages" mentality.

Thus, for hundreds of years liberal progressives saw the Church as a roadblock to human progress, and by extension as a dangerous and reactionary force that must be vigorously resisted, if not totally ripped out by its ecclesiastical roots.

Your history book will tell you, for instance, that during the French Revolution, one of the first moves of liberal progressive revolutionaries, aka the "Jacobins", was to nationalize Churches and to exile or execute priests.

They literally sought to replace the God of Christ with the Goddess of Reason.

Even today, after three centuries of modernization, secularization and liberalization in society, the liberal progressive psyche still harbors this inherent fear of Catholicism, which is why, although they no longer execute priests, they remain strongly suspicious of the Church and sometimes resist its dogma with uncompromising zeal.

One example of such uncompromising zeal is the modern liberal progressive's vehement (fanatic?) resistance to the Catholic Church's position opposing abortion.

To put it bluntly, liberal progressives see this anti-abortion stance as something conceived in the darkest pit of religious ignorance, making it so obviously retrograde, so obviously irrational, so obviously anti-freedom, so obviously on the "wrong side" of history that its moral wickedness is deemed to be clearly beyond debate.

Hence, in the minds of liberal progressives, anyone in modern society who supports the Church's position on abortion is not only wrong, they're also deluded or perhaps even mentally unstable certainly, they're unfit to hold public office.

This is why the Liberal Party, under the leadership of that supreme liberal progressive, Justin Trudeau, purged its ranks of pro-lifers; this is why New Democrats and Liberal MPs walked out of a committee meeting rather than voting in a pro-life colleague as their chair; this is why political leaders like Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer, who are deemed to be "too Roman Catholic" will be relentlessly ridiculed and attacked.

At any rate, my main point is the liberal progressive antagonism to Catholicism has deep historic roots.

And this is where Islam is different.

Even though the Islamic religion is just as socially conservative (if not more so), as modern-day Roman Catholicism, liberal progressives in the Western World have no history of confronting or battling Islam on an ideological level, meaning it's simply not part of their intellectual DNA.

As a consequence, they have a blind spot when it comes to perceiving the danger Islamic dogma might pose to their modern liberal progressive values.

Indeed, due to their historic bias, liberal progressives tend to see Muslims as victims of Catholic intolerance and oppression check your history book and look up the Crusades.

Mind you, things might have been different if history had taken an alternate course.

If you flip through your history book one more time, you'll see that back in 732 AD a Muslim army invaded France where it was defeated by the Frankish warlord, Charles the Hammer, (probably the coolest name in history) at the Battle of Tours.

This is considered one of history's most decisive military encounters because if "The Hammer" had lost, the Muslims could have gone on to conquer Western Europe, meaning, as 18th century historian Edward Gibbon put it, "the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mohammed."

So, perhaps a Caliph would have ruled in Rome and emirs would have held sway in London and Paris.

In such a case, Enlightenment thinkers (assuming the Enlightenment could actually occur in a Muslim Europe) might have seen Islam as the enemy of modernity, a feeling which might have persisted into today.

But the Franks did win the Battle of Tours, and liberal progressive attitudes and prejudices are what they are.

Can things change?

Sure they can; in fact, if Canadian Muslims start asserting their dogma more aggressively, than it's possible the liberal progressive double standard towards religion might eventually fade away.

And by fade away, I mean, when liberal progressives regard Islam and Roman Catholicism, they will both be viewed as equally intolerable.

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 you would have trouble naming Canada's most conservative prime minister, author Bob Plamondon suggests, you might be you're looking at the wrong party.  He says it's Jean Chrétien, which partly speaks well of Chrétien and partly speaks very poorly of Tory PM's generally.

Plamondon, whose The Truth about Trudeau was an excruciatingly compelling assessment of our 15th Prime Minister's toxic impact on Canada's economy, society and unity, makes a strong case for Chrétien in his new book The Shawinigan Fox and also in a talk he gave to POGG Canada's January 13 luncheon.

In part he praises Chrétien's calm, decisive and modest leadership style, in stark contrast to Paul Martin who comes across in the book as vain and indecisive.  As they say, Chrétien was ambitious to do something, Martin to be somebody.

