Justin Trudeau Archives - Page 30 of 41

As part of his year-end interview with the Toronto Star’s Susan Delacourt, prime minister Justin Trudeau reflected on the state of his party, and its ups and downs before he became the leader. When Delacourt asked Trudeau whether his inevitable departure, whenever that happens, will throw the party into a similar existential crisis to where it found itself a decade ago, Trudeau laughed off the suggestion, and insisted that the party was now in a better place because they made a deliberate decision to connect with the grassroots.

“The Liberal party … had become too much of a closed-in club, and wasn’t actually allowing Canadians to engage with it and shape it,” Trudeau told Delacourt. “It is now an open party.”

This is completely specious nonsense. The decision to eliminate memberships in favour of free “supporters” does not actually open up a party, in spite of the PR hype. Rather, it merely focuses the power in the leader—accelerating a process that has been slowly building since 1919—while claiming openness by virtue of the number of supporters who sign up. It’s pouring gasoline on the tire fire of Americanizing our political institutions, in the name of recreating presidential primaries instead of doing genuine grassroots outreach or engagement. It’s also a particularly cynical move that pretends that the size of one’s electoral database is equal to grassroots engagement. Yes, it encourages more knocking on doors, which has been key to the Liberals’ electoral success in 2015 and beyond, but this is not actual grassroots engagement.

There was nothing particularly “closed-in” about the previous system of party memberships. The nominal membership fee encouraged people to have skin in the game, and there was genuine grassroots engagement, whether it was about policy development or open nominations for whose name would appear on the ballots. I had a roommate, many years ago, who told me about how she and her friends got together and proposed a particular policy solution, it got voted by their local riding association to advance to the biennial policy convention, and from there it was adopted, and became party policy, and the party, then in government, implemented it. This is how our system is supposed to operate. The Liberal Party no longer operates like this, where policy development is a bureaucratized process with multiple levels of gatekeeping to keep the number of resolutions that arrive at a convention to a minimum, and where the resolutions amount to mere suggestions, as leaders often dismiss them out of hand. But hey, it’s free, and their database appreciates what you’re generating.

During the Liberals’ “rebuilding years,” when Bob Rae was named interim leader after Michael Ignatieff’s devastating election loss, there was a series of conversations that the party engaged in when it came to how they redefined themselves. On a journalistic assignment, I sat in on an Ottawa Centre riding association meeting one night where the members were engaged in these kinds of discussions, about what they wanted from the party, and whether they needed to “shrink” the party in order to grow it. At the same time, the party leadership was also engaged in a rethink process, which is when they happened upon the idea of open memberships, coming from the Liberal Party of Alberta, who proclaimed that it grew their database by 1000 percent. Of course, within two election cycles, that party lost all of its seats and is on the precipice of political extinction, so I remain unconvinced that this was the genius move they think it was.

There was also an impetus on Rae to try and make the party’s structure less convoluted, with jokes about how byzantine its organizational chart was. While Rae oversaw the process of open memberships, he also did centralize the party’s financial operations in Ottawa, which many saw as a common-sense development that would free those provincial and territorial organizations to focus on their ground game and policy work. In the end, a new party constitution was voted on under Trudeau’s championing in 2017, which wiped out all of the accountability mechanisms that the old federated system, as convoluted as it was, had going for it. A few dissenters pointed this out at the convention where it happened, but they were drowned out by those who were salivating at the notion of a “modern” process, and the promised gains to the party database.

Of course, we are also now seeing Conservatives agitating for the open membership concept, convinced that it will be the way that they can escape their current conundrum of being structurally beholden to their social conservative base. If anything, though, open memberships won’t be able to overcome the problem, even if they attract more “supporters” during a leadership contest, because those same social conservatives are the party’s backbone in terms of fundraising and volunteering. More to the point, it’s an indictment of the fact that the party isn’t able to attract enough mainstream members, which keeps them beholden to the social conservatives—an existential problem that they need to grapple with instead of finding a new way to populate their database.

Open memberships are not actually opening up a party. It’s merely about populating a database, and providing a means of providing more justification to a party leader who is centralizing authority, because it allows them to claim the “democratic legitimacy” of tens of thousands more supporters than the old system of paid memberships. It builds and reinforces cults of personalities instead of stable political parties. None of those are hallmarks of an “open” party, especially when those parties have taken over their own policy development process and turned it into a process of Big Data justification, and turned open nominations into central casting. Cheap memberships, a genuine grassroots system in the riding associations, and accountable leaderships are hallmarks of open parties, not the farce that Trudeau is perpetuating and trying to pass off as a democratic good.

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.

Click here for more

It feels like déjà vu all over again.

