LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

So here we are, at the start of 2017, with Patrick Brown in the same place so many PCPO leaders have been before- stuck in the middle between the eternally two warring factions within his party, too distracted to land blows on Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals, and bearing the blame for not being able to smooth over these divisions long enough to win an election.

Despite constant pleas for unity and goodwill within the PCPO family, the latest nomination fiasco- in which ex-Mississauga CPC MP Bob Dechert loudly decried abuse of the process, took his ball and went home- shows that discord will, ultimately, carry the day.

Here's the thing, though: despite Brown's obviously meager leadership skills, this gap couldn't be bridged if Mother Teresa was in charge.

The PCPO- like other conservative parties across the land- has long been a breeding ground for resentment.  For a large number of conservative "activists", hating "those guys" is the sole reason for their involvement in the party.

And since we won't be spared squabbling between them anytime soon, I thought I'd devote some column inches to a brief primer on how to navigate the dense and trackless forest that is PCPO infighting.

At one time- in the aftermath of the Common Sense Revolution and throughout the John Tory years- it made sense to divide these two aforementioned factions on the basis of ideology, between purist Harris-ite Blue Tories and the centrist Red Tories who supported John Tory and Ernie Eves.

During the Harper/Hudak years, however, it became readily apparent that voters weren't interested in either approach.  Blue Tories were viewed as hard-edged ideologues who wanted to destroy Canada, and Red Tories were viewed with suspicion, as holders of a hidden agenda who needed to "distance themselves" from the views of their Blue brethren.

Conservative parties in Canada seemed to take on the qualities of a Turd Sandwich- something that may be attractively presented, with multiple colours of bread and artfully prepared toppings, but with something truly distasteful right in the middle.

Though conservatives were in power federally, it seemed to make little difference practically.  A hostile media and cultural elite dug in hard and opposed everything the Harper government did, whether it made sense or not, while holding out hope for a saviour to come rescue the Liberal brand.

The fact nobody wanted to acknowledge was that the system was rigged to ensure that no matter how badly the Liberals screwed up, they would always have a clear path back to government as soon as the right leader was in place.  From this came the obsession with "tactics"- attempts to change the parameters of debate through means that didn't always pass the smell test.

And with "tactics" came the rise of a new type of conservative "activist"- the Giant Douche.

The Giant Douches weren't just opposed to the Liberals- they regarded the conservative Turd Sandwiches as just as bad.  They were less concerned with image and substance and more concerned with victory.  They picked fights when they weren't called for, and often with people who were much bigger, stronger, and better prepared than they were- like labour unions, supply management cartels, or the CBC.

And though the Giant Douches never admitted it, they knew they were badly outclassed.  But they also knew that average conservatives would give them props for at least putting up a fight- especially when the Turd Sandwiches wouldn't for fear it would make them look bad.

And so, instead of Red and Blue Tories, we find ourselves now with Team Turd Sandwich- who advocates for Patrick Brown to stick to fiscal issues and not get distracted by wedge issues- and Team Giant Douche, who pressure Brown to aggressively pursue charges of corruption against the Wynne Liberals.

It does no good to name any single person as being part of one Team or the other, both because of the ever present threat of a lawsuit because someone's feelings were hurt and because most PCPO activists- myself included- have whipsawed between one Team and the other countless times depending on which one was gumming up the works at a given moment.

The point is that whoever is leader must constantly struggle to find a compromise between these two groups, which makes them look like one end of a horseshoe trying to dance with the other.

At no time was this clearer- or more devastating to provincial conservative fortunes- than in 2014, when Tim Hudak was forced to run an election campaign where he promised to cut 100,000 public sector jobs to appease Team Giant Douche and where he refused to attack Kathleen Wynne personally as a sop to Team Turd Sandwich.

And when you see Patrick Brown artfully twist himself into a pretzel trying to explain how he supports revenue neutral carbon pricing but not Kathleen Wynne's cap-and-trade system- he's trying to do the exact same thing, under pressure from both Teams.

True, Brown has many attributes Hudak didn't.  He has his vaunted ground game, a much faster response time, and a killer drive to win that he's honed from many years of playing the good ol' hockey game.

But even the best player can't play well if he's got two coaches, each one speaking in a different ear.

Either Brown needs to pick a side and stick with it- or pick a third option that gets both Turd Sandwiches and Giant Douches alike on board.

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.


There's a fascinating article in The Atlantic from the week after Donald Trump won.  It notes in both 1992 and 1996, President Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to win roughly half of America's 3100 counties, demonstrating a breadth of appeal across rural, suburban and urban America.  In 2016, his wife would win some 88% of the largest counties in the country—even higher urban support than President Barack Obama—but a rural wave in key battleground states for her opponent would be enough to overcome her massive advantage in the big cities.

We've seen this before, with the United Kingdom's narrow vote to leave the European Union.  The "leave" campaign won across rural England and Wales, winning places where coal mines had closed or in country villages where a way of life felt under siege.  In fact, of all the major cities in the UK, only Birmingham voted to leave, and even then by the narrowest of margins.  Most cities—London, Edinburg, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff, Belfast, Bristol—voted by margins of 60% or more to remain in the EU.