Is this sort of leadership style "conservative"?  To some extent yes.  In place of visionary oratory uncoupled from any sense of practicality, Chrétien understood that reality is tricky.  For years he was therefore the Liberals' go-to guy on difficult files, from Treasury Board to the Constitution to post-NEP Energy.  And Plamondon notes that people often think because he served Trudeau Sr. so well, he must have been a philosophical soul-mate.  But he wasn't.

As head of Treasury Board he was nicknamed "Dr. No" by his colleagues.  And while it wasn't meant as praise he took it as such.  He had what were once called small-town virtues of frugality and hard work.  And while he was no libertarian, he favoured social programs that tried to reward enterprise not laziness, he saw laziness in much the same way normal Canadians do.  Indeed, Plamondon argues that while Martin got the credit for balancing the budget, hogged it even, Chrétien provided the real brains and spine behind this achievement.  Martin, he says, was not the "blue Liberal" of mythology any more than he was the great leader-in-waiting.

Plamondon's defence of Chrétien's conservatism looks primarily to economics and character, while also praising his unexpected and unappreciated achievements on national unity.  And I would object that Chrétien's neglect of the military was both distressing and unconservative.  But it was hardly unusual; as Jack Granatstein argued in Who Killed Canada's Military? a long series of prime ministers lowered the bar on spending abetted by a public that didn't care.  Stephen Harper spent even less of GDP on defence than in the supposed Chrétien "decade of darkness".  (Speaking of character, it is also noteworthy that while francophone Quebecers were generally indifferent or hostile to Canada's role in the Second World War, Chrétien's father not only voted for conscription, he insisted that his military-age sons be not conscripts but volunteers.)

On social issues, it might seem absurd to call Chrétien conservative by comparison with any prime minister before 1960, and even to a surprising degree Trudeau Sr., all of whom would have recoiled in horror from proposals for unrestricted abortion, no-fault divorce and other manifestations of the sexual revolution that by the late Chrétien years it was considered horrifying to oppose.  But here we must judge Chrétien in context, since Liberal prime ministers as late as Louis St. Laurent, to say nothing of Alexander Mackenzie or Wilfrid Laurier, would also have recoiled in horror from the big spending interventionism that by the Mulroney years was also Tory dogma.  And certainly no conservative prime minister has done anything to stand against the social temper of the times.

Unlike Chrétien. It is easy to forget, as Liberals probably want us to, that parliament twice voted to affirm traditional marriage in the 1990s, including Chrétien himself in 1999 and I believe his entire cabinet.  If by the end of his time in office he had come to see gay marriage, like abortion, as required by the liberal commitment to rights, it cannot be imagined that in a socially conservative age the personally traditional Chrétien would have pushed for a relaxation of laws or conventions.

If all these considerations make him at best a lukewarm conservative, the troubling question is which "Conservative" Prime Minister can possibly be regarded as more true blue?  Never mind their rhetoric.  Look at their accomplishments, if that's the right word.  And again it will not do to observe that Sir John A. or Robert Borden did not embrace social engineering on the scale of the 1990s; neither did any Liberals before Pearson.

Judged against their times, and by their response to contemporary challenges, Conservative prime ministers from Clark through Harper simply don't measure up.  They didn't roll back the state, fix the tax code or do anything socially conservative and they neglected or starved the military.

What Chrétien would think of being conservative I do not know.  But it ought to embarrass the heck out of the guys and gals across the aisle.

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.


What is it about mediocre coffee that gets people in this godforsaken icehole we call Canada so excited?

Tim Hortons is at the centre of the fight over workers and wages in Ontario, as the province raises the minimum wage to $15 an hour.  And it's hard not to think this is exactly what we, as a country, deserve our politics to revolve around.

For ages, our politicians — particularly our Conservative ones — have gone to great lengths to show off how down to earth and aw-shucks regular they are by drinking Tim Hortons coffee.

