LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

For all the actual progress the Ontario Liberals have made in the fight against climate change this past decade, it's a shame the damage they've done to the cause long-term.

The damage might actually be worse than the successes.  Because every time they tout a new green job, or point to the end of coal-fired power generation, a growing group of Ontarians have their blood pressure spike.

Every time Premier Kathleen Wynne talks about how the province is leading the way to a greener future, someone pops a vein in their forehead and starts shaking their hydro bills at the television.  A combination of overly generous long-term green energy contracts, piss-poor opposition, and a hard-headed government, have increasingly linked "green energy" with "senseless waste."

Unlike most political bungling, this is one voters see every month when their electricity bills arrive.  Rates have been rising for years, and stories of people giving up their homes because they can no longer afford to pay for them are profligate.

Whether that's fair is mostly beside the point.  There's still a good chunk of the population that are willing to feel some pain now in exchange for securing a livable future for the world.  As a friend recently said to me, the idea that Ontario is a world environmental leader is a powerful draw.

But while there are plenty of Liberal voters happy with this trade-off, there's a class of voters for whom this global leadership feels bought at their expense.

If you'll forgive me for a moment, I'd like to do a bit of gumshoe punditry and make my point with a personal anecdote.

My father lives in a semi-rural part of Ottawa, and on phone calls home, our conversations will almost inevitably turn to hydro prices at some point.  This started reasonably enough, one of his neighbours cashes a generous monthly cheque in exchange for the power from his rooftop solar panels, and he'd tell me about this with a hint of awe.  A bitter edge has creeped into these discussions recently.

And as that bitterness has increased, the farther afield his gripes have become.  What started as an annoyance about long-term solar contracts has turned into something more.  He started dropping complaints about carbon taxes and the Paris agreement cash grabs, and I realized something else may be going on.

What I think has happened is that years of high hydro bills and bad politics have turned someone skeptical of green policies outright hostile to them.  High prices have made the more absurdist arguments from talk radio seem more reasonable.  From there, I've started to wonder what other damage Liberal bungling has done to the anti-climate change cause.

So, maybe I'm generalizing based on my own limited personal interactions.  (Hey look, at least he's not a cab driver.)  But I think there really is something here.

Now, I should say that these policies no longer affect me.  I live in Quebec, and if you're reading this in Ontario, you might literally die if I told you what it cost to power this three-bedroom apartment.  So let me just put it this way, we pay less now than when we lived in a one-bedroom where hot water and heating was included in the rent, neither of which are now.

Anyway, Wynne has acknowledged the folly of some of these policies, and the harm they've done.  Her promised relief comes in the form of rebates bought with debt.  But this won't do because they've simply kicked the can down the line.  Your relief now means someone else's pain later.  Besides, if people feel they've been screwed out of money for years, no amount of sorries are going to turn that around.

But what happens when, say, a federally mandated carbon tax comes along?  Or when the next renewable initiative comes along.  There's been a lot of political capital that's been burned up already in getting the policies to where they are now.  And at the same time they're using up their good will with the public, they're actively turning people into opponents.

I don't know what this means for the next provincial election.  The Liberals have pulled out victories against extremely long odds before.  But I do worry what it means the next time the government needs to take action to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

The Ontario Liberals have set in place the foundation for a counter-reaction to their entire green agenda.  I'm not sure they've thought through the consequence of that.

This might be the high water mark for green energy in Ontario.  It's best you appreciate it now, because it may not last.

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.


Forgetting to include Alberta may have been an oversight on Trudeau's part but it's now a permanent part of our 150th birthday celebration. And that's not fake news, folks

TORONTO, Ont./Troy Media/ I never thought I would live to see the day when a Canadian prime minister forgot to mention one of our provinces at a public event.

Yet that's exactly what happened to Justin Trudeau.

During his Canada Day speech in Ottawa, the PM said that Canadians are "of every colour and creed, from every corner of the world."  That's certainly true.

"We may live in British Columbia, Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland and Labrador," Trudeau noted.  "But we embrace that diversity while knowing in our hearts that we are all Canadians."

There's nothing wrong with this sentiment, either.  Unfortunately, one rather important component of his inspiring message was missing: Alberta.

That's right.  Our prime minister forgot to mention the one province that has had a long small 'c' conservative political history (up until recently).  The one province that hasn't elected a Liberal government since 1921.  The province that gave birth to the federal Reform Party, and provided significant political and financial support to both the Canadian Alliance and Conservative Party.  The one province that loathed the federal Liberals for almost four decades, and didn't elect a single MP under that party banner during the periods of leadership from Trudeau pere to Trudeau fils.

Yeah, how could he possibly remember the name of that province?