This rural-urban divide exists in Canada, too.

Just look at Ontario. Premier Kathleen Wynne won a majority government of 58 seats in 2014.  Of that total, some 23 seats are in the City of Toronto; add in the five seats in Ottawa and four seats from Mississauga, and 55% of the Liberal caucus is from Ontario's three largest cities alone.

The Liberal majority came from this urban base plus winning most of the 905-belt of suburban ridings around Toronto, along with a sprinkling of other ridings around the province.

(Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, borrowing from Wynne's playbook, did it even better a year later, sweeping Toronto entirely and picking off most of the few suburban seats in the Greater Toronto Area Wynne failed to carry.)

Outside the Big Smoke and the Nation's Capital, the Liberals did well, too.  In university towns across the province such as Guelph and Kingston, and in the emerging tech hub of Kitchener—Waterloo, and in northern cities such as Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, Liberals won—but these are exactly the marginal seats most at risk in 2018.  Indeed, the Liberals were already wiped out in Windsor and but for stalwarts like Deputy Premier Deb Matthews, veteran Jim Bradley and Speaker Dave Lavec, LIberals would have lost in other south-western cities like London, St Catherines and Brant.

Moreover, Wynne's rural seats are few: she has Members elected in rural ridings east of Toronto in Durham, Peterborough, Northumberland—Quinte West and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but west of Toronto, the Liberals' only rural seat is Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, a bucolic area just north of Hamilton.

On a more micro-level, I helped run the 2014 Liberal campaign in York—Simcoe, where I grew up.  Bordered by the Greenbelt and Holland Marsh to the south, and Lake Simcoe to the north, this is a riding with three main suburban towns and a lot of fields and forests in between.  I joked the day before Election Day that we'd win all the polling stations based in areas where voters could see their neighbours and lose wherever voters could see cows and corn.  It was prophetic; my candidate, a popular local school trustee, won nearly all suburban polls and lost every rural poll, and the race overall by around 4%, the closest margin in decades, but not enough to change the seat for the first time in nearly a half century.

Clearly, the Liberals have an issue in rural Ontario, built up through a series of policy irritants, from electricity prices to horse racing to wind farms.

But the Conservatives have the same problem in reverse.

As Steve Paikin noted, the Conservative Party "hasn't won a single seat in the [Toronto] in four straight general elections. Can you imagine that? Zero-for-92!" referring to the number of potential seats given up over the four races.  Under former leader Tim Hudak, the Tories won a by-election in Etobicoke by running a long-time city councillor, only to lose it again in the general election fairly convincingly; Patrick Brown, the new leader, likewise had a long-time local city councillor elected in a Scarborough by-election, but as everyone knows, by-elections are rarely reliable portents.  Other than the odd suburban seat such as Thornhill and Whitby in the Toronto region and Nepean—Carleton near Ottawa, the Tories are shut out in Ontario's cities and suburbs.

Are things about to change in this rural-urban divide as Ontario approaches a 2018 election?

Brown and the Tories have to hope it does, as the new constituency boundaries are adding fifteen seats, eleven alone in the Greater Toronto Area.

For Wynne and the Liberals, their reelection hopes start with defending Fortress Toronto and Fortress Ottawa: if they can hold on to what they have—no small feat after fifteen years in government—they could be halfway to a majority government.

We might even see a scenario, essentially the reverse of what happened in the American Electoral College, where Wynne's more efficient vote in cities and suburbs—if it holds—could win her the most seats whilst Brown wins the popular vote, racking up huge margins in the countryside, but just failing to crack the urban centres (it took roughly 30,660 votes to elect a Liberal candidate in 2014 compared to 41,355 to elect a Conservative, due to the efficiency of the Liberal vote in suburban and urban constituencies).

If Brown can break into urban Ontario, along with his rural base, he'll win in a landslide; if Wynne can defend urban and suburban Ontario, she'll hold on to power.  That's the entire ball game, with the election sixteen months away.

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.


There's a story in Monday's Hill Times that would easily be dismissed as inside baseball if it wasn't actually a sign of a bigger problem in our understanding of how politics works.  The gist of the piece is how Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin has some friction with her Toronto-Danforth riding association, and some of her riding executive are talking about resigning or not seeking new terms, and the reason seems to revolve around her parliamentary staff trying to interfere with the riding association's work in order to boost her chances for re-election.  And yes, this is actually a problem.

For starters, there is supposed to be a separation between an MP's parliamentary role and their role as the party representative.  As the MP, they represent all constituents in parliament, and their staff are supposed to support them in that role.  The riding association, meanwhile, is the partisan arm that has an interest in keeping the riding belonging to whichever party they belong to.  It should not, however, simply be a re-election machine for that particular MP.  For an MP's parliamentary staff to be trying to direct a riding association in such a direction is improper interference and violates the independence of the riding association.

