Liberal’s identity politics may aid Singh in BC byelection

Byelections are always exciting as national energy, issues and campaigns condense themselves into disparate ridings across the country.

British Columbia’s Burnaby South byelection, one of three in Canada slated for next month, is shaping up to be no disappointment.

Karen Wang resigned as the Liberal candidate (and is now trying to withdraw her resignation) over a WeChat message identifying her NDP opponent (also the party’s leader) by his Indian race.

I tackle this in my Loonie Politics column this week, which you can check out with a discounted subscription by using the promotional code “Lawton.”

Here’s an excerpt of the piece:

It should serve as a cautionary tale to politicians who find themselves tempted to adjust their message based on whichever audience is in front of them.

I experienced what everyone running for office must feel at some point when someone asks you a question in a way that makes it clear one answer will get you their vote and another won’t.  If your view is at odds with theirs, you have to decide whether the vote or your moral compass is more important.

Of course, if a lack of votes equates to a plethora of principles I’m in good moral standing.

Wang may have gotten carried away by that same spirit, feeling in that moment like a throwaway line about Singh’s Indian background would help win people over.

Morality aside, Wang’s case proves that those who go down this road are likely to be caught.  If you privately make a promise or a claim you wouldn’t publicly, someone is going to demand accountability at some point.

Journalists covering political stories must disclose union membership, for transparency

With less than a year to go until the federal election, Canada’s largest labour union has declared war on the Conservatives. That a labour group would side with the Left isn’t noteworthy, except this one is also the biggest union in the country for journalists.

There are 12,000 journalists and other media workers in Unifor, which characterized itself as the “resistance” to Andrew Scheer just one week before Justin Trudeau’s government announced a $600 million media bailout to ‘save’ Canadian journalism.

Not only are these unionized reporters part of an organization devoted to a particular political outcome; their employers are also on the receiving end of a fat cheque from the Liberals.

In a press release thanking the government for the money, Unifor also credited the “campaigning” of its media members for the funding.

“Unifor media workers have been talking to Members of Parliament and it is refreshing to see that they got the message,” said Jake Moore, Unifor’s media chair.

Unifor is admitting that the same journalists supposedly investigating and reporting on MPs have also spent the last two years begging them for money.

How could any sane person not see a conflict here?

This all comes as the federal Liberals fret about the threat of ‘fake news’ swaying next year’s election. The bigger threat is the influence lawmakers have on the press that’s supposed to hold them accountable.

This isn’t an indictment of every journalist. I worked for a mainstream media company for several years and know of many stellar reporters and producers who will continue to do solid and fair work regardless of the bailout and union politics.

However, remember that every unionized newsroom has a steward with a role in writing or broadcasting stories that shape the national conservation. Which will win out—union propaganda or journalistic ethics?

These question marks harm media consumers and the industry itself, further eroding the already precarious public trust in the media. Readers have no way of knowing who is beholden to whom. While individual biases can’t be erased, there can be more transparency.

Every unionized reporter in the country should disclose their union affiliation and any role they have within the organization within any stories connected to issues the union has a position on. For Unifor, that would be any political story whatsoever.

This is a natural extension of the disclosures that would be required for any other potential conflicts, allowing readers to understand the context from which a reporter is approaching his or her coverage.

Were it a member of a gun rights group covering a matter of firearms policy or someone in a province’s law society writing about an issue on which the society has taken a stance, readers—and editors—would justifiably demand transparency. Why should union members get a pass?

In the interests of disclosure, my wife is a newspaper reporter with membership in Unifor. I gave her a heads-up that I was mentioning her, but she wasn’t involved in this piece in any other way. (I may be sleeping on the couch tonight.)

Outlets themselves must be transparent about how much they receive in support from the federal government once Trudeau tax credit programs are operational. Though it would be far more productive for media companies to say no to reject the funding outright.

Specific journalistic guidelines vary from outlet to outlet, but one universal theme in all the policies and practices I’ve seen is the importance of being not only free from conflict, but even the appearance of conflict.

If as the old adage suggests, he who pays the piper calls the tune, anyone expecting fairness from journalists in the coming year is in for a rude awakening.

Canadians will soon see that he who pays the paper calls the tune.

Her Excellency excels at raiding the government purse

I had no idea Adrienne Clarkson was still working for the people of Canada. Now that I know how much it’s costing, I’d rather she just retire.