The COVID-19 fifth wave caused by the Omicron variant is spreading like wildfire and our governments were once again asleep at the wheel and slow to react. Across the country, in varying degrees, governments seem ill-prepared. Once again. The Omicron variant took the country by surprise.

Cue the provincial calls for army deployments. Cue the chaotic search for vaccination appointments. Cue the stock ruptures of rapid tests. Cue the Soviet-style line-ups to get tested. Cue the increased sanitary measures. Haven’t they learned anything over the past two years? That’s a question people are entitled to ask.

To be fair, things happened fast. Much faster with Omicron than any of the previous waves. The new variant was first detected on November 22 and reported to the World Health Organization on November 24. Two days later, the WHO designated it as a variant of concern. Travel restrictions were introduced by several countries in an attempt to slow its international spread. Canada reacted the same day, on November 26, by restricting travellers from several African countries from entering Canada.

By then, it was already too late and soon became pointless. The first case of Omicron in Canada was reported on November 28. Yet, despite media reports of the rapidity at which Omicron was spreading in South Africa and elsewhere, our politicians didn’t seem to have much concern.

For instance, despite the rise of cases, which began prior to Omicron’s arrival, reopening was still the operative word. Barely over a week ago, Premier Legault was full steam ahead with bigger Christmas parties while ordinary people, sensing things were turning, were canceling reservations in hotels and restaurants.

On December 14th, Health Minister Christian Dubé, flanked by Quebec Public Health Director Dr. Horacio Arruda, began his news conference by stating it was likely the last one before the Holidays. People were scratching their heads. Haven’t they heard about Omicron? Didn’t they know it was now prevalent in Ontario? They had, they knew, they were prudent, and they were monitoring.

Not a word on schools, which is where the November spike of cases was most prominent, especially amongst the not yet vaccinated younger cohorts. Even when they actually realized that Omicron was now out of control, on November 16, in a dramatic press conference during supper hour newscast, Premier Legault was adamant: schools were going to stay open, despite a flurry of restrictions, including smaller Christmas gatherings and restrictions on restaurant capacity. Parents shook their heads and a lot of them kept their kids home.

Two days later, another dramatic press conference and schools were being closed. Two days later, even more restrictions were brought in by the Premier. Not as dramatic as his spin doctors had floated in the 48 hours leading up to that newser, mind you. The trial balloons of canceling Christmas gatherings and imposing another curfew floated by Legault’s spin doctors did not sit well with the electorate.

Because people are fed up. They were promised, time and time again, that if they did the right things, if they followed the rules, if they got vaccinated, we would go back to normal. It ain’t happening. Our governments are just not able to react promptly and properly. But there are two other main culprits.

First, the unvaccinated, which account for more than 50% of the COVID hospitalizations despite being less than 15% of the population. Calls are growing for politicians to deal with them, perhaps Austria-style. It seems doubtful in Quebec and Ontario, in an election year.

Second, the lack of medical resources. Canada has one of the fewest hospital beds per capita in the OECD. It’s even worse if you look at ICU capacity. Politicians are afraid to overload the system. We’ve heard that over and over: it has been the number one factor in their decisions during the course of the pandemic. The number of hospital beds occupied by COVID-19 patients in Canada is around 1,100, and 500 more patients are occupying ICU beds. And we’re almost at capacity, for a country of 38 million.

Yet, health care is the biggest line in provincial budgets. The capacity of our health care system has eroded over the years, starting in 1976. Until then, the Federal Government used to cover 50% of our health costs. The Federal share currently sits at 22% under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. You would think this pandemic would make him realize that perhaps it is time to sit down with the Premiers and restore the federal health care transfers. Just so we can perhaps be ready for the next pandemic.

Click here for more

Saudi Arabia has North America’s political establishment wrapped around its finger.

Along with Israel, it is one of the few states that can commit almost any offence, and still guarantee the complete, unfettered support from almost any administration, liberal or conservative.

In Canada, for instance, Saudi Arabia reached its zenith of influence during the tenure of former Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

While in office (2006-2015), Harper made the expansion of commercial relations with Saudi Arabia one of his government’s top priorities. That prioritization later bore (poisoned) fruit, when Harper and the Saudis brokered the largest arms deal in Canadian history. It’s a deal Harper still expresses pride in, despite the fact that military arms he sold enabled the Saudis to commit countless atrocities against civilians in neighbouring Yemen.

Nothing can quench Harper’s love affair for the Saudis though. It persists to this day, even in political retirement.

Just this fall, he traveled to Riyadh for a business trip and gushed about the “profound transformation” the Kingdom was experiencing. Most telling, he expressed not one single concern about its mass executions, its crackdown on human rights defenders or its subjugation of women and girls. It was all just fawning praise from the former PM.

Of course, Harper is not the only member of the Conservative Party to cozy up to the Saudis.