Part of that separation is demonstrated by the fact that generally, the MP is a non-voting member of the riding executive, because they certainly have an interest in what goes on, but it's not their personal campaign vehicle.  Generally, there should be further separation in how events are planned.  If it's an MP event like an open house or town hall event, then the riding association shouldn't be involved because it's an event for all constituents, not just those belonging to the party.  Likewise, if it's a riding association event like a fundraiser, then the MP's staff should have no involvement because it's a strictly party event.  Each has a different function to play that's easy to confuse if one isn't careful, or if the partisan calculation starts to blur the lines between party and parliamentarian.  Just like it's a cardinal sin to mix party with government, we need to be aware that there is a separation and it must be respected if we want our politics to work the way it's supposed to.

Why this matters is because the riding association is the primary interface between individuals and our political system.  Joining a party is the way in which everyone plays an active role, because it's how candidates get nominated, and how policies get decided from the grassroots level.  The riding association is also the interlocutor between the people of the riding and the caucus, most especially if it's a riding association that doesn't have a sitting MP.  It's why all of the plaintive wails about not having an MP from your chosen party leaves you "unrepresented" is a load of bunk so long as there's a riding association in place, it means that there's a conduit between the riding and the parliamentary caucus for concerns to be raised.

When there is a sitting MP, the independence of the riding association is all the more important because part of the function of a riding association in our system is to hold the MP to account for their actions when they are elected.  Because riding associations are the way in which we nominate candidates for election, it's also how we remove them when they don't perform or if they no longer represent the values of the riding.  Nomination fights that seek to take out incumbent MPs can be nasty business but they're also very necessary to ensure that the democratic will of the party members can be respected and to keep the incumbents honest in their dealings.  That means that if the incumbent MP's staff is interfering with the riding association in order to try and make it a re-election machine, as Dabrusin's staff are allegedly doing, then it interferes with the riding association's ability to hold her to account as the MP, and accountability is at the heart of our system.  This point cannot be understated.

The other reason why this particular story is concerning is because the Liberals have already dealt a blow to the role of riding associations with their party constitution changes last year.  Usually, riding associations are supposed to generate policy which gets voted upon and gets forwarded to biennial policy conferences, where the assembled delegates vote on these policy resolutions that form the broader party's policy direction.  The new Liberal constitution, however, severely curtails this process, calling it "inefficient," and has centralised much of the new policy formation out of the leader's office using Big Data as the justification for how they plan to consult and come up with policy.  This, along with demolishing party memberships in favour of free "supporter" sign-ups, has severely weakened the role of riding associations, which is detrimental to the health of our democratic system.  This makes the alleged intrusion by Dabrusin's staff all the more staff all the more alarming, because it's hitting the association when they've already been cut off at the knees.

Of course, much of this is about how politics is supposed to work, and it's not an exact science.  The strength of riding associations is variable across parties and regions, and there have been enough examples of riding associations being essentially non-existent until an MP gets elected in a sweep, a particularly poignant example being the NDP in Quebec in 2011.  But if we want politics to work properly in this country, then we need people to get involved, to join riding associations and to contribute to the system from the ground-up.  Having the leader's office centralise authority, or the MP's office big-footing things only serves to disenfranchise the role of grassroots members, the very people that our process is supposed to be engaging.  For the health of our democracy, we need to return that power to those grassroots.

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.


Meryl Streep's misplaced speech at the Golden Globes demonstrates why most conservatives dislike Hollywood

TORONTO, Ont. Jan. 10, 2017/ Troy Media/ Thanks, Meryl Streep.  Your speech at last Sunday's 74th Golden Globe Awards provided another reason why most conservatives dislike Hollywood.

After receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement, the talented actress used the forum to express her views on politics and the arts.

Many liberals (and a few conservatives) praised Streep's comments.  They admired her analysis of the political landscape.  They appreciated her viewpoint about the lack of respect for the arts community and its distinctly international flavour.  They loved the fact that she criticized U.S. president-elect Donald Trump without ever naming him.

In turn, many critics launched into personal diatribes and ad hominem attacks after Streep's speech.  Emotion, rather than intelligence, ruled social media on Sunday night.

I thought that Streep's speech was poorly thought out.  While I don't expect much from the voluminous echo chamber that contains most of Tinseltown's elite, this politically-charged message deserves to be critiqued.

First, it was an awards show, not a political convention.

This has happened at other awards shows.  But most people didn't tune in to listen to Streep's political sermon.  It's much the same as when vice-president-elect Mike Pence was disgracefully singled out by the cast of the Broadway musical Hamilton in November.  It makes some people feel uncomfortable, puts a damper on a fun evening and there's absolutely no justification for doing this.

Second, while Streep deserves credit for acknowledging her partisan leanings in the past (she proudly describes herself as part of "the Left"), it's a major reason why she shouldn't have spoken out.

She targeted a politician she doesn't like and one she actively campaigned against in last year's presidential election.  Streep spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in support of presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in prime-time just after the second night's headliner, former president Bill Clinton.

