On Wednesday of the new spring session at Queen's Park, the Liberals attempted to stanch some of the political bleeding of steadily rising hydro prices by unanimously passing Bill 95, the Protecting Vulnerable Consumers Act.

This new legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, giving the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) the new authority to demand Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) not disconnect Ontarians in arrears for their hydro bills.

The wording of Bill 95 was unclear on many of the details, but the OEB by Thursday afternoon explained how it was going to proceed with the new law, announcing a ban on all disconnections and installation of load limiting devices until April 30.  The LDCs were also ordered to uninstall all load limiting devices and reconnect all households currently without power, while also having to waive any costs incurred in the process.

The OEB's order also divulged that there are about 930 households disconnected and 3,000 households with load limiting devices currently.  These numbers are substantially lower than the oft-cited-by-the-opposition estimate of 60,000 Ontarian households disconnected last year, but many of those households were likely reconnected in the interim, after spending days/weeks/months without power in the frigid winter months.

Although both opposition parties welcomed the Liberal government's action, they still claimed it was a case of too little, too late.

"Why didn't they time-allocate this bill leading into the Christmas break, well before these winter disconnects would've occurred?  Unfortunately there have been thousands of people who have had their power disconnected over this past winter and this all could've been avoided had the government been serious about this back in the fall," said Progressive Conservative MPP and Energy Critic Todd Smith after question period.

"This kind of change has been a long time coming.  People are stuck … They're in a situation where they have to make choices they shouldn't have to make.  Paying their hydro bill or putting food on the table.  Paying their hydro bill or paying for childcare," said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

Despite the temporary relief for struggling low-income households unable to pay their hydro bills, the rates continue to steadily climb, making hydro more and more unaffordable for many households.

Premier Kathleen Wynne admitted this week that her government's removal of the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST on hydro wasn't enough, and promises more relief for ratepayers in the upcoming budget.

However, this week The Canadian Press reported the federal government is in discussions with the Ontario government about the payment of $25 million in damages and $3 million in legal fees a NAFTA tribunal awarded Windstream Energy, after the wind power company sued the federal government because the provincial government put a moratorium on offshore wind development, breaching the three parties' contract.  The Liberal government will also be mired in the rehashing of the gas plant scandal in September, when two former Liberal staffers from former premier Dalton McGuinty's tenure go to trial for breach of trust and mischief.  And finally, the Liberal's partial privatization of Hydro One and the rapid increase in electricity costs will make this a lightning rod issue for the opposition parties and emotionally charged issue for voters in the runup to the 2018 election.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

The reason the Liberal Party's motion on Islamophobia deserves to die has little to do with the motion itself, and what it will or won't legally affect through its status a decree of Parliament, and everything to do with statement on Canadian society it seeks to make.  It's a revealing window into the mindset of Canada's current progressive establishment, and their upside-down understanding of the problems and priorities of the country they seek to govern.

The fact posing the greatest existential threat to multicultural liberalism today is that the massive importation of Islamic persons to Canada through a carelessly generous immigration policy has not yielded the joyous reception that was expected.  Along with a general preference for lower immigration in general, polls consistently reveal Islam to be deeply unpopular.  A 2015 one found the religion's positive approval rating at a mere 15%, while another found 33% of Canadians supporting a ban on Muslim immigration altogether — a faction of the population higher than those who voted Conservative or NDP in the last election.  A survey last summer found 75% of Ontarians believed "Muslim immigrants have fundamentally different values," a statement the Toronto Star tendentiously took as proof of a "wave of Islamophobia."

The great existential threat to pacifist liberal foreign policy, meanwhile, has been the persistent existence of Radical Islamic terrorism, an enemy of the west that is deeply irrational in its hate.  Those who subscribe to fashionable anti-colonial action/reaction theories of foreign policy (in which the crimes of western imperialism spawn understandable backlash from the imperialized) have struggled for years to explain why radical Muslims from privileged backgrounds routinely feel the need to indiscriminately slaughter crowds of civilians — often those of their own nationality and religion — at schools, mosques, gay clubs, and rock concerts.