I'm obviously having a bit of fun.  I fully believe the reports that Alberta was included in Trudeau's original speaking notes and he missed this reference by accident.

Otherwise, it's the sort of egregious error, or intended/unintended omission, that would immediately destroy a political career and get a speechwriter fired in a nanosecond.  No excuse or explanation would ever be truly satisfactory.

What remains interesting about the "Where's Alberta?" escapade was the massive amount of damage control that was needed.

First, Canadian actress Sandra Oh cleaned up Trudeau's mess after he left the stage.  As the co-host of the event, she had to stop the bleeding.

Second, Trudeau apologized to the entire province of Alberta when he returned a short while later. "Let me just start by saying I'm a little embarrassed," he said. "I got excited somewhere over the Rockies.  Alberta, I love you.  Happy Canada Day." (He also posted a similar message on his Twitter account.)

Third, the CBC and other media organizations tried to sweep this matter under the rug as fast as they could pick up a virtual broom.  Accidents happen, everything will be fine and don't forget, Gordon Lightfoot will be here to entertain us in a few short hours!

You don't have to be a political spin doctor (Liberal or otherwise) to realize why this had to be done.  It may have been an oversight on Trudeau's part, but it was now a permanent part of Canada's 150th birthday celebration.  And that's not fake news, folks.

Will Albertans be in a forgiving mood?

As expected, right-leaning opponents like Alberta Wildrose Leader Brian Jean and federal Alberta Conservative MP Michelle Rempel played up Trudeau's gaffe to the hilt.  That's the nature of the political game.  If the roles were reversed, the Liberals would surely have pounced.

Meanwhile, a Canadian Press piece on July 1 showed some forgiveness and some ill will coming from Albertans who attended the festivities in the nation's capital.  Kudos to one respondent, Michael Viola, who amusingly pointed out that "Something's going to get legalized next year.  Maybe he's just test-driving something."

The evil weed strikes again!

Yes, this controversy will blow over in due course.  We'll all move on to different stories and new political missteps.

Yet there's no way for Trudeau and the Liberals to ever erase the fact that Alberta was, for a brief period, the Polkaroo of Canada Day 2017.

Photo Credit: Montreal Gazette

Troy Media columnist and political commentator Michael Taube was a speechwriter for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

© 2017 Distributed by Troy Media

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.


News that Manitoba Progressive Conservative MLA Steven Fletcher was booted from the party caucus for daring to have differing opinions should be taken as a troubling sign, not only for the state of democracy in that province, but for the entire country.  Fletcher was previously a Conservative MP (and one-time cabinet minister), and with minor variations, many of the attitudes about how parties and caucuses are run are fairly uniform around the country, as are the attitudes about the role of backbenchers.  That things have reached this stage should be taken as a very dire warning that things are not well with the state of backbench politics in Canada.

First and foremost, we should remind ourselves what the role of a backbencher is in a Westminster democracy like ours, and whether you're in the government benches or part of the opposition, the role is to hold the government meaning the Cabinet to account, largely by means of controlling the public purse.  The separation between backbencher and cabinet minister has been blurring ever since we stopped the practice of making MPs resign and run in a by-election when they were being appointed to cabinet, where it became explicit that they were taking on a new role that went from being watchdog to the person spending the money.  But going back to that system of by-elections is no longer practical, and with a growing gap in civic literacy in this country, the expectations have changed.  MPs and MLAs on the government backbenches no longer take seriously the role of watchdog, but rather, are more interested in being team players with the hopes that they too will be picked to join Cabinet (or at the very least, become a parliamentary secretary at the federal level).

What makes this even more problematic is the ways in which governments undermine the role of backbenchers in any myriad number of ways.  In at least two provinces Ontario and New Brunswick MLAs have been given spots on Cabinet committees under the rubric of trying to involve them in decision-making and a greater stake in the running of the government, as well as a better understanding of why decisions are made.  You'll note that my head explodes at the mention of these kinds of shenanigans because it undercuts the backbencher role of watchdog, and when they become implicated in the decision-making, they are no longer able to do their duty of holding government to account, which is a problem.

Part of what makes the Fletcher case interesting is the fact that premier Brian Pallister allegedly didn't make the decision, and told media that he recused himself from discussions and the decisions to ensure that this is a "caucus decision."  On the surface, it looks encouraging because it almost makes it look like he's not exercising top-down control of the party, which should always be encouraged.  But digging a little deeper, I find this troubling because this was a place where Pallister had chance to tell the caucus that it's okay to dissent on things, that they don't have to be in constant lock-step, and apparently, he didn't.  That sends a far bigger worrying signal to me, because he is tacitly endorsing a mindset by which his members should behave like automatons.