Hence, the Golden Globes speech just made her look like a sore loser.

Third, Trump's imitation of handicapped New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski which he constantly denies, but the video coverage disputes was disgusting.  No question about it. But most people have moved on and really don't care about it anymore.

Streep claims it still bothers her and that Trump's actions apparently made it acceptable for others to do it.  That's a preposterous and completely inaccurate line that many left-wingers have drawn in recent months.

It makes me wonder about her focus, ideas and thoughts.  There are more important things to worry about and not all of them relate to the Trump presidency.

Fourth, the decision against naming the president-elect in her speech doesn't make Streep a classy hero.

Silence isn't golden in this case.  Rather, it has the bitter taste of pewter because she helped perpetuate the image that Hollywood is left-wing, insular, pompous and out of touch with Middle America.  Whether Streep likes it or not, this group helps provide the income and comfort level that she (and other performers) enjoy.  If she believes in public relations, she should start thinking about her words and actions a bit more.

Fifth, the sacred game of football didn't have to be included in this discussion.  You have no obligation to watch this great sport, Meryl.  In fact, millions of football fans (and mixed martial arts fans, who you also went after) are probably glad that you don't.

Will someone copycat Streep's speech at the Screen Actors Guild Awards (Jan. 29) or the Academy Awards (Feb. 26)?

I wouldn't bet the farm against it.  But I would bet such a speech will do nothing but drive a wedge further between conservatives and Hollywood.

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.


Donald Trump, to his credit, has done much in recent weeks to alleviate conservative fears that he intendeds to govern as anything but a relatively standard, right-of-centre Republican.  As we watch him go about his first major presidential task — assembling a cabinet — it's hard to imagine a President Cruz, Rubio, or Bush performing much different.

Nevertheless, Trump's electoral victory, and particularly his nomination victory, did undeniably thrust some tough truths on what is sometimes disparagingly dubbed America's "Conservative Inc." — the set of Washington journalists, thinkers, activists, and consultants who take ideological politics ever-so seriously.

Because Trump is disinterested in personal reform and an aggressive bluff-caller, his candidacy rested on the calculation that he could be his genuine self and no one would care.  He continued to speak and act as the swaggering, crude, sarcastic celebrity he'd been since the 1980s and refused to discard some of the anti-Republican opinions he'd developed during his decades as a non-Republican.  At a time when the Conservative Inc. consensus held a successful Republican had to ace an exceedingly strict set of tests, both philosophical and personal, Trump proved conservative voters were comfortable with a C student.

Would-be Tory leader Kevin O'Leary is often lazily compared to Trump, but on this front, at least, the analogy works.  If anything, Canada's chapter of Conservative Inc. hates the Dragon's Den star more than anyone on the American right ever hated Trump.  Canadian conservatives of a populist bent can thus be forgiven for concluding O'Leary must therefore possesses some admirably Trumpian instincts for giving the public what it wants, as opposed to what the conservative establishment believes they should.

The problem is O'Leary is far more liberal than Trump ever was, and in far more troubling places.

Despite popular mythology on the #nevertrump right that Trump was basically a "New York liberal," Trump's breaks with Republican orthodoxy have been limited to a relatively narrow handful of issues.  He's been a ferocious critic of the 2003 Iraq war, and characterized NATO as a bit of a burden.  He's famously skeptical of free trade, and supports stimulus spending and eminent domain — the seizing of private land for public good.  To the ultra-dogmatic, these are hideous heresies, but most conservative voters had little trouble shrugging them off.

O'Leary, by contrast, breaks with most conservatives on two of their most central defining issues: radical Islam and the military.

Though his comments got almost no press at the time, last winter O'Leary stated confidently on Evan Solomon's radio show that he believes the Islamic State poses no threat to Canadians — "I actually believe the last nationality ISIS wants to put a bullet through is a Canadian" were his exact words — implying radical Islam's rage is rational, and only targets nasty countries.  He went on to say he believes the sole legitimate use of the Canadian armed forces is peacekeeping, comments he further emphasized last month when he quipped there was "nothing proud about being a warrior."

During his near-decade in power, Prime Minister Harper built a large part of his brand around unqualified support for the Canadian military, which he believed had a critical role to play in the west's global war against Islamic jihadism — an opinion that only strengthened after multiple attempted Islamist terror attacks on Canadian soil.  It was good policy and, it was assumed, good politics too.  But what if it was less popular than it appeared?

Like Trump, O'Leary is a man too stubborn and cocksure to alter his gut instincts of right and wrong.  If he runs for head of the Conservatives, he'll be gambling that rank-and-file Tories don't actually care about radical Islam and the military as much as their leaders say, and are, in fact, perfectly willing to elect an aggressive pacifist — a man to the left of Justin Trudeau on foreign affairs — so long as he says exciting and edgy things about taxes, oil, and Kathleen Wynne.

The possibility is deeply disturbing.  If O'Leary is successful, it would prove much of the conservative establishment in this country does not understand its own base in a fashion far more dramatic and profound than the Republican establishment misread theirs.

