This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Justin Trudeau
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Another day. Another dollar. Another Liberal politician attacking the British monarchy.
OK, I admit the last sentence was included for shock value! A fair number of Liberal politicians have either been monarchists or defended the monarchy since this nation was founded. That being said, one member of the Liberal government has proposed something that’s a direct attack on our British lineage – and should be defeated by all parliamentarians who respect our history and traditions.
Every new Canadian politician, elected and appointed, swears an oath of office before taking his or her seat in Parliament. This is specifically covered in Section 128 of the Constitution, which reads as follows: “Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.”
René Arseneault, a backbench New Brunswick Liberal MP, tabled a private members’ bill last year that would end this time-honoured tradition. Bill C-347, or An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), would amend Section 128 and afford members of the House of Commons and Senate to “choose to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance, an oath of office or both.” His bill passed first reading in the House of Commons on June 21, 2023. It was placed on the order of precedence on Sept. 20, 2023, and is inching closer to an inevitable second reading.
“Canadian monarchists say the bill is republicanism by stealth,” CBC News’s John Paul Tasker wrote on Jan. 3. It’s viewed as “part of a larger effort to slowly chip away at the Crown’s standing in Canada without actually scrapping the monarchy through a protracted constitutional fight with the provinces.”
John Fraser, president of Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada, specifically described it as a “stupid idea.” In his view, “doing away with the oath – it’s all based on emotionalism. I don’t think we should marginalize something that is an integral part of our system of government.” Fraser also told Tasker, “We live in a constitutional Crown system and trying to break it up piecemeal is not a good way to run a country.”
Conversely, Pierre Vincent, a former federal bureaucrat of Acadian descent who refused to take a similar oath in the public service and won his case in 2001, is onside with Arseneault’s bill. The parliamentary oath, he told the CBC, is “colonial, medieval stuff that does not coincide with our modern views of diversity and inclusion.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for his part, may see the issue a bit differently.
After the March 2021 bombshell interview between U.S. talk show host Oprah Winfrey and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a reporter asked the PM whether Canada should reconsider its ties to the monarchy. His response? “If people want to later talk about constitutional change and shifting our system of government, that’s fine. They can have those conversations. But right now, I’m not having those conversations.”
Trudeau also praised King Charles III last May as being “deeply aligned with some of the really fundamental priorities of Canadians.” The PM suggested that His Majesty is “someone who has been deeply committed to protecting and preserving nature, as someone who has shown a remarkable opennesss, understanding of the challenges of the colonial history that the Crown has been wrapped up in.” He also highlighted the King’s work “in reaching out to Indigenous leaders over the past number of years.”
Let’s be frank. Trudeau believes King Charles III’s values match his own values. Would the PM feel the same way if the UK’s head of state thought differently about Indigenous communities and the environment? Maybe yes, and maybe no.
Putting this aside, there’s no indication that Trudeau’s opposition to scrapping the monarchy has changed. It’s highly unlikely he’ll support Bill C-347. Many Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers will likely follow suit and join with Conservatives to vote down the private members’ bill on or before the third reading.
That’s a good thing.
There are certain historical traditions that should always be protected by our political institutions. The oath of office is one of them. Our country is of British lineage. We use the Westminster model in Parliament. Swearing allegiance to the reigning British monarch keeps a small amount of our roots and history intact. The oath doesn’t even affect our nation’s sovereignty, which is protected by the Constitution Act, 1982.
Meanwhile, how does swearing an oath of office before taking your parliamentary seat affect your personal and political beliefs? It doesn’t. Choice is always a good thing in a democratic society, but a ceremonial pledge isn’t a life-or-death experience that will take away your personal liberties and freedoms. I’m not a monarchist – although I believe in protecting and maintaining the historical traditions of the institution – and I wouldn’t have the slightest concern about swearing an oath to King Charles III. I strongly doubt most newly elected and appointed Canadian MPs would feel much differently.
The day’s end is almost nigh. The dollar has nearly been earned. The Liberal politician’s attack on the British monarchy will hopefully fade away in short order.
Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
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.
Welcome back to the real world, as we start the first full work week of 2024. Happy New Year!
For the three main federal party leaders, they have different imperatives to address.
For the prime minister, he needs to continue to get his government into gear to address the very real economic anxieties Canadians are facing.
Global inflation, fuelled by post-pandemic realities, is putting a real strain on family budgets. In particular, interest rates, raised to help cool that global inflation, are now one of the most acute cost pressures on families. With inflation itself cooling in the latter half of 2023, it is perhaps worth asking why the Bank of Canada’s inflation target is far lower than actual global inflation; we may well be in a scenario where the cure is worse than the disease if high interest rates continue to erode take-home pay.
More specifically, the PM needs to have every Minister reaching for the standard Housing Minister Sean Fraser has set.
In a matter of weeks, Fraser completely reset narratives, at least in expert and activist circles, on housing policy. Leveraging federal funding to incentivize — if not outright prod — municipalities to build more housing, to liberalize zoning and reject NIMBYism has been an absolute sea change for this government, and will pay real dividends over time to help increase supply and hopefully lower the cost of homes.
We can only wish every cabinet minister was this effective on policy and — critically — on communication.