The conservative conclusion to all this (or perhaps just the "logical" one, since it's shared by a number of atheistic leftists) is that western nations should wage war against Islamic terrorist groups abroad, while exercising temperance and skepticism of Islam at home.  In practical terms, this entails doing at least two things Canada's current government has pointedly refused: bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, and curtailing Middle Eastern immigration (or at the very least not raising it to unprecedented highs with tens of thousands of fresh refugees every year).

The progressive conclusion, in contrast, has been to create an alternate universe containing problems more consistent with their worldview, then attempting to take credit for solving those.  Since 9/11, this has entailed repeating a steady refrain that our society is in the midst of an "Islamophobia" pandemic — the true crime of terrorism.

Thus, we get Liberal Motion 103, which describes Canada as a dystopia home to an "increasing public climate of hate and fear" born from the unchecked scourge of "Islamophobia" and demands House Heritage Committee craft a strategy to help Ottawa "develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating" it.  M-103 also demands the state "take note" of something called petition e-411, a piece of writing that regurgitates the old saw that there exists a vast, almost incomprehensible canyon between Real Islam, the faith that has "contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization" in "all areas of human endeavors," and that "infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals [who] have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam," which we should all just get over already, geez.

A parliamentary motion does not need to explicitly suppress speech to chill free expression.  I myself was recently unanimously denounced by Quebec's "national assembly" for writing some honest words about how Quebec society is perceived in the rest of Canada.  The purpose of my denunciation was obviously intimidation: it was a clear statement from the state that that if citizens say certain things there will be consequences, so they'd better not.

Such is the case with M-103.  You can either subscribe to the belief that the vague and broad crime of "Islamophobia" — which the motion, of course, does not even attempt to define — is rampaging across the Canadian countryside, sowing "fear and hatred," or you can be on the side of what the motion calls "systemic racism."  The purpose is quite obviously to intimidate those who may be inclined to think or say that radical Islamic violence has something to do with, you know, Islam, while simultaneously making it part of the official Canadian narrative that hysterical, bigoted fear of Islam has reached peak crisis in a country that can't import Muslim immigrants fast enough.

This is what it looks like to be misruled.

Written by J.J. McCullough

Normally, when a leader of the Opposition's chief of staff resigns, there's plenty of speculation.  Did he quit?  Was he fired?  Why do politicians and staffers keep using that "to spend time with his family" excuse?

None of these questions was asked when Patrick Brown's chief of staff hit the bricks recently.  You would have to be an extremely dedicated follower of Ontario provincial politics, and PC Party of Ontario screw-ups specifically, to have even noticed.

That's because Ontarians have become so used to the PC Party dropping that ball that it barely even registers.  This is in the same province where the Maple Leafs lose habitually, and they still draw more attention than the Ontario PC's.  And those two organizations have even been run by some of the same people!

How did the Ontario PC's become so incredibly boring and bad at what they do, especially since the Liberals are almost, but not quite as terrible?

Laziness

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Ontario Liberals are at death's door, even many Ontario Liberals themselves.  What the PCPO does with this fact, however, is assume power is just going to fall into their laps.

If I had to come up with one image to describe the PCPO approach to winning government, I would ask you to think about that guy you know who spends all his time chasing after women and thinks it's their problem when they notice his considerable flaws and reject him.  The PCPO is That Guy.

Here's the problem: That Guy gets lucky every so often, so he's going to keep on doing what he's doing without improving.  The PCPO only has to get lucky ONCE and they will be back in power- and what's worse, they think they will be there forever, because in their minds, they were never supposed to LOSE government back in 2003.

The PCPO doesn't need to win to make money

You know how I said the PCPO has been managed by the same people who run the Toronto Maple Leafs?  And you also know how the Leafs make tons of money every year without winning the Stanley Cup or, mostly, making it to the playoffs?

Now, I don't want to imply that the PCPO is….gasp…more interested in making money off gullible, naive, and overly trusting Ontarians than they are in winning government.  I'm just saying that if you were pulling down as much money as the PCPO was, maybe you wouldn't be as hungry or desperate to win as you need to be.