If the Tory Party becomes a vehicle for a man so profoundly wrong on the greatest existential question of our time — the need to destroy and safeguard ourselves against the evils of Islamic fascism — then any Canadian who takes such things seriously will have no choice but to look somewhere else to park his vote.

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.


It's a new year, and that means new things can happen.

All sorts of new things: flying cars, jet packs, space-age food that's less filling and tastes great.  Mostly, though, it's time for predictions.

It's my solemn duty, as an internet pundit, to set down in digital permanence what will absolutely happen in the next 52 weeks.  The bad news: almost none of these things will happen.  The good news: there's no consequence for me being wrong.

What follows are my absolutely iron-clad predictions for the year of our Trudeau, 2017.  The things I'm right about, I will endlessly brag about on Twitter.  The things that I'm wrong about I will have purged from your memories.

• First up, we will not get jetpacks or flying cars this year.  People can barely handle the two-dimensional space of the road, there's no way we're capable of handling the third dimension of the sky.  Maybe next year, though!

• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will continue with his nonsense defence of pay-to-play fundraisers, by continuing to say he talks about the middle class at these events.  He'll pay very little public price.  This will frustrate the press to no end, until we realize this gives us the chance for another round of "is the honeymoon over?" stories.  Anyway, Trudeau's ability to skate on this controversy will give him and his government the impression they can skate on anything, which will lead to some hubristic blunder that will do real damage.  Probably something surfing related.

• There will not be a nuclear apocalypse.  It's popular these days to casually assume the end times are upon us because Donald Trump, a profound dolt who only feels joy when he's exacting revenge, is about to be president.  Maybe it's my blind faith in humanity, maybe it's wishful thinking, but the blustering dope won't end civilization.  Earth will spin for another year.  But, if things really do go to hell, symmetrical Saskatchewan will be unscathed.  PEI, however, will be overrun with mutant potatoes, hellbent on the domination of whatever humans remain.  You've been warned.

• Tom Mulcair will stay leader of the NDP.  He'll shave enough of his beard—maybe into some tasteful mutton chops—to convince the party he's a changed man, and that will be enough.  Who else is going to do it, Charlie Angus?  Get serious.

• Some wild and counter-intuitive health story will make headlines everywhere.  You should not listen to it, it will be dumb and probably based on limited evidence heavily torqued to make it a better news story.  Remember how flossing is useless?  I started flossing the day that story came out, on the assumption it was bunk.  (Incidentally, I also had a dentist appointment the next day.)

• Elizabeth May will stay leader of the Green Party.  She's the only one who's been able to win the party a seat in the Commons.  Electoral reform won't lead to proportional representation, and the party will be able to pat itself on the back for winning anything at all in such an unfair system.  May's iron grip on the party will never loosen, she is eternal.

• Speaking of electoral reform, don't expect any reform to happen.  The government has so botched its roll out they'll throw up their hands and blame someone else for it.  Probably Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef, who will be shuffled out of cabinet and into the back benches, where she will belatedly be given the time and space to learn the ropes of Parliament.  The government won't pay a price for this failure.  Trudeau was right, now that Stephen Harper is gone, many folks are content with the voting system as it stands.  Funny, that.

• 04-33-21-11-15-27.  Lotto 649 winning numbers for the third drawing in February.  You're welcome.

• Kevin O'Leary will not win the Conservative Party leadership after he's carried away in a bouncy castle on a blustery day.  We miss you, Kev.  Stay strong out there.

• Kellie Leitch, on the other hand, will win the Conservative Party leadership.  It will not go well.  Focus grouping your way to the head of a party will turn out to be much easier to pull off than focus grouping your way out of opposition.  Canada is not yet ready for an empty vessel to be made prime minister.

That's how 2017 will go.  Exciting, yeah?  Come back next year and we can completely ignore all the wrong things I said here, and do it all again.

Photo Credit: Metro 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.


Among the many, many files piling up on Justin Trudeau's desk in the coming months, one of the biggest and most pressing is the search for the next governor general as David Johnston's term having already been extended nears its end.  And not only Johnston four provinces are also due to have their lieutenant governors replaced this year as well.  This includes PEI, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and in PEI's case the lieutenant governor has already passed his five-year mark in August with no announcement that there is even a process underway to find a replacement.  (The current LG, Frank Lewis, indicated that he was interested in extending his time until at least the sesquicentennial celebrations in July, but we'll have to wait and see).

The process is the first question that we're waiting to hear an answer on.  Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper quietly appointed an ad hoc advisory committee that recommended Johnston's name to him, and when that process was deemed to have worked out well enough, he formalized it as the Vice-Regal Appointments Committee, which was headed by the Canadian Secretary to the Queen, and two other permanent panel members, who brought two ad hoc provincial members on board every time a lieutenant governor's term was nearing its end.  The process worked and largely brought forward some good names to the PM, and with only one exception, the names were received with fairly universal praise.  (There was grumbling around the nomination of Janice Filmon in Manitoba, as her husband had served as the Progressive Conservative premier of that province from 1988 to 1999, as though she had no merits of her own to judge her by).

