[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

BC Liberals are most certainly not Federal Conservative.  It is a coalition of Federal Liberals and Conservatives.   The balance of power between those two factions was decided in the last leadership contest.  Christy has been a Federal Liberal her whole life - literally.

Interesting.

So in the Vancouver election the two main choices were the NPA (with links to a provincial coalition of federal Conservatives and federal Liberals), Vision Vancouver (with links to provincial and federal NDP and  federal Liberals), and COPE (with links to the NDP).

Yeah so then there was no no-Liberals-or-NDP linked option, unless you went for one of the fringe groups like Vancouver First.

Re: the BC Liberals and the coalition of federal Liberals and Conservatives - is the balance of power usually up for grabs each leadership election, or does it primarily tend to go one way?

[Jacob]

Well a good starting point is how you correctly mention that the Liberals are actually Conservatives.

... though apparently they're not, according to CC. And I defer to him on that.

I don't even know where else to go.  I thought the wackiness of BC politics was common knowledge.

Let's see...  Your second Premier was Amor De Cosmos.  There's WAC "Wacky" Bennett, your premier of 20-odd years.  The continued craziness of Bill Vander Zalm.  Mike Harcourt and Bingogate.  Glen Clark and Casinogate.  Gordon Campbell and his drunk driving, but also his HST reversal.  Your general love of referendums.

Doesn't seem so wacky to me, but maybe I've just acclimatized.

[Barrister]

Well a good starting point is how you correctly mention that the Liberals are actually Conservatives.

... though apparently they're not, according to CC. And I defer to him on that.

I don't even know where else to go.  I thought the wackiness of BC politics was common knowledge.

Let's see...  Your second Premier was Amor De Cosmos.  There's WAC "Wacky" Bennett, your premier of 20-odd years.  The continued craziness of Bill Vander Zalm.  Mike Harcourt and Bingogate.  Glen Clark and Casinogate.  Gordon Campbell and his drunk driving, but also his HST reversal.  Your general love of referendums.

Doesn't seem so wacky to me, but maybe I've just acclimatized.

You're talking to a guy in a province who has only ever had four separate governments in 109 years - Liberals, UFA, Socreds, PCs.

And everywhere else it's just the same PC/Liberal/NDP dance that has been going on since time immemorial.

[crazy canuck]

Well a good starting point is how you correctly mention that the Liberals are actually Conservatives.

I suppose a better starting point is people dont even know what the Provincial Liberals are.

[Jacob]

You're talking to a guy in a province who has only ever had four separate governments in 109 years - Liberals, UFA, Socreds, PCs.

And everywhere else it's just the same PC/Liberal/NDP dance that has been going on since time immemorial.

You have a Liberal party in Alberta? I thought you were all Reformers and Wild Roses and whatnot.

[crazy canuck]

You're talking to a guy in a province who has only ever had four separate governments in 109 years - Liberals, UFA, Socreds, PCs.

And everywhere else it's just the same PC/Liberal/NDP dance that has been going on since time immemorial.

You have a Liberal party in Alberta? I thought you were all Reformers and Wild Roses and whatnot.

They even have the NDP.  I know this because they won in Neil's riding. 

[Malthus]

You're talking to a guy in a province who has only ever had four separate governments in 109 years - Liberals, UFA, Socreds, PCs.

And everywhere else it's just the same PC/Liberal/NDP dance that has been going on since time immemorial.

You have a Liberal party in Alberta? I thought you were all Reformers and Wild Roses and whatnot.

Until there is more than one Liberal in Alberta, it can't really be a "party". 

[Barrister]

You're talking to a guy in a province who has only ever had four separate governments in 109 years - Liberals, UFA, Socreds, PCs.

And everywhere else it's just the same PC/Liberal/NDP dance that has been going on since time immemorial.

You have a Liberal party in Alberta? I thought you were all Reformers and Wild Roses and whatnot.

Of course.  NDP too.  They even get elected.

The place is only slightly more rightwing than anywhere else.  It's justthat with the wonder of First Past the Post just a small tendency can mean decades of one party rule.

But back in the 90s the provincial Liberals were a real contender to win a couple of elections.