In case there was any confusion, it's not just the party leaders that enforce rigid discipline amongst the caucus it's also internal.  The mileage varies between parties, of course, but there are many parties, both provincial and federal, who have a system of internal bullying whereby it's seen as "unseemly" if their members vote out of line with the rest, because they need to be seen as "team players" and "supporting the leader," which makes it harder for individual members to step up and assert any kind of individual thought or action.  The justification that "you were elected on a party ticket," which often gets bandied about, is a disingenuous argument, however, because our electoral system privileges a member's individual agency we elect the member as a person, rather than cast a ballot for the party who then assigns the member a seat based on their place on a list or slate.

The other aspect of the Fletcher case that I find extremely troubling is the role that the media played in exacerbating the situation.  When Fletcher voted against the party, or conducted a filibuster-of-one in committee, reporters went up to Pallister and immediately started asking if he was going to expel Fletcher from the caucus, presumably for being a rebel or for "going rogue."  Media both made implicit demands for his expulsion demands which the rest of caucus no doubt picked up on and normalized the notion that a caucus should always vote in lock-step, that a backbencher's role is to be a cheerleader for the premier as opposed to holding the government to account, and that brokering dissent is a sign of weak leadership.  It's hugely problematic, and it's something that we in the media need to stop doing because it is completely toxic to our democratic system.  We've seen some examples of Liberal backbenchers voting against the government at the federal level, and journalists always pick up on it and start whispering about whether those backbenchers need censure or to be expelled.  So far, the Prime Minister has resisted those calls, but they nevertheless persist.

I would add that for as much as Fletcher was proving his role as a backbencher, he's certainly not living up to all of it witness the 30-plus private members bills that he's advancing, and you can see that he too is showing some confusion as to what his role is supposed to be.  Nevertheless, the fact that he took a stand on issues he cared about and flat out said that if you agree on everything all the time, then it's a sign that there's a problem, is commendable.  It's something we need to encourage more of, while fighting the myths surrounding a backbencher's role.

Photo Credit: Winnipeg Free Press

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.


How duplicitous and mendacious are the people running the PC Party of Ontario?

So much so, in fact, that no matter how much they may purport to hate Justin Trudeau, they secretly believe that he is to be emulated if you want to achieve electoral success in this country.

Believing that they could get away with yet another round of nomination oopsies, and in the Ottawa region of all places (where a cloud still hangs over the Valley from the time when recently ousted MPP Jack McLaren sent longtime PCPO grandee Norm Sterling into retirement back in the Tim Hudak days) the PCPO brass found out this month that they can only push the base so far.

Resignations ring out across the province, while an explosion of Liberal troll accounts on Twitter that are good enough to seem real stoke the fires.

But the ever-optimistic spinners who are charged with pulling the wool over the eyes of those still loyal to Brown aren't bothered in the slightest.  This is all part and parcel of Patrick Brown asserting his control over the disloyal and disobedient factions in the party who can't keep it together long enough to defeat Kathleen Wynne next year.  And after all, didn't Justin Trudeau brave a backlash from his haters in the the run-up to the 2015 election?

Doesn't anyone remember the Eve Adams nomination debacle and how the CPC tried to capitalize on Liberal dissent in the immediate aftermath only to lose their grip?  Surely the same thing will happen to the Ontario Liberals!

Well, if you believe as the PCPO spinners apparently do that Patrick Brown is Justin Trudeau, then of course that makes sense.  Of course you would blindly copy the Liberals while claiming to run against them at the same time and hope nobody will notice.

Because if you have convinced yourself as the PCPO spinners do every election cycle to their eternal detriment that the good people of Ontario will drop Kathleen Wynne's corrupt Liberals at the first opportunity, then of course it follows that nobody could be possibly paying attention to the behind-the-curtain machinations of the PCPO.

Nobody cares about nomination battles, an absence of policy, the Leader's complete absence of humanity, or the fact that you are more likely to find a real live unicorn than a person who will, unprompted, say a kind word about the party on social media.  "Anything is better than four more years of Kathleen Wynne!" they cry.

Well, by their own admission by their own deeds and actions they have shown the province and the party faithful that replacing Kathleen Wynne with Patrick Brown will result in yes four more years of Kathleen Wynne.

For they have become so utterly debased, so consumed in their unbridled lust to return to power that they have erased any difference between the parties, only to find that they are no closer to their goal.

But these PCPO hacks who have allowed themselves to become so thoroughly corrupted and poisoned by their jealousy for the Liberals deserve pity as well.  They are the inevitable product of a system where the Liberals hold absolute sway and dominion over all, where Trudeau is viewed as a demigod if not the literal incarnation of the Divine, and where all institutions, from the police to teachers to tradespeople and the vast majority of municipal officials are all proud to be marked as Liberals, or at least anti-Conservative voices.