But since then, the Committee's term has expired and it no longer has any members in place.  As well, the Canadian Secretary to the Queen is on his way out, and almost certainly not going to be around to head the Committee on the assumption that it will be reconstituted.  That's a fairly safe bet, mind you, as it's the model that has since been adopted for senate appointments with the federal and provincial members, and Justin Trudeau has told the media that he's not looking to reinvent the wheel, but would see what other transparency measures can be put into place.  Like the Senate and Supreme Court of Canada appointment processes, I'm guessing that a future vice-regal appointments committee will publish reports at the end of each process to give some kind of statistics to show the kinds of candidates that were being considered, and particularly under which diversity criteria they were selected.  The previous process under Harper did appoint a majority of women to these vice-regal positions, which is progress, but it's been a while since we've had a visible minority LG in this country, and to date, we haven't had one who is openly LGBT.

What does concern me is that under the various appointment processes that Trudeau has put into place to date, be it for the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada, the emphasis has been on people to apply rather than the have the panel canvas communities and organizations to find suitable candidates that would be nominated.  As we saw with the Senate appointment process, thousands of people applied and needed to be weeded out, and one can only imagine the number of narcissists that would apply to a vice-regal position where they would serve in only a largely figurehead capacity.  The position is not a figurehead, mind you, and a person filling it would need to be able to understand the nuances of our constitutional structure as well as act in both a non-partisan capacity while still having frequent conversations with the prime minister or province's premier to "advise and to warn" the government of the day no small task.  But how many people know that going in when they think the only job is to attend a few tea parties, give a few speeches and sign the occasional bill into law.  (I'm being a bit facetious here because our vice-regal actors tend to have rather gruelling schedules, but I doubt that the average citizen would know that).

You can almost guarantee, however, that when the process to find a new GG does start, we'll start hearing many of the same kinds of complaints we heard during the Supreme Court nomination.  In particular, the tradition since Canada started nominating our own governors general instead of Westminster has been that we alternate between an Anglophone and a Francophone in Rideau Hall, and we're coming up on a Francophone spot.  At the same time, there will be a lot of agitation for an Indigenous GG this time as well, since we have not yet had one, and this is the era of reconciliation where the Trudeau government has been placing a great deal of emphasis on seeing more Indigenous Canadians in high-profile positions.  While I'm sure we'll hear all manner of platitudes about there being no shortage of eminently qualified Francophone Canadians who would be well-suited for the position, but I have to wonder how deep the pool really is that will tick all of the right boxes for the kind of message that the Trudeau government wants to send.

On a similar note, I have no doubt that whatever new committee gets struck with the vice-regal appointments, that they will face a greater challenge than their predecessors precisely because Trudeau will be looking to show that "it's 2017" in his choices, most especially because there will be a greater desire to highlight not only reconciliation but diversity of all kinds in the sesquicentennial year, to show that the people in these posts are really the new face of Canada, and not just another old white guy (with apologies to Johnston).  It's going to be a lot of work, and Trudeau had better get the ball rolling sooner rather than later.

Photo Credit: CTV News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This should be a prosperous time for Canada's progressives.

Chances are your Facebook feed is awash in thinkpieces that drip with smugness about how Canada is uniquely poised to fight off the global scourge of populism and feel-good articles about how well Syrian refugees are adjusting to life here.

Our borders and communities are wide open to refugees and asylum seekers.  Anyone who has a bad word to say about Justin Trudeau or his government's policies or behaviour can still be easily written off without too much fuss.

While everyone else is losing their humanity, Canadians remain as resolutely polite, friendly, and unsuspicious as ever.  If there was a time in history where the Canadian left appears to have been more vindicated, I cannot think of it.

Why then are they not shouting from the rooftops that Canada has the populist problem solved?

Why does the Canadian left content themselves with the green and orange-washed musings of a Prime Minister who has shown that his progressive bona fides are as shallow as anything else about him?

I'm a believer in a strong democracy first and a partisan second.  So it sickens me to see how the NDP and Green parties turned into shrivelled shadows of themselves in 2016.

There was a time some months ago when proud progressive voices made themselves heard within the NDP, during the 2015 election and in its aftermath.

The backers of the LEAP Manifesto had a moment of glory, but after kicking Thomas Mulcair when he was down and robbing him of another chance to lead the party, they vanished.

I would talk about the NDP here in Ontario, but there's nothing to talk about.  Leader Andrea Horwath is practically invisible.  Her brightest star, Bramalea-Gore-Malton MPP Jagmeet Singh, keeps finding himself the subject of rumours that he will make the jump to the federal arena and run to face Mulcair.

2016 also saw the fizzling out of the long-lived orange dynasty in Manitoba and general confusion in all other provinces and territories except Alberta, where Rachel Notley finds herself hard pressed by what seems to be an impending merger of conservative parties and anonymous sniping from within, duly reprinted on the pages of the Toronto Star.