The iconic cup of highly mediocre coffee is seen as the pinnacle of everyday Canadian-ness.  An essential ingredient to any political campaign is to roll up your sleeves and hand out some roll up the rims.

It's the coffee shop that says "look at me, I'm a regular John or Jan Schmo."  And in many ways it's true.  There's nothing that says workin' man quite like a suburban gentleman in his best woodsman camo, rolling up to the drive-thru in his King Ranch special edition F-150 before shuffling his kid off to the rink.

The mythical worker many of us imagine probably isn't someone in a brown uniform, slinging donuts and Iced Capps.  But that's who the Canadian worker is, by and large.  We're not a nation of makers, or even of miners, we're a nation of movers, shuffling product from one end of the ledger to the other.

The number of people working in the food service industry increased by about 41,000 from 2013 to 2017, according to Statistics Canada.  At the same time, the number of manufacturing workers grew by about 1,500 jobs.

There were about 4.02 million people working in just retail or food service jobs last year, while in the entire production sector — manufacturing, mining, farming, construction, etc. — there were 3.88 million people.  To put it another way, there are about 140,000 more people working in just our stores, warehouses, and restaurants than there are building things.

That doesn't include the other 10 or so million people who work elsewhere in the service sector: nurses, bus drivers, office clerks, tour guides, and so on.

Which brings us back to Tim Hortons.

When the jump in the minimum wage took effect in Ontario — to $14/hour this year, $15/hour next year — it quickly came to light that a number of franchisees were looking to get creative in their efforts to claw back some of the extra money they were now forced to hand to their employees.

There's the Horton-Joyce family — the married progeny of Hortons founder Tim Horton and his business partner Ron Joyce — who decided they would be putting an end to paid breaks and other benefits.  And who could forget the franchise banning the collection of tips, having decided the government-mandated raise was plenty for them.  Any money collected?  That had to go in the till.  Ownership deserved those pennies.

And what, exactly, is noble about owners of business, no matter how small, screwing their employees out of paid break time and their meagre tips?  What about that is even worth celebrating?

For example, here's Ottawa MPP Lisa MacLeod getting in a twitter spat with BC academic David Moscrop about the chain.  Without going into the details of the back and forth, Moscrop at one point points out the company that owns Tim Hortons is the Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital.

To which, MacLeod replied: "It was actually started in Canada, then franchised to…wait for it…Canadians.  And as a hockey Mom, who spends weekends in things like, you know, rinks, we all line up for it."

You see, it's a Canadian brand built for Canadians.  Never you mind that it's run by a Brazilian conglomerate that swallowed up its American ownership.  What MacLeod has done, more or less by accident, is revealed how empty the ritualization of Tim Hortons really is.  You see, it doesn't matter what Tim Hortons really is, it's all about what it represents.

In MacLeod's vision of Tim Hortons, it doesn't matter if its stores are run by a greedy pack of weasels, suckling the excess flesh off their employees.  It doesn't matter if the coffee isn't good.  And it doesn't matter if a far-off bunch of investors owns the branding.

All that matters is it's a Canadian icon, and you should bow down.

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 has long been an outstanding question as to just how much the Government Leader in the Senate err, "government representative," Senator Peter Harder, meets with Cabinet ministers.  Usually when asked, Harder is evasive, but we got confirmation that last week, he attended the Cabinet retreat in London, Ontario, where he briefed ministers on the state of legislative progress in the Senate, and especially on the expected plans for how the cannabis legalization bill would proceed in the Upper Chamber in the face of some reluctant Conservatives.

It shouldn't be this way.  If this were a normally functioning parliament, Harder would be a cabinet minister and he would meet with Cabinet to ensure that not only there would be proper coordination of how to get the government's agenda through the Senate, but he would also be the proper conduit by which the Senate could hold government to account, and to shepherd government bills through the Senate especially those introduced in the Upper Chamber (of which there has been an absolute dearth).  But in Trudeau's rush to make the Senate "more independent," he did not make Harder a minister but did make him a Privy Councillor in order that he could attend cabinet meetings if necessary and Harder has styled himself in this half-pregnant fashion of being "non-affiliated" while also being the government's "representative," which is a complete farce on its face.