The message is EVERYTHING

Every so often you will read some whiny editorial in the Toronto Sun or some other sympathetic news outlet about how if only the PCPO would stick to the message of 'it's the economy stupid' they would be able to stroll lazily back into government but wouldn't you know it?  Some idiot keeps mucking everything up by getting distracted by some social issue.  Arrrrrgh.

So this is why you get a leader like Patrick Brown.  What the PCPO powerbrokers have wanted for years is someone who will do exactly what they're told without needing to be coached.

Here's the problem with that: The powerbrokers themselves are the ones that get distracted because a) hate for the Liberals keeps them alive and they want a chance to embarrass them for a change, and b) sticking to message is boring. And this is why we get faith based schools, 10,000 public sector jobs, sex-ed flipflops, etc….but when that happens, you can always blame the membership and say "they wanted this policy!"

Provincial parties are franchises

Hey you know who you didn't hear much from during Kevin O'Leary's recent highly publicized spitting match with Kathleen Wynne?  Patrick Brown, that's who.  Not just because of the usual media blockade, but because it creates unpleasant message confusion if a frontrunner for the federal leadership and a provincial leader are commenting on the same issue.

Yes, if you haven't noticed, the federal party looooves to meddle in the affairs of the provincial parties, right down to the fact that former MP's well versed in the CPC's message control get tapped to lead.  First with Jim Prentice and now Jason Kenney in Alberta, Brian Pallister (more successfully) in Manitoba, and of course Brown himself.

Want more examples?  Just try having your provincial party convention during a federal election.  Or, if you want to run for a nomination, the best thing you could do is have a spouse who works for the federal party already.

There are limits, however.  Just because you were a federal member of Parliament or a cabinet minister doesn't mean that you can run for a nomination in a riding that you've never represented and win.  For now.

Finally- the PCPO can't think of a single original solution to a problem

Among the dreariest experiences I've had in my life is attempting to design policy for the PCPO.

Not only did none of it ever make it into the platform (which is written by staffers and powerbrokers, but that's another story), but the entire process tended to be driven by the question of how can the party do what the Liberals are doing, but better?

If you take this task on, chances are you'll be looking at the "mandate letters" written by the Premier to her Ministers and trying to design solutions to those very same problems that will appeal to various segments of the base- Red Tories, so-cons, libertarians, and so on.  All (in many cases) without speaking to a single person from one of those groups.  Or, you'll be asked to look at what other jurisdictions- jurisdictions other than Ontario- are trying, and plagiarize it holus bolus.

As safe as this is, it means that everything the PCPO comes up with is either copying the Liberals, reacting to the Liberals, or trying something that has no business being tried in Canada.  Then, when the election comes around and voters start telling candidates that "all the parties are the same!", the campaign managers can't figure out why…..

So as you can see, the PCPO has a lot of bad habits.  But, even though I complain about them a lot, it isn't actually hard to fix what's wrong with the party. Unfortunately, the worst thing you can do when you're not a PCPO powerbroker is give advice, but tune in next time when I do it anyway!

Written by Josh Lieblein

J.J. McCullough has really done it now.  An anglophone outsider criticizing Quebec is a big no-no sacrilege.  Interlopers couldn't possibly understand the incredible (inferiority) complex of solitudinous Quebec.

Yet J.J. had the brazen temerity to pen a blasphemous piece for the Washington Post entitled "Why does 'progressive' Quebec have so many massacres?" on February 1.

I've never met or spoken with fellow Loonie Politics columnist McCullough.  But I first came across his work when he was a guest on a CANADALAND podcast.  My first impression was he was a very articulate, aplomb, and garrulous conservative, which of course left the progressive hosts of the show stunned with cognitive dissonance.  I wondered, only for a brief moment, why McCullough wasn't a regular on TV panels and a columnist for a mainstream national publication.  But of course in Canada, real talent and provocative ideas are pushed to the margins, while boring conformists tow the line in praising the detrimental welfare state of Canada.  Anyone who strays from the Laurentian elites' garrison mentality is banished from the mainstream conversation.  That's why most panels typically have three or four pundits holding the exact same agreeable position.  I would hazard a guess that's also why McCullough is writing for a top American paper instead of one of our own.