I tackle the scandal of mounting expenses for former vice-regal representatives in my latest Loonie Politics column, which you can read here if you’re a subscriber.

(If you’re not, consider signing up with promo code ‘Lawton’ for a discounted subscription.)

As always, here’s an excerpt of the column:

On behalf of Canadian taxpayers, let me say on the record that I don’t think any of us were aware former governor general Adrienne Clarkson was still working for us.

The woman once styled as Her Excellency now only excels at raiding the government purse, to the tune of over $1.1 million since she left office 13 years ago.

It’s a wonder she’s not the most visible woman in Canada.  The way she describes things, she’s been on a 19-year public service binge.

I’m not saying she isn’t doing anything.  Despite turning 80 in a few months it sounds like she keeps quite the calendar.  Even so, I wonder how this robust workload justifies up to $206,000 per year in government funding for administrative support above and beyond her government pension and private sector income.

More importantly, who’s asking her to do all this for us?  I’d be content to let her rake in the money from lucrative public speaking engagements and her work with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship.  Instead, I and all Canadians are subsidizing this private sector career by bankrolling the unspecified administrative services she receives.

NDP makes brazen pitch for censorship

As time passes, the fringe becomes mainstream. This is happening with efforts of the rabid anti-free speech Antifa types, who now seem to have an ally in a federal political party in Canada. The NDP has adopted the position that former White House advisor Steve Bannon should not be allowed to participate in a debate scheduled tonight in Toronto.

It shows how unserious the NDP really is, but that doesn’t mean it’s brazen opposition to free speech isn’t a serious problem.

I tackle this in my latest Loonie Politics column, which subscribers can read here. If you aren’t a subscriber already, use promo code ‘Lawton’ for a discount.

Here’s an excerpt:

Allowing these ideological clashes to happen is paramount for any free society to be able to challenge its paradigm.

Far too many people don’t want this or any other contentious debate to go on.  Since Munk Debates announced the Bannon-Frum square-off, self-styled anti-fascist groups have tried to get it shut down.  These calls became far less fringe when NDP member of parliament Charlie Angus said this week that Bannon’s invitation should be cancelled “out of respect” for the victims of last weekend’s horrific synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh.

So far as I know, Bannon had nothing to do with the attack and wasn’t even in Pennsylvania at the time, but somehow his presence in Toronto would be disrespectful to the families of slain Jewish worshippers, Angus says.

An NDP spokesperson told CBC that Angus’ comments reflect the party’s position.

I suspect the NDP’s stance was the same last week, but the Pittsburgh tragedy gave Angus the political cover to promote an agenda of silencing others.

Freedom of speech means controversial people can express controversial opinions.  It also means anyone can decide whether or not to entertain those views.  Yes, it even gives people the right to criticize a platform being afforded to someone.

This process becomes censorship when the force of the state is weighing in.  The NDP may not be in power right now, but it’s a party seeking to govern Canada.  As such, Canadians should be concerned if it has an official stance that anyone’s speeches should be shut down.  If it’s Bannon today, it’s someone else tomorrow.

In conversation with Maxime Bernier

It’s only been two months since Maxime Bernier walked away from the party he once tried to lead to launch the People’s Party of Canada.

In that time, the PPC’s membership has increased, as has its war chest despite not yet being allowed to issue tax receipts. Though Bernier has attracted continued criticism from the mainstream media, and his former colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada.

Though no poll has shown the PPC as being near victory, the party has momentum and energy. This poses challenges for the Conservative campaign and for right-leaning voters.

It’s still not clear what impact the PPC will have in the narrative of next year’s election campaigns or in the results themselves. Even if the PPC doesn’t win, it could damage Conservative campaigns in ridings with historically narrow margins.

As a longtime conservative, this possibility hasn’t sat well with me. I wanted to challenge Bernier on the impact his party is having on the broader conservative movement in Canada, and also allow him to articulate his vision for Canada in his own words.

I supported Bernier in his leadership bid, and also supported him against critics earlier this summer when he started speaking out on immigration and diversity issues in Canada. Though I’m sympathetic to his ideas, I’m not a fan of having a fractured right again.

I explained to Bernier’s team that I wanted to tackle these in an in-depth interview for the True North Initiative. They were excited for the opportunity, as was I.

In this interview, I put the questions that matter to Canadian conservatives to Bernier.