The Greens fared little better in 2016 as an attempt to oust leader Elizabeth May during their biennial convention was the only thing they did all year that registered.

The left could be making hay attacking Justin Trudeau, but they seem terrified that if they make too much noise they will upset him and he will stop even pretending to care about the environment.

All this is standard leftist practice in Canada.  But if the Canadian left can't be bothered to rouse itself to fight against the candidacy of Kellie Leitch, they are not simply incompetent and disorganized, they are completely derelict in their duties.

Beyond fervently repeating "Not In Canada!" in the hopes that saying so will make it so, and hurling weak insults on Twitter, they seem to have no plan to stop her.

A plot to register as CPC members to stop Leitch seems to be in the works, but nobody has agreed yet on which candidate to rally behind.  Michael Chong would be the most obvious option, but if leftists can't stomach Rachel Notley, how could they ever bring themselves to vote for Chong and his support for dirty coal?

Doing that would require the kind of leadership that seems to have completely disappeared from within their ranks.

We saw this most recently when NOW Magazine's Senior News Editor, Enzo Di Matteo, took a list of anti-Leitch talking points and tried to pass it off as a column.

Was he taking a cue from a certain spinner who is well versed in weaving such Daisy chains and putting them around the necks of his minions, and also has an axe to grind against Leitch's campaign manager Nick Kouvalis?

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't.  But no matter where it came from, the column clunked so badly that all it did was highlight how Di Matteo and his fellow travellers are squandering this golden opportunity.

So since they are so bereft of ideas or conviction as to need to be led around by the hand, let me do so for them.

If you want to stop Trumpism here in Canada, you need to nominate your own version of Bernie Sanders.

You need to say no to the quislings within your own party who will go along to get along and the spinners who supposedly know what they're doing.

Either embrace your crazy and fight, or suffer the fate of Hillary Clinton.

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 2016 comes to a close, the masses clamor for predictions about 2017. And why not? This past year has been such a roller-coaster of shockers and sideswipes, the masses can be excused for craving headlines a bit easier to spot on the horizon.

Lucky for you, I've devised a foolproof method for predicting the most consequential political events of the year ahead.

You see, every year around this time, beloved CTV pundit Don Martin offers his own list of predictions for the upcoming year in Canadian politics. And every time he is completely, spectacularly wrong about absolutely everything.

For example, take his 2015 list. Martin predicted Minister Julian Fantino would not run for reelection. He did. He said Peter Mackay would be appointed to a "father-friendly ambassador position" and our current American ambassador, Gary Doer, would be made governor general. They were not. He predicted prime minister Harper would make a flurry of appointments to the Senate seats he left empty. They went unfilled.

Most painfully of all, he predicted 2015 would see Stephen Harper's Conservatives re-elected to a minority government, but then unseated by a non-confidence motion a month later, resulting in a Liberal-NDP coalition government. This, needless to say, didn't happen either — to say nothing of his expectation that "all Conservative MPs in Quebec except for Maxime Bernier" would lose their seats. The 2015 election saw the Tories gain seats in Quebec.

Martin's list for 2016 was little better. He predicted Peter Mackay would run for head of the Conservatives (I suppose ditching his cushy ambassadorship), which he didn't. He said Thomas Mulcair would win "75 per cent approval of his leadership at the NDP convention" and stay on to fight the next election. He won a measly 48 per cent and announced his resignation. In Martin-world, Mulcair's refusal to step down was supposed to provoke MP floor-crossings, but in reality, Mulcair's even more audatious hanging around (surely the longest goodbye in modern Canadian politics) provoked squat.

Minister Morneau was supposed to announce a "$16-billion deficit," when in reality it's nearly twice that. Former Liberal hacks Bob Rae and Anne McLellan were supposed to become ambassadors and Justin Trudeau's approval rating was supposed to dip "below 40 per cent." No and no. The Liberal party was supposed to win power in Manitoba. They won three seats.

And of course, Donald Trump was supposed to "bow out" of the race for the Republican presidential nomination sometime before the party's summer convention. Even by the standard of way-off Trump predictions, that's a doozy.

Anyway, the point is, if you want some iron-clad assurances for what will happen in 2017, my advice is to read Martin's latest bushel of predictions and draw conclusions as far as humanely possible from what Don sees coming.

So here goes. (Keep in mind these are not personal preferences for what I want to happen, but rather things history tells us are very likely to happen, given Don doesn't think they will.)

Kevin O'Leary will easily win the Conservative leadership race, demolishing all opponents. Anxiety over his unorthodox style will provoke many senior Tories, including acting leader Rona Ambrose, to remain in Parliament to prevent his larger-than-life persona from eclipsing the party.

Thomas Mulcair will announce plans to reclaim the NDP leadership, running to succeed himself. He wins easily, intimidating all significant challengers out of the race.

There will be no cabinet shuffle. No matter how badly they perform, all of Prime Minister Trudeau's senior ministers will keep their current jobs until 2018.

President Trump will forgo tradition and not visit Canada in 2017. He will ignore our country completely and go the entire year without mentioning it one way or another. NAFTA will not be touched.