Prior to becoming Conservative Party leader, one of Harper’s political lieutenants, Erin O’Toole, pledged in the 2019 election to “win some trust” and increase commercial links with Saudi Arabia. A year before that, another dutiful neophyte, the former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, appeared on a Saudi-owned television station to chastise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, after his then Global Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, for tweeting out support for the imprisoned Saudi activist and blogger, Raif Badawi.

It was a disgraceful and dishonourable move on Baird’s part; one that only served to humiliate him and severely damage his integrity, all while highlighting the Liberal’s more principled approach to taking on the Saudis. At that point, the Liberals had shown commendable nerve by suspending the arms deal that they had inherited from the Conservatives, after news broke that the Saudi Crown Prince had arranged for the brutal murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Unfortunately, the Liberal’s grit did not last long. In the face of Saudi pushback, the Liberals quickly abandoned their previous principle and became just as complicit as their Conservative predecessors. In no time at all, they reinstated the permits they had previously suspended and continued the exportation of light armored vehicles, along with sniper rifles, explosives, and other military equipment.

The political situation is much the same south of the border.

Soon after taking office in 2017, former Republican President Donald Trump snubbed traditional allies in Canada and Mexico by selecting Saudi Arabia as the destination for his first foreign trip. His government’s subsequent exportation of more than $8 billion worth of arms to the Saudis, with seemingly no regard for the immense misery and suffering experienced by Yemeni civilians – the disproportionate victims of Riyadh’s unlawful and indiscriminate airstrikes – was further proof of he (and his party’s) unbecoming allyship with the Gulf Kingdom.

For a time, the election victory of Joe Biden offered a brief moment of hope (just as it did in Canada with Trudeau’s 2015 electoral triumph) that the U.S. might pursue a more just and even-handed approach when dealing with the Saudis. In his first foreign policy speech as President, Biden declared that that the war in Yemen had to end and that his administration would be eliminating “all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arm sales.”

As you might have guessed, the public’s optimism didn’t last long.

Within a matter of months of delivering those lofty remarks, Biden had authorized the sale of $650 million of missiles to the Saudi Kingdom, along with hundreds of millions more in U.S. military maintenance for Saudi aircraft.

It was a move entirely out of the Trudeau Liberals’ playbook: promise a more humanitarian foreign policy when it is easy to do so (i.e., before an election) and then renege on your word once in office. Or in Trudeau’s case, after the first threats of financial retribution are made.

As recent history has shown, neither the centrist Liberals and the Democrats, nor the right-wing Conservatives and the Republicans, are capable of pursuing a foreign policy that is complicit-free from the war crimes and human rights abuses committed by the Saudi regime.

With the political establishment in both Canada and U.S. unwilling to stand up against the Saudi regime, it has once again fallen to the members of the public and their political champions on the social democratic left, to stand up against such immorality and demand real policy change from the status quo.

In the U.S., progressive standard-bearers like Democratic Rep. and Squad member Ilhan Omar and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders deserve credit for their legislative attempts to block Biden’s newest arms deal (together with strange political bedfellows, Republican Senators Rand Paul, and Mike Lee).

In Canada, Jagmeet Singh and his left-leaning team of third-party New Democrats deserve equal praise for their steadfast opposition of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, and for their electoral promise in general to ensure that “Canadian-made weapons are not fueling conflict and human rights abuses abroad.”

Whatever their faults, Omar, Sanders, Singh, and their fellow social democrats are at least showing some bravery and morality by speaking out against both the Saudis and their own respective governments for facilitating violence and bloodshed. That in itself is whole lot more honourable than anything on display from the political establishment these days.

Click here for more

Some say the biggest question about Canadian politics in the 2022 new year is whether PM Trudeau will still be PM when the year is over.

Others — especially among Ontario residents — might point to the impact of the June 2, 2022 Ontario provincial election on Canadian federal politics.

Setting aside the unique position of the Bloc Québécois federally, Ontario and Canada have broadly similar political party systems.

In both cases there are Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, and Greens. And the Greens, while sometimes contributing effectively to the broader public debate, are only slightly represented in popularly elected parliaments.

P.J. Fournier’s latest 338Canada poll aggregations for Ontario (“Last update: November 24, 2021”) and Canada (“Last update: December 12, 2021”) suggest key similarities and differences between the provincial and federal party systems north of the Great Lakes.

Very broadly, at this moment in the early 2020s New Democrats are more strongly represented in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario than they are in the Canadian House of Commons.

And the fate of Andrea Horwath’s Ontario New Democrats on June 2 could be one channel of provincial election impact on Canadian federal politics in 2022.