As for how often Harder meets with cabinet, well, he won't say.  At an April 14, 2016 meeting of the Senate's internal economy committee, Harder was arguing for a bigger budget and offered this explanation:

"I am invited, as is appropriate, to cabinet committees.  Obviously, appropriate would be interpreted as where the work of the Senate is important and the voices of the Senate's concerns are important to be conveyed directly.  I have already attended such committees and look forward to continuing as appropriate and as invited."

After a couple of tries, Harder eventually got his $1.5 million budget, but when asked in Senate Question Period by Conservative Senator Denise Batters that November how often Harder had met with cabinet committees between that meeting and her question, Harder would only respond "As appropriate and as invited."  And he repeated that response three times.

So now we know that Harder has attended this particular Cabinet retreat, but I find what was reported about his discussions to be a bit troubling.  According to the CBC report, Harder talked about not only which bills he anticipated being able to pass before the summer recess, but he also helped to "identify which senators might need to be further lobbied to secure their votes."

This sends up a warning flag for me because the issue of ministers lobbying individual senators is a very fraught notion, but one of the inevitable pieces of fallout from Trudeau's decision to expel the Liberal senators from his caucus.  Normally these discussions would happen in the caucus room, which while not public, could at least happen with the caucus so that there were witnesses to the discussion and some sense of transparency within the party.  But by moving to a system where ministers have to lobby individual senators and make them promises in exchange for support for bills they want to get passed, there is far less transparency of any sort, and nobody knows what kind of horse-trading or deal-making gets done.  That should be concerning.

There has also been some whispered talk about whether Harder would employ time allocation to get the cannabis bill through in time a tool at his disposal that he has not yet used because it would require him getting enough votes to do so, and not leading a caucus, he doesn't have any that he can readily count on.  Of course, as we have seen repeatedly since Harder took the role as "government representative" that he's not been keen to negotiate with the other caucus groups as to agreeing on timelines for debates on bills, which is one of the biggest reasons why there has been a bit of a slowdown in bills passing the Senate to date.  (One of the other reasons, of course, is that the Commons has been slow in passing bills and then send them to the Senate at the end of a session with the expectation that they pass quickly, which senators are less inclined to do).

It may be time for Harder to start employing time allocation to get bills passed in particular the cannabis bill but that still requires him to negotiate with enough other senators to get the votes necessary to get it passed in a timeline that they can live with.  Which…means he might as well do the negotiating that he's apparently loathe to do now.  (And on a related note, time allocation can only be invoked on government bills, and not private members' bills like the national anthem bill, which the Conservative senators have continued to successfully stall for months).  Such negotiation would be in the usual course of the duties of a Leader of the Government in the Senate, which also means that Harder might actually start to justify the $1.5 million office budget that he's getting (for which nobody can quite figure out why, or what all of his staff are doing).

It's been apparent for some time that Harder should be acting in the manner befitting his position, which means being a member of cabinet, shepherding legislation, and negotiating with the other caucus groups to ensure that government bills are getting through.  That he's taken this hands-off approach and trying instead to set about transforming the Senate in his own particular image, free of the constraints of Westminster tradition, isn't working, and is setting up bad precedents for the future of the Chamber.  For that reason, we should applaud this move of attending the Cabinet retreat as a good step, but it's one that needs to be carried to its conclusion.  Harder should become the Government Leader in both name and practice.

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.


A New Year has dawned and that means the second annual country-wide cathartic/groupie tour has commenced for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Jesus reborn — as some of the PM's disciples apparently figuratively or literally believe him to be because he shares the same birthday as the son of God and his devout followers also believe he performs miracles — has started a new Canadian secular tradition (no one believes Trudeau is actually a Catholic do they?) of doing public penance by allowing himself to be castigated by the Festivus-for-the-disgruntled-rest-of-us crowd airing their grievances over his performance as PM.  It's funny how many left-wing atheists end up placing their idolatry on flawed humanity in the absence of a God (e.g. Oprah).  Although Trudeau is lashed at verbally at these town halls, the chosen one turns the other cheek and ends up absolved of his sins by sympathetic media selectively editing his finer moments.  He'll never get crucified, for his God-given gift of gab allows him to dismantle any verbal barbs thrown at him by a mere layperson.