There’s a scene in Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom where the Jane Fonda character tells a young executive, “You have a PR problem because you have an actual problem.” Truer words have never been spoken when it comes to the Trudeau government seeking a fourth mandate less than two years’ time. They have the runway to be competitive come October 2025, if they deal with the actual problems. Yes, they have messaging issues, but they first have to solve the policy challenges they’re facing.
For Pierre Poilievre, his New Year’s resolutions are in reverse order: his comms are crisp and effective, but sometimes way too self-indulgent. There really seem to be two Poilievre characters: there’s the really effective, YouTube or TED Talk-style explainer dude who breaks complicated issues down to understandable, visceral messaging, and then there’s the geeky jerk who shows up like he’s set to disrupt a first-year economics seminar to show off his own self-assumed brilliance.
To put it bluntly, the first Poilievre could well win. The Liberal hope is that Canadians see far more of the second Poilievre, and find him weird and off putting.
Eventually, with this general comms diagnostic in mind, Poilievre will need to put a bit more meat on the bones of a policy offering. He probably does not need to get too detailed, but a bit more than slogans, particularly to show some credibility on climate change, is advisable.
For Jagmeet Singh, it sort of is what it is. He’s a governing partner for the Liberals, his NDP is enjoying more power than it’s had since at least the early 1960s and yet he constantly critiques the government as if he’s not a de facto part of it (yes, I know, a confidence-and-supply agreement is not a coalition, but let’s be real about the machinations of how the deal works day by day).
He’s gambled on making a difference and delivering some key NDP policy goals, and we will see if that works come the 2025 election for his party. I suspect what won’t work is opposing the government you played a role in running, while also claiming responsibility for the parts of the governing agenda you like, but we shall see.
The election may be about two years away, but it’s pre-election season already.
(Finally, a note to regular readers: I’m back. Since December 2020, I’ve been serving as a ward councillor in my hometown of Bradford, a rapidly growing agricultural community and northern suburb of the Greater Toronto Area. That’s kept me busy, and perhaps a little less blunt in political opining. But, as we start a New Year, I’m happy to be back with this column, offering some hot takes and observations on #cdnpoli.)
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Canadians are opening their mailboxes with anxiety this winter. As the temperature drops, taxpayers are worried about the doozie of a home-heating bill they’ll find waiting for them on the front stoop. The numbers are scary thanks to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
In April 2023, the Trudeau government jacked up the carbon tax for the fourth straight year. The federal government’s carbon tax is now $65 per tonne.
A higher carbon tax means higher prices at the pump, the grocery store and on home heating.
On the home heating front, the Trudeau government is literally punishing Canadians for wanting to stay warm in the winter.
Just how bad are the numbers?
Sixty-two per cent of Ontario households use natural gas to heat their homes. The carbon tax bill for Ontario taxpayers living in an average-sized home will be $326 this winter.
Many talking heads in Ottawa who defend the carbon tax claim that even though Canadians are being hammered on their home heating bills, the federal government’s quarterly rebates more than make up the difference.
They tell taxpayers that paying the carbon tax actually makes them better off.
“The price on pollution puts more money back into the pockets of the majority of Canadians,” said federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault just days ago.
But the Parliamentary Budget Officer isn’t buying that spin. Neither are Canadians.
The average Ontario family will lose $627 in 2024 thanks to the carbon tax, even after the rebates, according to the PBO.
More than 50 per cent of Canadian families now say they’re less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Nearly two million Canadians turned to food banks in 2023.
Canadian families cannot afford the Trudeau government’s carbon tax, particularly on home heating.
The Trudeau government has long claimed the carbon tax is needed to help Canada meet its environmental targets. But Trudeau blew a hole in his own argument by providing a three-year carbon tax exemption for Canadians who heat their homes with heating oil.
Up to 40 per cent of Atlantic Canadian households use home heating oil to heat their homes, while only three per cent of Ontario households use that method.
Trudeau’s special exemption means those who use home heating oil (which is dirtier than natural gas) are getting a carbon tax break, while 62 per cent of Ontarians who use natural gas are not.
Trudeau’s politically-motivated exemption shows the carbon tax is all about politics. It always has been.
To add insult to injury, there’s no substantive evidence to show carbon taxes actually work.
British Columbia was the first province in Canada to impose a carbon tax. But B.C.’s emissions have gone up, not down. The province’s emissions were higher in 2021 than in 2015, despite four carbon tax increases during that period.
Ottawa is forcing a carbon tax down Canadians’ throats without evidence that it actually works.
If taxpayers think today’s carbon tax numbers are bad, life is about to get a whole lot more expensive. The Trudeau government is planning to hike the federal carbon tax every year between now and 2030. It will rise from $65 per tonne today to $170 per tonne by the end of the decade.
What does that mean for the average household?
The typical Ontario family will see their carbon tax bill on home heating grow from $326 this year to a stunning $853 by 2030.
And the gap between the carbon tax costs Canadians face, and the rebates the government plans to give, are set to grow too – from $627 this year to $1,820 by 2030.
Canadians cannot afford Trudeau’s carbon tax policies.
It’s not optional for Canadians to heat their homes in the winter and families shouldn’t have to go broke just to stay warm.
The federal carbon tax needs to go.
Jay Goldberg is the Ontario Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