In greater detail, in Ontario, 338Canada suggests, an election held late last month would give the Ford Conservatives 35% of the province-wide vote and 55 seats in a 124-seat Legislative Assembly — for a perhaps short-lived Conservative minority government.

Meanwhile, the Del Duca Liberals would take 41 seats with 30% of the vote. The Horwath New Democrats would win 27 seats with 26%. And with 5% province-wide Mike Schreiner’s Greens would again take his one seat in Guelph.

The Trudeau Liberals won their own (second) minority government in the recent real-world Canadian federal election on September 20, 2021.

But 338Canada suggests that in a federal election held in the middle of December 2021 Liberals would do slightly better — and even win the barest of majority governments, with 170 seats in a 338-seat House (and 34% of the cross-Canada popular vote).

Meanwhile, the Erin O’Toole Conservatives would take 111 seats with 31% of the vote. Jagmeet Singh’s NDP would win 27 seats with 19% ; the BQ would take another 27 seats, all in Quebec of course; and the Greens would win 3 seats with 6% of the cross-Canada vote.

Broadly (again), in Ontario at the moment polls are suggesting close to equal popular support for Liberals (30%) and New Democrats (26%). And this suggests Conservatives can win at least minority governments with 35% of the popular vote.

Federally, Liberals (34%) have considerably more support than New Democrats (19%). And this suggests Liberals can win at least minority governments with 34% of the popular vote.

There have been several strong federal Liberal minority governments in Canadian political history, led by the likes of Mackenzie King, Lester Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau. And Stephen Harper ran two long-lived federal Conservative minority governments in the more recent past.

In Ontario William Davis managed two stable Conservative minority governments long ago in the 1970s. But these seem more like potential models for the Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa today, than anything seriously relevant for the Ford Conservatives.

In one way or another Liberal minority governments in Ottawa have typically depended most on some ultimate support from New Democrats (and before them the old Progressives of the 1920s and 1930s), to remain in office for any length of time.

Yet, as matters stand in any case, which of Liberals, New Democrats, or Greens in 2022 would support a Ford Conservative minority government in Ontario for any time at all?

And what impact could struggles over this issue in a province with almost 40% of Canada’s population have on Canadian federal politics — and the Liberal minority government in Ottawa?

Finally, if the Ford Conservatives do win at least a minority government this coming June 2, largely just because votes for the opposition Liberals and New Democrats are almost equally divided, could that nonetheless strengthen the Conservative cause in Ottawa?

Or will another longstanding political tradition prevail? Often enough Ontario voters have liked to hedge their bets (and even boost their freedom, a little?) by voting for one party federally and another provincially.

Could this ultimately mean that any kind of return of Ford Conservatives at Queen’s Park in 2022 will at least be good for the Trudeau Liberals, now greeting the new year on the banks of the Ottawa River?

Click here for more Canada

“What fresh hell,” the PM said, channeling us all as we stare down the threat of this omicron variant interrupting another holiday season.

“What fresh hell,” say I, as I prepare to write my annual year-end “hot or not” and prediction columns.

Here’s the first: my little annual tradition (defined, from my collegiate days, as “anything two men of college recall happening more than twice”) of who’s up, who’s down, and who really bothered me this year.

Justin Trudeau: Hot

The PM’s act might be wearing thin on a significant segment of the population, but his gamble to call an unnecessary election paid off, giving him his third straight win, and second straight almost-a-majority-but-not-quite mandate. He seems a bit disengaged, but his handling of COVID-19 has been a solid “good enough”, and whether he tries to keep governing for the long term or is into legacy mode, no one can deny he might be a bit greyer, but it’s still working for him.

Erin O’Toole: Not

He lost, when his job was to win. He also seems blithely unaware that he lost. I heard him speak, introducing former PM Brian Mulroney at the Churchill Society. It was unfair — the Tory grandee outclassed him in a way that was almost, inadvertently, mean.

Chrystia Freeland: Not

Count me as one Liberal not sold on her as heir apparent. She is losing the opening round of her tussle with Conservative rabble rouser Pierre Polievre. He might be over the top, and generally wrong on the economics, but he has a message about the cost of living most normal people can relate to, and even cheer on. Freeland, meanwhile, seems kind of annoyed that she has to explain why she is right, and others are wrong. Lecturing isn’t leading.

Pierre Polievre: Hot

See above.

Doug Ford: Hot

Love him or hate him or really hate him, the vast majority of Ontarians think he’s done OK this past year. It’s been far from perfect, but his heart is seemingly in the right place, and he gets things right, even if it’s on the third try. He also has a real message about housing affordability and traffic congestion. If he could fix his government’s seeming disdain for kids’ education and future, he’d be cruising to reelection. As it stands, he likely will win reelection next June, thanks in no small part to the utter lack of any spark in his two main opposition parties (see below).