Unable to accept that we live in a banana republic, the PCPO bosses close their eyes and pretend not to see the truth, or copy their masters.  They assume a false equivalency between Liberal and Conservative.  They complain about Liberal bias, but do nothing about it because they believe saving face is important.  They do not even have the courage to publicly condemn those who are disloyal.  Instead they work behind the scenes to support this candidate over that candidate in ultimately pointless nomination battles,  and send private emails to MPP's informing them that their time with the party is at an end, but that they hope the news doesn't ruin their weekend.

Yet as horrible as this month has been for Patrick Brown and as naked and distasteful as the ambition of his advisors and loyalists have been, we have not yet even begun to descend to the lowest depths of depravity.  The worst for the PC Party of Ontario is yet to come.

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.


Once again, a troubled industry is turning to the government for help.  Tax dollars, they say, is the only way journalism can survive!

Is that so?

For years, the traditional print media industry in Canada has been going down a rabbit hole, with the disappearance of the cash cow that was the classified ads, the loss of captive readership and the shrinking of advertising revenues coming from both local and national businesses.

A short-term injection of cash will not make the newspaper industry sustainable and the government would be back to square one in a couple of years.  The government should always be prudent before investing in any industry with no clear objectives or strategies on how to recoup that money.

After all, let's remember that when the auto industry required a bailout, taxpayers ended up taking at least a $3.5-billion loss on their investment.  Now, of course, part of that was because the Harper Conservatives were eager to quickly balance the budget and were willing to impose short term pains rather than wait for long term gains.

Considering the recovery of the industry, the government would have been better off to keep their shares and use the ownership as leverage to force the automakers to invest in their Canadian plants, protect and create Canadian jobs while pushing for a shift towards better, cheaper green cars in order to meet the demand of eco-conscientious, but cash-strapped, consumers.

It was remarkably short-sighted to sell off those shares without at least recovering the full investment.  For example, General Motors just announced record first-quarter earnings and revenue, and in Canada,  the 2016 sales were significantly up: Chevrolet sales were the best since 2008.  Buick had its best year in a decade.  GMC posted its second-best sales year since 2000.  And Cadillac had its best retail sales performance ever.  Bonuses galore for GM executives, thank you taxpayers for saving our jobs a few years back.

But at least, the government can take solace since the industry did indeed recover because of the bailout, and that tax revenues from the increased sales and from the payroll somewhat compensated for the net loss.

It is hard to see such a scenario unfolding for the newspaper industry however.  Why would newspapers suddenly start making money after a bailout?  Indeed, the Public Policy Forum's report on the future of journalism and democracy does not pave the way towards a sustainable future for the industry.  No structural change, no industry shift.  It merely calls for amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Copyright Act to provide new streams of revenue not available to other sectors while calling on the CBC to do more of their work for them by providing additional local coverage and making it available to daily newspapers for free.  That's half baked, so let's put that proposal in the oven for a bit longer:

There is something more important for a society than profitability.  Canadians should have access to news and should be able to count on journalism to expose the truth and to protect our democratic way of life.  It is an important public service, even if it has so far mostly been provided by the private sector.

But if the regular production of original reporting has become a money-losing business, we collectively need to think outside the box if we are to keep that vital service in place, especially when it comes to local content.  Instead of asking the CBC to do it for them, this might actually mean saving newspapers as a public service while getting rid of the private, for-profit interests of the corporate press barons.  So don't bail them out.  Buy them out. 

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.


So here we are, one month into Andrew Scheer's tenure as leader of the CPC, and already the media and the Liberal establishment is licking their chops at the prospect of shoving him through a wood chipper if he has the temerity to take his plan to defund universities that limit freedom of speech to the voters in the next election.

I can hear their cries and passive aggressive sneers already.  "There is no problem with freedom of speech on Canadian campuses!"  "If we only cut universities blank cheques there wouldn't be a freedom of speech problem!"  "Forcing people to speak a certain way so they don't hurt the feelings of others is just the civil and respectful thing to do!"  "Climate change is to blame!"  "Why don't you cut funding to *corporations* who limit freedom of speech, huh???"

Yes, Election 2019 is shaping up to be yet another round of everyone's favourite Canadian political game, "Don't Touch The Third Rail!"  Except that, instead of just three rails, they seem to be multiplying exponentially, don't they?