(Although, unlike immortal Jesus, Trudeau's life could literally be endangered  â€” he is human after all  â€” by attending these events as one town hall goer noted, "Anyone could have brought anything in here.  You say that you're concerned and you have the best interests of Canadian security at heart.  You can't even run half-decent security at this event here.  How are you going to make sure we're all safe?")

Now Wynne is looking for her own miracle; with her popularity flatlining, she's tossed off her glasses and decided to follow the "King of Canlandia" by letting the angry mob have a go at her in the hopes she can garner sympathy (pity?) from the average Ontarian.

I attended Premier Wynne's first town hall held in Toronto and, I have to admit, was impressed with her ability to deal with an onslaught of tough and critical questions for nearly two hours.  I say impressed, but I wasn't surprised.  As I predicted in a Loonie Politics article published the day of the first town hall, "Furthermore, the town hall environment allows a pro public speaker like Wynne, standing on a stage with a mic and the spotlight, an incredible advantage over any would-be takers potentially in a sea of her supporters hostile to outsiders' impertinence itching to take a shot at asking the consummate professional a quick question.  Wynne can then take her sweet time at dismantling any boobytraps thrown her way.  Good luck to any takers."

Sure enough, Wynne used the above tactics in her first two town halls late last year.  Unlike Trudeau's large town halls, Wynne's have only provided seating for a few hundred attendees in smaller venues.  Part of the reason for this might have to do with the premier being unable to draw the same crowds (no one was turned away at the last two events from what I saw and heard), but the other reason for this might have to do with the fact that the Premier's Office is only announcing each event with a week's notice.  On Thursday, a Wynne spokesperson announced the next town hall will take place in Ottawa on January 18 in the riding of Ottawa West Nepean, another Liberal stronghold just like her first two town halls were in.

Now, I really don't think attendees stand much of a chance in getting a straight answer from a veteran politician like the premier — journalists have a hard enough time in scrums, with the ability to ask follow-up questions — but here are five questions for Wynne that Ontarians brave enough to voice them in front of what will likely be a Liberal-friendly crowd are welcome to borrow:

  1. Premier, since your party took office the net debt has tripled to over $312 billion and is projected to continue to climb to $336 billion or $350 billion in 2019 depending on who you ask.  Why have you allowed the interest payments on Ontario's out-of-control debt to become the fourth largest expense each year?  Are you not upset that your government now annually spends more on interest payments ($11.6 billion) than it does on post-secondary education?
  2. Premier, recent polls have shown your personal approval rating is still quite low.  Why do you think that is?  And why, in spite of those numbers, are you seeking re-election?
  3. Premier, why did your government decide to service the debt for your so-called Fair Hydro Plan through Ontario Power Generation at a much higher interest rate than if the government had taken on the debt directly?  The independent auditor general estimates that this "needlessly complex" financing scheme will cost Ontarians an additional $4 billion in interest payments.  Please explain how this is not a waste of $4 billion of Ontario taxpayers' money?
  4. Premier, are you at all concerned that selling off the majority ownership of Hydro One will result in increased hydro rates from increased transmission costs?  What do you have to say about the leaked cabinet document showing hydro rates will spike in another four years?
  5. Premier, why would you increase the minimum wage by 21 per cent, without doing any impact assessment and going against your own promise to not raise it above the inflation rate, with only six-months warning to small businesses?  What do you have to say to family businesses that are now closing over this rash policy decision?  What is your response to former Liberal Finance Minister Greg Sorbara saying last week that "businesses are going to adjust by moving to technology, laying people off, curtailing hours and in many parts of rural Ontario, businesses will just close because they can't absorb it"?

Photo Credit: CBC News

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

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's no secret that the federal government has had a tough time filling vacancies for Governor-in-Council appointments.  You name the position, you can find a problem with the process officers of parliament, senators, judges (with the exception of the Supreme Court that process went exceptionally smoothly), and tribunal adjudicators.  As backlogs pile up, a slow-moving crisis is unfolding before our eyes.