In McCullough's column, he lists six high-profile and politically charged massacres or attempted massacres that have happened in Quebec since he was born in 1984.  He then has the gall to infer that Quebec may not be such the progressive and welcoming utopia the Canadian elite tout it to be, and that perhaps, ironically, it is its progressive policies which led Quebec to be more prone to massacres committed by alienated maniacs.  McCullough's theory maybe difficult to prove, but when one looks at Quebec's ideological problems and basket case economy the theory isn't that farfetched.

Then McCullough, foreseeing the backlash to come, explains how it's "deeply taboo" to criticize Quebec.  He cites Jan Wong's ostracization by the Laurentian elite (she was denounced unanimously by Canadian Parliament) after she posited in 2006 a similar theory to that of McCullough's.  Ironically enough, one could argue subsequent events like shootings and racist Parti Quebecois policies within the province have largely vindicated Wong.  McCullough then mentions the infamous 2010 cover story published by Maclean's that asserted Quebec was easily the most corrupt province.  Again, the Laurentian elite denounced the fair criticism as libelous, and again, if it hadn't already been in plain sight, Maclean's was vindicated by the bombshell Charbonneau Commission.

McCullough's piece was an important take down of the false mainstream narrative propagated by the Canadian chattering classes that the Quebec City massacre was proof Canada has an Islamophobia problem.  Politicizing the event, these shameless media hanger-ons made leaping jumps in logic, claiming Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen were partly to blame for the attacker's senseless act of violence because he had liked these two political figures on Facebook.  (Never mind that the mass murderer also liked the Parti Quebecois and New Democratic Party of Canada.)  These are the same commentators and politicians who insist Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, and always deny the connection when the next slaughter of innocents in the name of Allah takes place.  And they will support silencing fair criticism of Islam by giving their approval for the Liberal's anti-Islamophobia motion, further desecrating free speech in this country.

Yes, the doublethink is incroyable, and it's remarkable they can propose such an absurd theory and then in turn be so affronted by McCullough's more grounded logic.

However, it wasn't a surprise when Quebec politicians had an inquisition into McCullough's piece and "responded" to what was "beneath" them.  The Quebec legislature took the time to unanimously pass a motion to condemn and demand the columnist's remarks be rectified.  The government of Quebec then wrote a bizarre letter to the executive editor of the Washington Post, refuting McCullough's "baseless claims" on a province that is "inclusive and outward looking."  The letter then invited the Washington Post to "assign more reporters" to get a "better understanding of Quebec."  One can only hope the paper calls the government on its bluff and sends several investigative journalists to La Belle Province to help dredge up the beastly rot beneath the varnished veneer.  These journalists would be guaranteed a warm welcome by attentive politicians and police monitoring their every move.

On top of the surreal condemnation of the entire Quebec government, Canadian Heritage Minister and Montrealer Melanie Joly was also troubled by McCullough's column, saying it had "unacceptable points."  I was coincidentally interviewing Joly's press secretary last week for a couple of other stories and decided to ask him what the minister meant by her words.

"We never referred to the Washington Post piece as anything other than an opinion… So, obviously, again, freedom of expression is super important to us.  Our government denounced the comments that we believed unfairly portrayed Quebecers, and because our government is convinced of Quebec's attachment to inclusion and openness.  It was really about public, open discussion.  We never asked for things to be retracted.  And the conversation is still happening," said Heritage press secretary Pierre-Olivier Herbert by phone.

Governments taking time out of their busy schedules to denounce and condemn journalists seems like a misuse of their time and energy.  And if they genuinely wanted to have a conversation about the opinions and ideas expressed by the author, then why won't they respond to his amusing open letter or emails?  Why don't they confront the actual ideas put forth?

What is even more amusing is that these politicians' trying to belittle the unrepentant McCullough and rectify and suppress his views are only going having the opposite effect.  The actions of the Quebec government gave McCullough endless publicity not only domestically, but also in foreign publications like Breitbart and The Daily Caller and many others.  From my observations on Twitter, McCullough has also gained hundreds of new followers and been requested to do quite a few interviews.  Apparently Quebec politicians haven't heard of the Streisand effect.