Tolerance for uncomfortable truths is at an all time low, and while I hold out no sympathy for disgraced liberal icons like Jon Kay, Steve Ladurantaye, David Johnston and Andrew Potter who have been hoist on their own progressive petards, having to contend with a plague of aggrieved Canadians demanding a pound of flesh apiece in recompense for a perceived slight is severe enough punishment that I fail to see why the government had to take the additional step of officially criminalizing the act.

But no matter how dire the consequences, conservatives in Canada cannot afford to duck and cover this time, even though that's what they usually do when a debate takes an uncomfortable turn.  This is on an entirely different and far more fundamental level than wearing the niqab during citizenship ceremonies, funding faith based schools or the vagaries of a carbon tax.

If conservatives in Canada are unwilling to plant their flag and possibly go down in flames on freedom of speech, then we really must ask ourselves what the point of being a conservative in Canada is, other than a club of people who don't like the Liberals and occasionally pick fights with one another because those are at least fights they can win.

Of course, if you ask the Maxime Bernier/libertarian crew whether they're willing to get over themselves and back Andrew Scheer in his fight to preserve something they allegedly believe in, you may get an answer, or they might be otherwise occupied using TheRebel as a forum to air their grievances against the leader.

And perhaps, since freedom of speech was originally a liberal (and Liberal) construct, the fight to preserve it is already a lost cause, since it can be retracted by the Liberals just as easily as it was conceived, and thus we have already accepted their terms.

And when Canada eventually joins the United States in failed statehood and becomes a cautionary tale to the world of what happens when you govern "from the heart out", maybe it would be better if what passes for conservatism in Canada just faded away, so that at least a plausible case could be made that whatever happens to our country, it wasn't the fault of "the corporations".  Maybe the Liberals need to wear their failures as theirs and theirs alone.

Yes, there are many reasons to cede this last resort to the left.  But, if for no other reason than I have to believe that it isn't all for nothing, I hold out hope that there is still a fight to be had and perhaps even won.

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 the back-and-forth over the budget implementation bill raged between the Senate and House of Commons last week, tempers flared over slights both real and imagined, but through it all, something unexpected happened that may have made Leader of the Government in the Senate err, "government representative" Peter Harder's position untenable going forward.

Backing up to last Wednesday, the House of Commons sent their message saying that they disagreed with the Senate's proposed amendment to delete the escalator clause on the excise tax on beer and wine (the reasons for which ranging from a dislike of new taxes period, to the principle by which an automatic escalator means that the government didn't have to come back to Parliament every year to increase taxes which amounted to a breach of the principle of no taxation without representation).  There were two problems with it, however.  The first was the boilerplate language in the rejection, insisting that it infringed upon the rights and privileges of the House something that the Senate was already terse about after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statements in the days leading up to the vote that the Senate didn't have a right to amend money bills (when clearly they do under the constitution they simply can't initiate them).  The other problem was that rejection of the Senate's proposed amendments were not spoken to by the Minister of Finance, nor debated in any way they were part of an omnibus motion that the Government House Leader, Bardish Chagger, moved as part of a housekeeping motion to ensure that the Commons rose for the summer that night.

The off-hand dismissal of the Senate's amendments was considered by many senators to be a slap in the face, and is part of that ham-fisted style of legislative management that Chagger has come to exemplify.  And when the message was received by the Senate, Harder moved that they deal with the motion immediately something that he got pushback on because the normal course of the Senate is that things are dealt with the following day unless they get consent to do so.  A vote was called with a one-hour bell, with the intention that if Harder got the go-ahead to deal with it right away, he would move a motion that the Senate not insist on its amendments, passing the budget bill so that it could go for royal assent (and MPs could go home for the summer without worrying about it).

During that hour, as senators filtered into the Chamber, there was a sour mood in the air at the manner in which the Commons responded to the Senate, and Senate Liberal leader Joseph Day began circulating a proposed amendment to Harder's motion, that he planned to move if the vote went ahead.  Harder saw that he had a problem because he didn't want to deal with Day's amendment.  Harder ended up voting against his own motion, along with all of the independent senators, and which pushed off debate on the Commons' rejection of the Senate amendments until the following day, buying Harder more time.

The various Senate groups began working on their own motion which would affirm the Senate's ability to amend any bill it likes given its constitutional powers to do so, and all groups were in on the discussion.  The plan was for this to be an amendment to Harder's motion to let the budget pass the next day, but over the course of the discussions into the next morning, Harder had gotten wind of the plan and proposed a new motion that would add the new language that while the Senate was not going insist on their amendments, they would remind the Commons that the Senate has the right to amend bills.  That the Leader of the Government would send this message to his own government was unprecedented, and is hugely problematic.  (This motion passed, with the Conservatives dissenting as well they should as the Official Opposition).

