Tag: Andrew Scheer

Posted on

Member of Unifor’s anti-Conservative political team is a newspaper columnist

I received a great deal of positive response to my column advocating for disclosure of journalists’ union affiliations alongside political stories. The catalyst was Unifor’s commitment to the defeat of Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives, conveniently timed with Justin Trudeau’s announcement of a $600 million bailout for the media industry.

I joined Danielle Smith’s show on Calgary’s 770 CHQR, where I used to guest host, to discuss my piece.

You can listen to the segment here:

After the interview concluded, I came across this tweet from Unifor:

The tweet shows a Unifor working group scheming for next year’s election. Featured in the photo are several of the union’s top brass, including its Atlantic Canada director Lana Payne.

Payne was in the infamous “resistance” photo, though I didn’t recognize her. In addition to her union duties, she’s also a regular columnist for the St. John’s Telegram in Newfoundland.

Unifor’s already succeeding in taking over the country’s newspaper pages.

Payne is an opinion columnist and not a reporter, which means impartiality isn’t required (nor should it be.) She also openly discloses her Unifor role in her columns, so this isn’t a question of her ethics as much as it’s one of her agenda.

Restrictions on third-party advertising impact what unions can say and do during elections, but Unifor and Payne seem to have found a loophole. She can publish whatever propaganda Unifor is pushing under the guise of columns written in her voice.

She isn’t just some columnist who happens to be unionized. She’s a key player on Unifor’s political action group, which has declared itself the “resistance” to Andrew Scheer and vowed to stop the Conservatives at all costs.

The Telegram has some questions to answer here. Even opinion columnists should be expected to not be water-bearers for a specific party. I’m a conservative and a former PC candidate, but I’ve still criticized both the federal and provincial conservative parties in print and on air so no one can argue my content is bought and paid for by anyone except whichever outlet publishes it.

The same can’t be said for the columns written by Unifo— I mean Payne.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Andrew Scheer’s India trip good for Conservatives but does nothing for Canada

I’m no fan of Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy, and like most around the world found myself laughing and shaking my head at the blunder that was his trip to India earlier this year. That being said, trips to represent Canada abroad are the prerogative of the elected prime minister and not opposition leaders.

I tackle this in my latest Loonie Politics column. If you’re not a subscriber, use promo code Lawton for a discounted annual subscription.

As always, here’s an excerpt:

The fact that so few people seem to be hearing about Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s visit to India means it’s probably a success.

Scheer is leading a delegation this week to promote and bolster trade between Canada and India.  Or so he says.  I don’t think it takes a political genius to figure out that the Conservatives are trying to remind people how Trudeau made such a mockery of himself and the country when he went in February.

I was on a cruise last week with dozens of American conservatives who still enjoy mocking Justin Trudeau’s ill-fated trip that somehow managed to include more costume changes than a Cher concert.

Oh, and let’s not forget the invitation extended to Jaspal Atwal, a man who attempted to murder an Indian politician in the 1980s.

Scheer’s trip appears to be assassin-free and so far features only business suits, which shows how low a bar Trudeau has set for international visits.

Just a few days in, Scheer has already sat down with a number of Indian cabinet members as well as prime minister Narendra Modi, who seemed rather disinterested when Trudeau landed in India earlier this year.  It bodes well for Scheer how close a relationship his predecessor, Stephen Harper, had with Modi.

The trip will be a win for the Conservatives, but not for Canada.  Scheer is a key player in Canadian politics, but he isn’t one in the Canadian government.  He’s in no position to negotiate on Canada’s behalf, and there’s no guarantee he ever will be.  Whether he wants to admit it or not, this trip was undoubtedly a political calculation, aimed to show Canadians he’s up for the job of being prime minister.

Unfortunately, this political move violates the unwritten rule that countries must present a unified front and speak with one voice outside their own borders.  When Scheer takes these sorts of high level meetings, he’s representing Canada, despite not having the authority to do so.

Posted on

Leona Alleslev is now a Conservative MP. But is she conservative?

My latest in Loonie Politics, which you can pick up a discounted subscription to using the promo code Lawton.

An excerpt:

While I understand the optical victory in Alleslev’s crossing, I haven’t seen anyone ask the most important question: is the newest Conservative MP actually a conservative?

On paper, Alleslev looks as though she belonged in the Conservative party from the start.  She graduated from the Royal Military College, served as an Air Force captain, and worked for the Department of National Defense and in the private aerospace sector.

She’s no doubt qualified to take on her new role as global security critic in Scheer’s shadow cabinet.

Whether she was ever a true believer in the Liberal cause we’ll never know, but she ran for that party in 2015 for a reason.  Her confidence in that party obviously changed, but I’d urge her to speak to whether her fundamental beliefs did as well.

In her departing speech as a Liberal MP, Alleslev said Canada needs “strong federal leadership to rebuild our nation’s foundations, tax reform, employment reform, a comprehensive foreign policy and a modernized military to reassure our allies and defend Canada’s interests at home and abroad.”

I agree with her that Trudeau isn’t delivering that.  But I still wonder whether she objects to the policies Trudeau is championing, or merely to his incompetence in doing so.

Read the full column here.