Andrea Horwath & Steven Del Duca: Not

The two opposition leaders in Ontario are either invisible and being outflanked by the Tories on labour rights and housing affordability, or unexciting and without a seat. Rather than taking the fight to the Tories, the NDP and Liberal leaders seem to be shadow boxing each other for who comes in second, fighting over a downtown progressive vote at the expense of the suburbs, and trailing a Premier they despise in all key leadership metrics, from caring to competence. It’s not good. Neither oppo leader seems to have a message other than reacting to what Ford does. If they split the vote, as seems likely today, Ford will run up the middle. His opponents may be the best assets he has.

Rachel Notley: Hot

Meanwhile, in Alberta, the former Premier shows all opposition leaders how it’s done. She’s kicking Jason Kenney’s butt, and has a clear contrast message, clear leadership qualities and seems ready to govern if given the chance. Her only problem? The election isn’t tomorrow.

The Curse of Politics: Hot

The best political podcast in Canada — David Herle, Jenni Byrne, Scott Reid and a lot of swearing, Marvel comics references and old war stories — continues to delight, inform and make jogging or car drives more enjoyable. If you’re not listening, you should be.

John Tory: Hot

Calm, competent, kind, shows up to everything, cheerleads the city — the guy has grown on me, and the majority of his voters. If he runs for a third term, he’d win, and cement a legacy as Toronto’s longest-serving mayor. If he doesn’t, there’s no real heir apparent to step into the big shoes he’d leave. I hope he runs again.

Anita Anand: Hot

She’s the cabinet MVP, and the woman who got us all vaxxed, and she’s already righting the ship at DND.

Agree, disagree? Let me know…after the holidays.

Click here for more Alberta

The current atmosphere in the House of Commons is pretty volatile. Party leaders of the left and right rarely see eye-to-eye on issues. Bipartisanship seems like a figment of the imagination. Rigid partisan politics ranges around Level 3 or 4 on the danger levels – and occasionally flirts with the dreaded Level 5.

Yet, there appears to be one point of agreement on Parliament Hill. When it comes to Bill 21, no-one wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole – or any feet, for that matter.

Bill 21, or An Act respecting the laicity of the State, was introduced by Quebec Premier François Legault and the Coalition Avenir Québec on March 29, 2018. It’s the first piece of Quebec law to have ever stated the following, “The State of Québec is a lay State.”

The bill had four main principles: equality of all citizens, separation of state and world religions, the state’s religious neutrality, and freedom of conscience and religion. All religious symbols, regardless of shape and size, would be prohibited for public employees who carry weapons (police officers, prison guards, bodyguards), work in schools (teachers, principals, vice-principals), and the judiciary (crown prosecutors, government lawyers, judges).

What did this mean for Quebec? One of the world’s strongest religious societies with deep roots in the Roman Catholic Church would be transformed into a secular state.

This didn’t bother many residents in La belle province, truth be told. An Oct. 27 Ipsos poll showed that 76 percent of Quebeckers supported the previous legislation, Bill 62, which banned people wearing face coverings for religious purposes from delivering and receiving public services. In fact, 70 percent of Canadian respondents to the Angus Reid Institute’s Oct. 27, 2017 poll said they would support “legislation similar to Bill 62.”

Bill 21 passed on June 16, 2018 by a vote of 73-35. The CAQ and Parti Quebecois supported it, while the Liberals and Québec solidaire opposed it.

Religious Christians, Jews and Muslims were furious, and remain furious, over Bill 21. Organizations like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Council of Canadian Muslims filed unsuccessful challenges to overturn this provincial law. They all felt this bill was a direct attack on their religious freedom in a democratic society.   The recent removal of Fatemeh Anvari, a third-grade teacher in Chelsea, Que., for wearing a hijab in her classroom caused an eruption. It was viewed as an unfair and undemocratic decision. A growing number of Canadians wanted their political leaders to speak out and condemn it.   They haven’t, for the most part – and they won’t anytime soon.   For the record, I’m fundamentally opposed to Bill 21 and believe it’s a direct attack on religious freedom – and I’m agnostic! That being said, it’s not hard for me to understand why our political leaders want to stay out of this fight.  First, it’s a provincial matter.   Bill 21 was passed democratically. If Quebec chooses to maintain this law during Legault’s leadership and beyond, there’s not much that Ottawa can do. They can criticize it to their heart’s content, and attempt to intervene at a certain level. They don’t have the constitutional right to bring down this provincial law, however.   Second, Ottawa doesn’t want to start another war of words with Quebec.   Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has flip-flopped on several occasions in terms of getting involved in this debate. On Dec. 13, he said that he “deeply” disagrees with Bill 21 and “I don’t find that in a free and open society someone should lose their job because of their religion and this is no longer a theoretical issue.” At the same time, he stated “I think the important thing is the province passed the law and Quebecers are defending their rights through the legal process in Quebec.”