This puts Harder into a particular bind.  If he had been thinking things through properly, he should have allowed the other groups to put forward their amendment that he could have either voted against or abstained from voting owing to his responsibility to the government, let the amendment to his motion be added, and then vote for the amended motion in the end thereby giving himself some distance and political cover.  But by trying to play the hero and insisting that this message to the Commons be part of his own motion, Harder created a particular break in his role as the Government Leader, as his thumbing his nose at the very government he represents is a very provocative action.  It also exposes the government.

The situation that Harder has created for himself is quite possibly untenable going forward, and makes things awkward for the government in the House of Commons.  Which party there gets to raise this as an issue?  The Conservative Senators were the ones trying to move amendments, and the NDP doesn't believe in the Senate period, and because Chagger's ham-fisted motion being voted in unanimously by all of the other parties, everyone wears the initial provocation.

If anything, this is one more mark in the column of how poor of an idea it was the whole time to have Harder acting as a supposed "independent" representing the government in the Senate (which is an oxymoron to be certain), rather than his being an actual cabinet minister like the Leader of the Government is supposed to be.  This faux independence, combined with Harder's lack of experience with the rules of the Chamber, helped to create this mess.  That this was almost certainly part of his quest to be seen as the leader of the "independent" Senate writ large, flexing his muscles in protecting its rights and privileges against the government, makes him unable to actually represent the government in a serious capacity going forward.  More than that, it shows that Trudeau's attempted reform of the Chamber continues to have some fundamental flaws in its execution.

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 Mainstreet poll is confirming that the traditional political axis revolving around constitutional battles is a thing of the past in Quebec.  The battlefield is no longer about which country should Quebecers belong to.  The rise of Quebec Solidaire and the continued strength of the Coalition Avenir Québec are the phenomenon to watch as La Belle Province moves towards the October 1st, 2018 election.

Quebec Solidaire is now battling the PQ for third place.  There is no question that the small left wing party has been trending upwards since the arrival of Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois.  Mainstreet pegs QS at 18%, over 10 points higher than in the last provincial election and only 4 points behind the PQ.  This latest surge in support comes after Nadeau-Dubois' victory in the Gouin by-election.  GND is optimistic and ambitious and he is talking openly about becoming Premier of Quebec.

For that to happen, the QS trend upward would have to continue in a major way and start to create some movement outside of the Island of Montreal.  The PQ would also have to collapse completely and even lose the support of "les Purs et Durs."  That is a remote possibility, but there is no question that Jean-François Lisée is worried.  From a highmark of 35% under previous leader Pierre-Karl Péladeau, the PQ has now fallen to 22%.  You can sense that Lisée is concerned he is trying different tactics to reinvent the PQ once again, like bringing in his very own Green Shift.  Furthermore, while the PQ wants to defeat and replace the Liberals, the bulk of their attacks have been recently directed more towards Quebec Solidaire and François Legault's CAQ,

François Legault has been slowly but surely establishing himself as the main alternative to Philippe Couillard, while the PQ, now firmly in third place,with their eyes on QS in its rearview mirror.  Still the third party in the National Assembly, the CAQ is rising in the polls and is now the preferred choice amongst francophone voters, the last Léger pegging its support at 31% support.

But Legault has a few problems to solve in order to consolidate the CAQ position as the main challenger to the governing Liberals.

On the ground, the organisation is weak.  Of the 14 by-elections that were held since the last general election, the Caquistes saw their vote share drop in 10 of them.  The CAQ membership has shrunk by half and now sits only at 11 000 members.  Despite the polls, the CAQ is being out-fundraised significantly by the other three parties.  If it weren't for the generous public financing formula, the CAQ wouldn't have anywhere near the means of its ambition.  Irritated by Legault's statement that the PQ was no longer a concern and that his only opponents are Couillard's Liberals, Jean-François Lisée is reminding anyone about these problems any chance he gets.

Obviously, these are major concerns for the Caquiste strategists.  Of the three main parties, they are the least organized.  In the current landscape, which is basically still a close three-way race with less than 10 points between the front-running Liberals and the lagging Péquistes, they know that they must have a better machine on the ground to give them extra seats.  Hoping for a wave is simply not a sustainable option.

This is why Legault was less present in the National Assembly during the session that just ended.  This is also why you won't see him in the most recent CAQ pre-election ad.  Legault's team understands the need to build up his team, which starts by allowing other members of the party to be more visible and to make themselves known.  In turn, this allows them to grow their own network of support and increase their own team-building capabilities.