When they came into power, the Liberals decided that they were going to try and reform the appointment process in order to bolster the diversity in the ranks of those being appointed.  With white men still the overwhelming majority of appointments being made up to this point, it was clear that something needed to be done in order to start the culture change that needs to happen at the top in this country.  That the government did, however, was probably not the best way to go about it.  In creating an "open, transparent, merit-based process" (as Government House Leader Bardish Chagger likes to rhyme off), they went from a system of nomination, to one of self-selection.  In other words, the process shifted from seeking out qualified candidates in their fields, to one where they relied on people applying for the jobs instead.

There is a certain amount of merit to this shift, I will grant you.  There has been a long-standing problem in the appointments process in this country where those who do the appointments tend to look inside their own box.  When writing a story on reforming the judicial appointment process over a year ago, I spoke to Senator Mobina Jaffer about it, and she pointed out this very problem, which is why reforms were necessary.

"Over the years, people kept saying no, no, no, so people stopped applying.  This is the same thing that happened with women — they stopped applying, then the chief justice [of B.C.] set up a proactive way to bring people in," Jaffer said.  "I have the greatest respect for the judicial committees, but you only select people you know well.  If you're out of the box, they don't select you."

And this is part of the where the law of unintended consequences starts to come in.  By shifting the focus from nominations to applications in order to try to attract more candidates who are coming outside of the box, and trying to get those potential nominees who stopped applying because they weren't white men, I fear that the government slowed down their own processes even further than the restructuring did.  Instead of a system geared toward seeking out qualified candidates, it had to shift to trying to reach out to those communities in a different way to plead and cajole for enough qualified candidates from more diverse backgrounds to do the application process.

The complexity of the application process itself has been mentioned as another potential barrier.  For Senate applications in particular, the process has been described as so onerous that one either needs to have nothing else going on in their lives, or to be so convinced of their own merit for the position in order to stick it through that it likely screens out worthy candidates who would be well suited, but who otherwise are put off by the hoops they have to jump through to apply.  That also creates the problem of the people who select themselves for the job having an estimation of their abilities that also has the potential to create problems down the road (and we're already seeing a few examples of new senators who are starting to feel a bit entitled to their entitlements).  Self-selection was probably the worst possible option for the Senate, and yet here we are, and we still have eleven vacancies, because the government can't seem to manage more than one or two every six months, which isn't keeping up with the pace of attrition.

Judicial vacancies are a well-documented problem, but one of the biggest ones facing the government right now is the crisis with the Immigration and Refugee Board.  Because Canada has been flooded with irregular migrants crossing the border illegally, the system is stressed beyond capacity, but there aren't nearly enough IRB members to hear the cases, and when they can only hear two cases a day, it means that the backlogs are stretching to years.  (Note: The IRB's problems are not the Liberals' fault alone: the Conservatives took a well-functioning system, reformed the appointment process and created a massive backlog that I'm not sure the system recovered from before Liberals reformed the process yet again).  This is a very big problem for the government, especially because the lengthy delays create incentives for more migrants to try their luck in Canada in the hopes of avoiding deportation, and if they stay long enough and build enough of a life for themselves, they can apply to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds once the deportation is ordered.  This doesn't mesh with the message that they're trying to send that there is no free ticket to Canada.

It would be tempting to dismiss these problems as all being the fault of "diversity hires," and that things were just fine the way they were, but that's not the case, and a judiciary, Senate, or tribunal system that was increasingly divorced from the realities of those it serves was having an ongoing negative effect for our society at large.  But tackling that problem by moving away from a system that could more easily reach out to other communities with the right training and incentives (and metrics to ensure that this was happening), to one where now they are forced to plead with communities that have stopped applying because of disappointment, is not helping the system.  As backlogs grow, and the consequences of those backlogs become more apparent, it starts to cut to the core of some of the competence of this government, and a realization that they can't get this relatively straightforward issue right.  That could be the bigger problem the closer we get to the next election.

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.