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh have basically taken similar stances. Both are frustrated on a personal level, but begrudgingly respect Quebec’s democratic right to pass controversial and non-controversial bills on a provincial level.

Third, Quebec has been (up until recently) a critical piece of the electoral puzzle.

The old political playbook in federal politics was clear: if you can’t win Quebec, you can’t win the election. Hence, parties on the left and right all tried to play nice – or pander, if you prefer – when it came to this province. Policies and programs were announced, and taxpayer money was either ear-marked or doled out. It led to frustration and resentment from the rest of Canada, causing everything from western alienation to support for booting out Quebec. When Quebeckers felt their needs weren’t being met, it led to a rise in separatism and threats to break apart Canada.

Winning Quebec isn’t the prime electoral strategy any longer. Alas, political leaders still walk on eggshells when it comes to this province. They try to avoid as much conflict as humanly possible. In the case of Bill 21, they would rather stay out of this fight than get involved and cost them a few seats in future elections.

Doesn’t make it right, of course. It makes them look weak and ineffective.

Trudeau, O’Toole, Singh and other federal leaders should band together and help bring down Bill 21. If nothing else, it would be nice to see the House of Commons sitting at Level 1 or 2, even for a short spell.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

Click here for more

Unfortunately for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his grand plans to battle climate change will inevitably run into a massive roadblock.

And that roadblock is this: in order to save mother nature, he’ll first have to overcome human nature.

My point is, even though battling climate change is a trendy and popular issue with global elites in general and with a certain precocious Swedish teenager in particular, actually implementing a plan to stop global warming will eventually run counter to every human being’s innate desire to look out for number one.

Simply put, when it comes to priorities, people will put their own immediate interests ahead of saving the planet.

Yes, I know that sounds cynical, but it’s true.

In fact, we saw an example of this recently in the United States when gas prices at the pump were rampaging out of control.

To a committed environmentalist, of course, super-high gas prices are a welcome development since it means people will be forced to consume fewer fossil fuels, which, in theory, will help stop climate change.

This is the reason, for instance, why Prime Minister Trudeau is enacting carbon taxes; he wants to “nudge” us to drive less and eventually to buy solar powered cars.

But predictably, high gas prices enraged American consumers, who apparently were not up on the latest climate change theories.

In other words, very few Americans actually said something like, “Hey, I’ll need a small bank loan to fill up my car, isn’t that great for the planet. I’m so happy!”

Indeed, so great was the anger in America that US President Joe Biden — who like Trudeau fancies himself as an eco-warrior – decided to tap into the country’s strategic oil reserves so he could flood the market with 50 million barrels of toxic fossil fuels.

Seems his rapid drop in the polls somehow made gas seem less dangerous to the environment.

Score: Human nature 1, Planet 0

At any rate, if gas prices in Canada massively surge thanks to Trudeau’s carbon taxes, he could find himself in a similar pickle as Biden.

As Canadian pollster Darrell Bricker recently noted on Twitter: “What we are seeing in our Ipsos polling. Inflation coming up like a bullet as a concern for Canadians. It’s personal and intense. COVID, climate, other issues dropping. Rearranging of public priorities has the potential to sideswipe best laid plans of governments and businesses.”

Also, human nature is at work in other countries.

For example, I strongly doubt countries with emerging economies will totally embrace the fight against climate change if doing so means their poor will have to remain poor.

This is especially true for China.

As American political humorist P. J. O’Rourke once succinctly put it, “There are 1.3 billion people in China, and they all want a Buick.”

Score: Human nature 2, Planet 0

Finally, we also have to consider the human nature of those political leaders who are pushing climate change initiatives.

Will they lead by example?

The answer to that question is likely a resounding “No!”

After all, politicians tend to come from the “Do as I say, not as I do” school of leadership.

To see what I mean, just consider the “leadership” former Ontario Finance Minister Rod Phillips exhibited during the COVID crisis.

I’m sure you remember the whole sordid story.

Last Christmas season, all the while his government was urging Ontarians to stay home for the holidays to help stop the spread of COVID, Phillips decided to secretly fly off to the Caribbean to enjoy a nice warm vacation.

Then there’s the example of Trudeau, who couldn’t resist the urge to go surfing in British Columbia on “Truth and Reconciliation Day” — a time when all Canadians were supposed to somberly reflect upon the historic grievances of Canada’s aboriginal communities.

The bottom line is politicians love the perks of office, and they’ll not give them up lightly.

What that means is we can expect the same leaders, who lecture us about the need to drive less and to lower our thermostats in the dead of winter, will continue to fly around the world in private jets and holiday in tropical climates.