A former CEO of Air Transat and one-time PQ ministre, Legault is not a flamboyant Leader.  But he is serious and more and more consistent.  While the government is facing a slumping economy and governance difficulties, namely in Transport and Health, Legault has scored some points and has managed to prevent his climb from being stopped by unprovoked errors.  There has been some, like when Legault goofed on Boeing's chairman salary in the heat of the Bombardier debacle, or when he first defended the ethical lapses of deputy Claude Surprenant as "little errors" before excluding him from his caucus days later.

But Legault didn't pay a heavy price for these mistakes.  That's because Legault and his Caquiste caucus have been focussed on their messaging, steadily defending consumers, patients and taxpayers.  They are on top of the most relevant files while the PQ has been distracted by Alliance negotiations and soul searching.  It is now paying some dividends for the CAQ.

For Legault, CAQ Leader since 2011, the next election is probably his last kick at the can.  He has been patient, he works hard, and he is more and more disciplined.  If he fails to convince Quebecers to throw the Liberals out and replace them with the very first CAQ government, party and caucus members will be looking for a change.  Nobody is organizing officially.  But people around some MNAs, like ADQ veteran Eric Caire, House Leader François Bonnardel and former TV personalities Nathalie Roy and François Paradis, are already thinking about the next steps if Legault fails to become Premier after his third attempt.

Photo Credit: Montreal Gazette

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.


Ah, but what to make of this Liberal government?

When Justin Trudeau became prime minister, it seemed more than enough that his sunny ways existed.  A welcome breath of fresh air from the dour utilitarian, the sentient economics textbook, he was replacing.

The promises seemed pretty solid, too.

Greater transparency, unmuzzled scientists, electoral reform, and on and on.  These weren't promises made on pure policy grounds, either.  They were explicitly set out as a rebuke to the governing style and substance of Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

The deal was pretty straightforward: Elect us, and we'll be different.

They've certainly kept the style half of their promises.  Barely a day goes by without some cheery announcement from a minister or the big man himself that's heavy on the doe-eyed sentimentalism.  It's getting to the point that I'm starting to wonder if this may be a key part of the emerging Trudeau legacy: lofty rhetoric unmoored from actual deeds.

Looking at this week's access to information legislation overhaul and the you'll see an example of the rhetoric far outpacing the action contained within the law.

As VICE features editor Justin Ling pointed out, the changes to the law don't really codify anything.  The promise was that the Prime Minister's Office, and the offices of ministers, would be covered under the act.  In theory, this would mean that a journalist, lawyer, or whoever would be able to make a formal request for documents from the PMO or cabinet office.  Right now, those are all exempt from the law.

But, instead of just adding those offices under the access umbrella, the Liberal's did a nifty trick where they codified that those offices would release information through "proactive disclosure."

According to Ling's report, Treasury Board President Scott Brison told reporters, "We are fulfilling our mandate commitment—we are extending the Access to Information Act to ministers' offices and to the Prime Minister's Office for the first time ever."

And that, dear reader, is what's known as bullshit.

It gives the veneer of transparency, because here they are releasing documents out of their own generosity.  Look how great they are, how proactive!  But it's not hard to see how this system of self-directed openness could be subverted.  Instead of being compelled by law to release things that they're asked to make public, they'd instead get to pick and choose what to publish.

In this case, the proposal is to release documents like question period talking points and the titles—not the full documents, mind, just the titles—of briefing notes to ministers.

The goods, the real grease that keeps the gears of government churning away, that stuff will still stay secret, still out of reach from you or I.  The real advice and deliberation inside the executive will be left instead for historians to puzzle through decades down the road.

Now, credit where it's due.  The government has set out on a reasonably ambitious course to tackling climate change.  Getting a carbon tax set into law is not going to be an easy task, and they seem willing to follow though.  And while legalized cannabis is likely going to turn into a puritan red-tape nightmare, it looks like that will happen, too.

But there seems to be an ever-widening gulf between the government's rhetoric and what it does.  Trudeau campaigns on a platform of respect for Parliament and debate, then his government tries to rewrite the rules to limit debate as though Parliament was a nuisance standing in the way of progress.

In the same vein, the attempted appointment of Madeleine Meilleur to be the official languages commissioner was breathtaking for its gall.  Here was a candidate deemed too partisan — by Meilleur's own admission! — for the Senate, but perfectly suitable as an independent officer of Parliament.  Meilleur would have to withdraw herself from consideration, when it became clear to the government what was obvious to everyone else.

And let's not forget the big show of freeing scientists and other civil servants from the shackles of Harper's relentless message control, the government opted instead to add leg irons to the bureaucratic media kit.  The only difference now is they're nice about this stuff.

As National Post reporter Tristin Hopper found out, simple factual questions can't be answered without the intervention of the media department.  As an anonymous federal employee emailed him, "No problem — you have some interesting questions there that I hope I can discuss with you — but I'm not optimistic that they will.  We're in a far more intense period of message control than we ever experienced under the Harper regime."