As politicians talk moonshine about McCullough's work, it only emboldens provocateur writers like himself to instinctively become more feral.  I'm eager to see the next bee he'll put in haughty Quebec's bonnet.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

Canadian polls on immigration have revealed consistent opinions for eons: the majority of us want to see our country's intake capped or lowered, and we want those who do come to be assimilated into the Canadian mainstream.  Yet every time these boringly common opinions are made public reporters still feel the need to affect great shock.

"Canadians may not be as tolerant of refugees and immigrants as they think, a new study concludes," wrote reporter David Aikin for Postmedia the other day.  "Study finds Canadians aren't as tolerant of immigrants as we like to think" agreed the Huffington Post's Emma Paling.

They were responding to some poll data released this week by academics Michael Donnelly and Peter Lowewn as part of a larger study on Canadian attitudes towards immigration.

The results were not surprising.  58% of Canadians agreed "too many immigrants don't seem to feel connected to Canadian society," while over 60% said "people who come to Canada should change their behavior to be more like Canadians."

A particularly interesting section asked voters from the different parties what they would think about a candidate for prime minister who espoused various pro or anti-immigration policies.  Liberal and NDP voters said they would be less likely to support a candidate advocating significant immigrant hikes, while Conservatives said — albeit barely — that they would be more inclined to back a candidate proposing an end to immigration, period.

Again, these opinions have been voiced consistently.  A 2016 poll found 68% of Canadians believe immigrants should "do more to fit in."  A 2015 poll found 46% believe the current immigration rate is too high.  A 2013 poll found 73% backing idea of immigration limits.

Yet every time, the mainstream media reaction suggests "we" should somehow be startled by these findings, which apparently contradict how "we" conceptualize Canadian attitudes towards immigration.  But as that old joke about the Lone Ranger goes, "who's 'we,' Kemosabe?"

The narrative that Canadians blindly love immigration, and have no reservations whatsoever about its social and cultural impact, is a storyline elite ideologues in this country have invented from whole cloth.  It serves to rationalize generations of radical pro-immigration policies that have originated from Ottawa despite little public demand.

At some point, something has to give.  To paraphrase John Kerry, Canada can either be a democracy or it can be a country of record-high immigration, but it cannot be both.  A StatsCan study released last month concluded that by 2036 Ottawa policy will have successfully created a new majority population, with immigrants and their children comprising "between 44.2 And 49.9 per cent" of the national population.  That will represent a demographic coup unparalleled in history, a blunt imposition of unpopular policy to its most extreme consequence (Canada has the highest per capita rate of immigration in the G7, tied with Germany).

If that characterization makes you uneasy, imagine a similar situation playing out in a different policy realm.  Imagine reams of polls suggesting Canadians did not want privatized health care, yet Canada nevertheless being on track to abolish all provincial insurance plans within 20 years.

Thankfully, there are signs Canada's political class may be beginning a gentle u-turn.  Immigration has become a relatively open topic of conversation in the post-Kenney federal Conservatives, with would-be leaders Maxime Bernier, Stephen Blaney, and Erin O'Toole all calling for lower numbers.  Even aggressively moderate voices in the party, such as Michelle Rempel, are now choosing to contrast their own views on immigration with the "fling the doors wide open" approach of the Trudeau Liberals (who, in fairness, also elected to level Canada's immigration intake at Harper rates, rather than hike them, as some voices wanted).

For this, ample credit must be given to Kellie Leitch — and her recently-departed campaign manager Nick Kouvalis — who repeatedly cited poll data to justify their decision to put a pro-assimilation agenda at the front of their "surprisingly" successful Tory leadership campaign.  Dr. Leitch is expected to unveil an even more comprehensive immigration agenda soon, which will almost certainly include a call for lower numbers.

Canada's journalistic and political establishment is terrified of Donald Trump, and the thought of an immigration critic getting elected here explains why there's been such a noticeable increase in propaganda insisting "we" have created the world's most immigrant-welcoming nation with no anxieties about immigration here, no siree.

Yet in the background, our politicians are slowly reorienting their behavior around reality.

Photo Credit: Reader's Digest Canada

Written by J.J. McCullough