Score: Human Nature 3, Planet 0.

Needless to say, open displays of climate hypocrisy will generate resentment among the general population which usually leads to bad things for leaders.

Just ask Marie Antionette.

Anyway, this is why unless Trudeau can find a way to change human nature, which is a million years in the making, his climate change plans will be guaranteed to run into serious turbulence.

Mind you, a lot of people in this country might get a kick out of seeing Trudeau fail, even if it means we’re all hit with more global warming.

Keep in mind, the joy of gloating is just a part of human nature.

Click here for more

Erin O’Toole may not be the best man at winning elections. But boy he sure can spread a rumour like no one else.

With the tenacity of a prying neighbour or a gossipy teenager, O’Toole spent much of early November spreading the bizarre, unsubstantiated story that the Liberals and NDP were planning on forming a coalition government. According to O’Toole, such an arrangement between the two parties is a “radical” concept that would require “billions of dollars of new spending to buy Jagmeet Singh’s silence” making it a “disaster” for the economy. This would make Canada a “a poor and less relevant nation” and “threaten” both “the livelihood of millions of Canadians” and “national unity” itself.

It’s quite the story and O’Toole is quite the storyteller.

But make no mistake about it: it’s all a work of fiction.

While NDP MP Charlie Angus did confirm that Singh and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had “an initial conversation” about co-operation and shared legislative priorities, a Liberal source made clear that there was no “formal agreement” nor even any ‘talk to have a formal agreement.”

Singh himself reiterated this point at a recent news conference.

When asked point blank by a reporter about the coalition rumours, Singh could not have been more categorical in his response.

“There is no discussion at all of a coalition and that is a firm no for me,” he said. “There’s not going to be any coalition at all.”

As for O’Toole, well he’s the one guilty of spreading the rumours in the first place. Or, as Singh put it, “making stuff up.”

It’s hard to find much fault with Singh’s version of events.

Most formal coalitions require the sharing of cabinet positions. And last time I checked; Trudeau allocated no positions in his bloated cabinet for NDP MPs. If he had, we might have witnessed some truly inspired cabinet appointments, like Charlie Angus being assigned to Indigenous Affairs, Alexandre Boulerice to Labour, or Singh himself as Deputy Prime Minister.

But of course, that didn’t happen.

Instead, all of Trudeau’s cabinet appointments went to his cabal of loyal Liberal followers, leaving little possibility for a coalition agreement with other parties to be hashed out.

For Trudeau – a man not particularly renowned for sharing power or for reaching across the aisle and establishing constructive relations with opposition parties – this was certainly his preferred outcome. The same goes with Singh and the NDP.

For years, the spectre of the failed 2008 coalition attempt by Stephane Dione, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe has enveloped Ottawa and suffocated any enthusiasm or mindful considerations into the merits of a coalition government. Never mind that the chief reason for that coalition’s abysmal failure was more to do with the incompetence of its leaders and the inclusion of separatists as a governing faction than anything else. The Liberals and NDP still fear another voter rebellion against them, should they attempt anything even remotely similar.

It’s a shame, because despite all the fearmongering coming from O’Toole and other Conservatives, the formation of more coalition agreements would really be a benefit to Canada’s democracy. Not only are they perfectly legitimate, but they can help foster inter-party cooperation and dial back hyper-partisanship. Furthermore, when compared to the one-party rule of majority governments (most of which rarely secure over 50 percent of the popular vote) coalitions have the added advantage of ensuring that a greater percentage of voters are represented around the cabinet table.

The strengthening of democracy isn’t the only reason to consider the formation of more coalition governments.

In the current context, a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP would have helped facilitate and accelerate the implementation of more progressive policies in Ottawa. This would benefit everyday Canadians, yes, but also the political parties responsible for implementing said policies.

After two disappointing election cycles, the Liberals must realize by now that their lack of progressive achievements – the ones that actually bolster the socio-economic well-being of working-class Canadians – are wounding them. Its probably too late now, but the influence of the NDP in a formal coalition might have been exactly what Trudeau needed to cement a more admirable and robust legacy before his inevitable retirement.

As for the NDP, they’d have received more publicity for policy accomplishments, and would gain the credibility and experience of governing in Ottawa; something that they’ve long sought after. They’d just have to be wary of being swept up by the Liberal’s token progressivism – and being punished for it later at the ballot box.

Regardless of these and other potential pitfalls, the NDP, the Liberals and indeed, all of Canada’s political parties should really get over their fear and aversion to the idea of coalition governments. They’re anything but the “radical” notion O’Toole claims they are, and voters will recognize as much when the democratic rewards from them begin to accumulate.