The Trudeau administration will deploy Canadian troops nowhere. Talk of future peacekeeping missions will wither on the vine as it becomes obvious there exists zero public appetite for overseas adventures.

The ethics commissioner will release a scathing report on Justin Trudeau's fundraising activities, including many damning pages detailing explicit quid-pro-quo promises made to corporate interests and extensive money laundering through the Trudeau Foundation. It becomes a gigantic scandal which consumes the headlines for months, yet the Liberals respond by doing absolutely nothing, confident they can weather the storm.

There is one prediction Don is almost certain to get right, however. No matter how much he gets wrong about 2017, come this time next year, he'll still have a job.

Photo Credit: CTV News

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.


In announcing his being completely serious about running for the Conservative leadership, Kevin O'Leary has recently adopted the spatula as his brand signifier.  "I'm going to get a spatula and scrape the crap out of Ottawa," he says, going so far as to wield one on video (price sticker still attached), and if it feels a little familiar, it's because it's yet another Conservative leadership candidate latching onto a Trump-ism.  In this particular case, it's Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington.

The problem with these kinds of promises is that they're rooted in both a fundamental ignorance of how things work in the capital, both on the part of the person making the promise, and of the general public that takes the message to heart.  When you don't understand how the system works, it's easy to be taken in with tales of shadowy cabals that run governments like chess-pieces, and to start fomenting resentment by people who think that politics is some kind of Ponzi scheme or means of self-enrichment.  While there are a lot of problems in the States when it comes to money and politics, and the influence of lobbyists, that generally does not translate here in Canada, and in no way does one go into politics in this country for self-enrichment.  Quite the opposite, in fact a great many people take a pay cut to run for office here.

O'Leary's attempt to port this narrative into the Conservative leadership race has a few added problems in translation the Conservatives have been in power for the better part of a decade, and we just had a change election federally a year ago.  It's hard to build a narrative that there is a lot of embedded crap to be scraped out when a government has only been in power for a little over a year.  As well, he has spent a great deal of time railing against the policies of Rachel Notley and Kathleen Wynne in a somewhat incoherent manner, apparently forgetting that they are provincial premiers and he's planning a run for a federal party, and the policies he would have any leverage over would do nothing for the things he's currently agitating about.

There is the possibility that O'Leary intends to take his spatula to the federal bureaucracy under the oft-repeated mantra of right-flavoured populists that they intend to run government "like a business."  If this indeed is the case, then I wish him good luck, because it's something that will never actually happen.  O'Leary has in the past stated that he wants to bring the private sector idea of accountability to politics and to tie individual politicians to their results.  It's a nice idea, and metrics on productivity in the federal government machinery are all well and good in theory, but the reality is that things have become so big and complex that it really doesn't work that way any longer.  Power structures have become horizontal because they cross between various departments that trying to tie individual accountability to outcomes is a near-impossible task.  What we have is ministerial accountability and parliament holding government to account, which is not something that fits easily into a businessman's conception of how things work.

Part of the problem with the narrative of running government like a business is that they are fundamentally different beasts, and that government does not have the same concept of a "bottom line" that a business does, nor can you just consider taxpayers to be shareholders and try to build the analogy around it.  There are also countless examples of people who've been elected on this promise to use their business skills to "fix" the government or the economy, and they're two fundamentally different skillsets that it generally goes down in flames.  Ottawans will remember the single-term of mayor Larry O'Brien, whose business acumen did not hold property tax increases at zero, nor did he "fix" anything and indeed spent part of his term in court fighting corruption charges.

And here we get back to the where civic illiteracy meets the problem of people assuming that government and business are interchangeable when they're not.  It leaves people reading into this promise to "drain the swamp" or to "scrape the crap out" what they want rather than what's realistically possible or probable.  When Trump picks people who are at the very heart of the establishment that people believed his "drain the swamp" promise would eschew, it breeds cynicism.  And because the promise is up to interpretation, you can read it that he's pushing back against some inherent "liberal" establishment, or that he's fighting back against those Republicans that he personally doesn't get along with, and this is part of what demagoguery will get you.  You fill it up with your own grievances and prejudices and believe that it will address those very items on your personal agenda when reality is that it will not and never could.

I will add that the media plays a part in encouraging these particular narratives that O'Leary and Trump are playing into, particularly when it comes to accusations of corruption.  What we're seeing in Ottawa with accusations of "cash for access" is penny-ante nonsense with no actual smoke or fire, and yet the constant focus on it feeds people's assumptions that there is corruption that a wealthy businessman like O'Leary can come in and clean-up because he won't be beholden to it just like Trump rode in on that same promise.  The problem is that Trump's children and surrogates have already been caught trying to sell million-dollar access to him and that he's been using his position for self-enrichment, whether it's getting building permits smoothed over in other countries or the like.  If this counts as "draining the swamp," then what will count for O'Leary taking his spatula to Ottawa?  Do we really want to find out what kind of damage his brand of ignorance will cause?

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.