Again and again on issues of transparency and good governance, the Liberals say the right things, then act in complete opposition to those.  When faced with a situation where they could either open up the workings of the government to the public, or tighten their grip on the message, they opt to tighten their grip.

Through the sheer force of their positivity they've been able to skate past many of their broken promises and cynical compromises now that they hold the executive reins.  But things can't go on like this forever.

A balloon can only hold so much hot air before it pops.

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.


You may have noticed more people than usual running around calling themselves socialists lately.  The once-taboo term is becoming increasingly normalized, partially because of splashy politicians like Jeremey Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, partially because ours is a lazy, selfish age where many feel untethered from the adult responsibility of having sensible political opinions.  A great many progressives, particularly young ones, have decided if they're going to be left they may as well be far-left, and if they're going to be far-left, they may as well call themselves socialists, with "socialism" understood to simply mean "far-left in an edgy way."

Yet what many voters on today's far left seem to actually desire is something closer to "Wynne-ism," the ideology animating Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, head of what's been dubbed "the most left wing regime in the country."

Wynne is not a deep thinker, which makes her well-suited for our time.  Her core philosophy seems to simply comprise an uncomplicated belief that government possesses limitless capacity to make things better.  This benevolence is delivered not through formal socialism — outright government control of industry and economic production (that would be too creative) — but merely ratcheting up the generosity of everything government already does.

Government pays its employees, so Wynnism says they should pay them more.

Government funds programs, so Wynnism says they should fund them more.

Government can force people to do nice things for others, so Wynnism says it should force them more.

Conservatives like to say "government can't create jobs" but this is hardly true — the government can obviously hire people to work for it.  Wynne, who in the last provincial election countered Tory rival Tim Hudak's infamous pledge to fire 100,000 bureaucrats by bragging she might add "more" has indeed done so; the job creation rate for government work has dramatically outpaced the private sector under her reign.

Like any good workers, these people want to make more money, and Wynne's been happy to provide.  The provinces' teachers and education workers received a four percent raise in April, while thousands of other provincial government employees got what the Toronto Star called a "surprising" 7.5 percent raise — "with no demands for concessions" — earlier this month.  The number of Ontario government employees making more than $100,000 now totals over 123,000 people — the list has lengthened 727% since Wynne's party took power â€” and includes not just CEOs and presidents, but thousands of teachers, nurses, and middle managers.

That said, the two-million strong Ontario public sector is not overly large, and only represents about 15% of the provincial labour force (though their salaries do comprise a full half of all provincial program spending).  But anyone outside this elite doesn't have to fret; Premier Wynne recently raised the private sector minimum wage to $15 an hour and decreed that private sector bosses must give their workers more paid sick days and longer vacations.

But what if you can't find a job in the first place?  Never fear, Premier Wynne has announced plans to begin testing a "guaranteed income" program wherein the government will pay you a salary of  "up to $16,989 per year" regardless of whether you work or not.  For those who would prefer to hang out in university, she's also promised "free tuition for hundreds of thousands of Ontario students."

Ontario has generous public health insurance, but people still have to pay for prescription drugs.  So Wynne says they're now "free" if you're under 24 (with presumably higher ages to come).  Electricity from Wynne's mismanaged state-run power company has gotten pretty pricy, so Wynne says she'll lower everyones' bills by 25%.

Much of the above has been described by critics as "nakedly political," which is a way of saying Premier Wynne thinks it will help her get re-elected.  Her numbers are awful right now but they were pretty bad in 2014 too, and her party actually gained seats in the fight against Hudak's Conservatives, who promised to shrink government and balance the budget.

Ontario conservatives have been banging on about balancing the budget because it's an obvious point of contrast between themselves and Premier Wynne, who's financed her generosity with money the province doesn't have, turning Ontario into the most indebted sub-national jurisdiction on earth.  As interest payments consume more and more of the budget and lenders grow skeptical and stingy, this will eventually force a Greece-style reckoning of massive program cuts, layoffs, and tax hikes, but the philosophy of Wynnism says that sort of thinking is silly.  What matters is what's happening now!

Kathleen Wynne only needs 38-point-something of the Ontario electorate to buy her approach to win another majority government.  Recent history has shown this isn't a difficult coalition to cobble from youth, urbanites, government worker households, and others with a… shall we say, uncurious attitude to where government money comes from.

Should she triumph, it will vindicate and validate the rule of a new ideology that, while not quite as sinister as socialism, will still inflict a tremendous price on those unserious enough to be captivated by its easy appeal.

Written by J.J. McCullough

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.