Tag: Loonie Politics

Posted on

The Liberals want to end fake news, but who decides what that is?

If you’re singing the fake news blues, the federal government wants you to believe it has the answer.

My Loonie Politics column this week tackles the announcement made by a panel of cabinet ministers laying out how the Justin Trudeau’s government plans to safeguard this year’s federal election.

You can read the full column here if you’re a Loonie Politics subscriber. (If not, use promo code ‘Lawton’ for a discounted subscription.)

Here’s an excerpt:

Canada’s long-awaited answer to foreign interference in elections has arrived, but it seems to create an opening for domestic meddling — by the government itself.

With nine months to go until this year’s federal election, a team of ministers from Justin Trudeau’s cabinet announced this week a “sweeping series” of measures aimed to safeguard Canadian democracy.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally I don’t know, but a glaring question remains after the government reiterated its commitment to purging misinformation from social media sites: who decides what misinformation really is?

Facts are black and white, but interpretations of them aren’t always so clear, especially when politics is concerned.

Most people would agree social media companies should spike content posted by Russian bots falsely linking politicians with criminality.  But what about content that isn’t as easy to parse?

Such as a claim that a carbon tax is nothing but a cash grab.  Or a study critical of the government’s track record on economics.  Or someone saying the Liberals have been dishonest about their balanced budget plans (or lack thereof.)

These all sound like critiques that fall within the boundaries of civilized debate, but they share something in common: all were called “fake news” by high-ranking government officials.

Posted on

Canada has a new food guide. Does anyone care?

Canada’s new food guide has been published at last, to much fanfare from the media and nutrition industry.

There’s good reason to celebrate the content, as it’s based on science and not special interests.

But even if the advice in the guide checks out, the value of having a national food guide is still questionable. Does anyone look to it, or the government more broadly, for guidance on what to eat?

I tackle that in this week’s Loonie Politics column, subscribers can read here. If you aren’t a subscriber, use promo code “Lawton” for a discount.

An excerpt of this week’s piece follows:

The arrival of Canada’s new food guide raises one key question: who’s looking to the government for guidance on what to eat?

And how many millions of dollars were spent telling us what we already knew?

The much-ballyhooed guide differs starkly from what it’s replacing.  Gone are specific daily portion recommendations, as is the breakdown of the four food groups on which most Canadians were raised.

I’m sure you can still picture the rainbow posters on a health class wall.  Under the previous guide, most recently updated in 2007, an adult male was told to have eight to 10 fruit and vegetable servings each day, as well as eight grain servings, two dairy items and three portions of meat and alternatives.

Pretty much every diet expert alive says products like bread and bagels — promoted under the former guide as equals to rice and quinoa — should be consumed in moderation.  Certainly not in almost the same numbers as vegetables.

The former guide also had canned fruits and fruit juices — often heavily processed and riddled with sugar — weighted equally to raw green vegetables.

If I consumed nothing but 1.25 litres of orange juice, eight slices of bread, a can of evaporated milk and six tablespoons of peanut butter in a day, I would be keeping with the topline standards of the guide.

And no, I haven’t tried.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Notwithstanding clause a much-needed tool to fight judicial activism

When judges overstep their bounds, elected governments need to fight back. That’s exactly what Premier Doug Ford did by deploying the notwithstanding clause, as I discuss in this week’s Loonie Politics column.

As always, an excerpt is below, but please pick up a subscription (only $40 a year using the promo code ‘Lawton’) to read the full piece and the stellar work of my colleagues.

What started as a deflation of a bloated Toronto city council has now become a weapon against judicial activism.

Premier Doug Ford has thrown down the gauntlet to the courts based on a very simple premise: he was elected to govern Ontario, and they weren’t.

That a bill about one city’s municipal election has ignited a national constitutional conversation is proof that the process by which a law comes to be is often more important than the specific law in question.

As a non-Torontonian, my life wasn’t changed with the passage of Bill 5, the Better Local Government Act, last month.

But for the 509 declared candidates and the two or three Toronto voters paying attention to municipal politics in August, the bill was undeniably disruptive.

But there’s a difference between something being a disruption and it being unconstitutional.  That distinction was lost on Judge Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who ruled on Monday that Ontario government “has clearly crossed a line” with its decision to cut Toronto’s council from 47 wards to 25 just a couple of months before the election.

Hours after the decision, Ford responded with a historic vow to reintroduce the legislation with the notwithstanding clause, which his government did on Wednesday.

It’s a tactic never before employed by an Ontario government.  The lack of precedent notwithstanding (sorry), the clause in question is still a valid tool afforded to premiers, and has been for nearly four decades.

I can’t help but laugh at the left’s accusation that Ford has trampled on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it’s that very charter that contains the notwithstanding clause.  It was specifically carved into the document so provinces could maintain autonomy and protect themselves against overzealous interpretations of Charter freedoms.

Posted on

Discount Maxime Bernier at your peril

A part of me feels as though I’m spending too much time writing and talking about Maxime Bernier and his exit from the Conservative Party. But, at the same time, it’s one of the most interesting–and potentially disruptive–episodes of Canada’s politics for several years.

While I will endeavor to diversify, I also won’t apologize for shining the necessary light on this, especially as what it is Bernier is creating continues to become a bit more clear. In my Loonie Politics column this week, I look at Bernier’s fundraising success right out of the gate, and also the polling that’s showing he’s making an impact. As I note, there’s no guarantee he’ll maintain that support for the next 13 months, but it’s a start that should worry the Conservatives.

You can read the full column at Loonie Politics, for which you can pick up a discounted subscription by using the promo code ‘Lawton’.

A Nanos poll, commissioned by the Globe and Mail, found Bernier’s as-of-yet-unnamed party enjoys 17 per cent support among Canadians, with 12 per cent unsure.

This is far from majority — or even minority — government territory, but it’s a strong enough showing for him to be a spoiler for the Conservatives, or, if the number increases, a potential official opposition leader.

What Bernier is able to accomplish electorally will depend not only on his support, but also the distribution of it.  He’ll be able to win votes in Quebec that are generally closed off to conservatives.  His support in Alberta will be strong.  In Ontario, where Conservatives sometimes win with razor thin margins, he has the potential to sabotage the Conservative Party of Canada’s path to a majority.

Anyone telling a pollster this far out from an election that they’ll vote for Maxime Bernier’s party irrespective of its name, platform, candidates and debate performance is either a diehard supporter or someone merely flirting with an exciting, new anti-establishment party.

A fuller picture of what the party is all about will help cement new supporters, but it may also lose support from the fair-weather types who so readily boarded the Bernier bus.

This is all to say that no one should count him out.  Not Andrew Scheer, not the media, and not the Liberals.

This isn’t a prediction, but a warning.  Ignoring or downplaying grassroots movements is an easy way to look like a fool.