Plus, it would just be nice if for once the Liberals and the NDP actually gave the Conservative leader something truthful to gossip about.

Click here for more Canada

The latest federal Throne Speech opening the 44th Parliament has attracted the usual wave of criticism. Some comments are thoughtful while other complaints should be dismissed out of hand.

Those who point out the lack of emphasis on inflation, labour shortages or concerns about future deficits in the Throne Speech have raised valid points worthy of a constructive debate.

Other complaints about the vagueness of the Trudeau’s government statements are less well-founded, given the history of Throne Speeches in most parliamentary democracies. They have rarely been specific.

Mr. Singh’s constant refrain that the Liberals repeatedly promise programs and do nothing would be more compelling if he did not routinely ignore major achievements such as a national carbon levy or a substantial child care program.

The strangest epithet hurled against the latest Throne Speech that I read was “like his father, Prime Minister Trudeau is determined to establish a legacy – and hang the consequences.” Some consequence – patriation of the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms.

This criticism aligns with Erin O’Toole blasting Mr Trudeau’s ‘ideological’ approach to policy making. Funny how those words could well apply to the vagaries of Conservative policy-making.

But there remains a distinctly anti-democratic tinge to some of the criticism.

Imagine a government actually wanting to focus and implement the platform on which it just ran in the recently concluded election. Is that not the purpose of an election, to give the public choices to make?

One media commentator, writing in a national newspaper, started his column by implicitly questioning the Liberal government’s mandate to press ahead with reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, combatting climate change, new housing supports and the national child-care program.

He notes “ in the last federal election, the Liberal Party received the support of less than one-third of the voters. No federal political party has formed government with a weaker public mandate”.

The column continues that ‘the Liberals appears determined to push forward with a weak electoral mandate and despite warnings from the central bank that interests rates are about to climb’.

The commentator then suggests that the failure of the Liberals to win the popular vote in five of the last 7 elections speaks in part to ‘declining legitimacy’ of political institutions in the country.’

There are numerous caveats that should be applied to these types of analysis.

The first is recognition that the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Quebecois campaigned in favour of a host of policies which mirrored a number of these Liberal agenda items. Adding together their collective vote, almost two thirds of Canadians supported focus in these areas.

Depending whether you count the Conservative flip flops on climate change and their support for a tax-based child-care program, it would be reasonable to argue that an even greater number of the electorate support at least some of these policy thrusts.

The second is the reality of a minority government. Unless the Liberals secure the support of at least one other party (other than the Greens) for each piece of specific legislation, the initiatives will fail to pass.

With the emergence of more flexible voters, prepared to switch their votes among parties, politicians have to work harder than ever to adapt to the changing public mood rather than count on entrenched supporters.

What could be more democratic.

Cutbacks to the CERB and other Covid relief programs will be enacted because of announced support from the BQ and perhaps the Conservatives. The NDP has signalled its support for the continuation of a hybrid Parliament, thereby ensuring its passage.

What troubles me the most is the recurring suggestion that minority governments and adapting governance processes to meet Covid somehow delegitimize a government.

For centuries, whoever gets the most seats in a ‘first past the post’ Westminister system has been given the right to try to form the government. Casting aspersions about legitimacy of a duly elected government trying to advance its agenda is a far greater threat to our democratic institutions than innovative efforts of governing.

As to those critics who believe that an opposition and the media can only hold a government to account through ‘in person’ sittings of Parliament, I say welcome to the 21st century. We are working on changes to the way Canadians vote [electronic], interact with parliamentarians and the public service [virtually, electronically rather than pure paper bound and in-person processes]. We continue to explore in some jurisdictions changes to the ‘first past the post’ system to include ranked ballot or proportional representation.

Canadians so inclined can immediately access from start to finish the details of every question and important debate as well as committee sessions on widely available public channels.

As to complaints that hybrid or virtual sessions diminish the value of Question Period, its value will be established only by the quality of the questions and the analysis they are based upon.

Sadly, since the advent of broadcast sessions, all sides including the Opposition play primarily to their own constituencies. That includes the use of visual aids and theatrical pranks

To truly hold government accountable, the challenge keeps coming back to the need for better quality research, investigations and analysis. That includes raising the bar for the Opposition, media, special interest groups including business and union groups , academics and think tanks.

With broadened access to Information legislation, transparency measures such as enhanced lobbyist registries and empowered independent officers of the legislature such as the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Auditor General, the Opposition and media have never been better equipped to hold governments to account. This is particularly true in minority governments where many important committees are chaired by opposition members.

Instead, in the prevalent ‘horse race’ type of analysis, too much reliance is placed on the interpretation of public opinion polls to evaluate government programs.

There remain many challenges to democracy in Canada today. Minority government and governments following through on their current election platforms are not among them.