Of course these days its almost getting to the point where the PC Party can be called the "Liberal" party, but we're not quite there yet.

[Jacob]

I suppose a better starting point is people dont even know what the Provincial Liberals are.

They're some sort of political party, aren't they...?

But seriously... I've never heard of the federal Liberal connection being mentioned, one way or the other. Most of the people I know who identify with the federal Liberals have no such attachment to the BC Libs.

Is the connection something that's deliberately deemphasized (for the sake of the coalition), or is simply that the message hasn't gotten out (perhaps because of opposition attempts to cast them as Conservative with a capital C).

[crazy canuck]

I suppose a better starting point is people dont even know what the Provincial Liberals are.

They're some sort of political party, aren't they...?

But seriously... I've never heard of the federal Liberal connection being mentioned, one way or the other. Most of the people I know who identify with the federal Liberals have no such attachment to the BC Libs.

Is the connection something that's deliberately deemphasized (for the sake of the coalition), or is simply that the message hasn't gotten out (perhaps because of opposition attempts to cast them as Conservative with a capital C).

I am not sure why your friends think that.  My guess is they are too young to remember (or know) the history.

The Provincial Liberals had to distance themselves from the Federal Liberals because of how unpopular the Federal Liberals have been in this province historically.  But the fact is that while we had a Social Credit party in power everyone who belonged to the then Provincial Liberals were Federal Liberals.   When the Social Credit party collapsed, the NDP came into power and the Provincial Liberals became the official opposition every Provincial Liberal elected at that time was a Federal Liberal - which includes the existing cabinent ministers and MLA still left from those days.  Gordon Wilson then lost a leadership battle to Gordon Campbell and most of the old Social Credit support swung toward the Provincial Liberals.  It is important to note that the Social Credit party was itself a coalition of Federal Liberals and Conservatives.

As I said the recent leadership battle has reasserted the contol of the Liberal part of the coalition.

[Jacob]

Ah... yeah... okay, so the narrative I've heard is that the BC Liberals are the husk of a liberal party, taken over by conservatives after the collapse of Social Credit, as that was more convenient than starting a new conservative party.

It does sort of match the facts you set out, though with a very different interpretation.

I guess the question is to what extent the current BC Liberals are tied with the federal Liberals. It is my impression that most BC Liberal actual members, organizers and operatives align with the Conservative Party federally rather than the federal Liberals... but I guess if Christy Clark is a member of the federal Liberal party and/or draws from federal Liberal organization structures then that's off.

Where are some of the overlaps between federal and BC Liberal structures and people? This is not, BTW, me challenging you, but rather storing up ammunition for other conversations elsewhere

[Barrister]

Back when I was more politically involved, the Liberal Party was a unified organization.  If you bought a Liberal Party membership you were a member of both the Provincial and Federal wings.  The Manitoba Party was styled the Liberal Party in Manitoba (rather than "of Manitoba).  Of course I was active in Reform, which had no provincial wings, and eventually got involved with the Manitoba PCs.  The Manitoba PCs shared some informal resources with their federal counterparts, but nothing formal like dollars or membership lists.

But of course those informal connections can be huge.  One person with a good list of volunteers or fundraisers can make a huge difference.

[Jacob]

But of course those informal connections can be huge.  One person with a good list of volunteers or fundraisers can make a huge difference.

Yeah, that's my impression - that the informal overlap is much greater between the BC Libs and federal Conservatives than with the federal Liberals, and it's certainly not the same party.

But I acknowledge that CC knows more about this stuff, which is why I'm eager to hear his opinion.

[crazy canuck]

Back when I was more politically involved, the Liberal Party was a unified organization.  If you bought a Liberal Party membership you were a member of both the Provincial and Federal wings.  The Manitoba Party was styled the Liberal Party in Manitoba (rather than "of Manitoba).  Of course I was active in Reform, which had no provincial wings, and eventually got involved with the Manitoba PCs.  The Manitoba PCs shared some informal resources with their federal counterparts, but nothing formal like dollars or membership lists.

But of course those informal connections can be huge.  One person with a good list of volunteers or fundraisers can make a huge difference.

BC was the exception to that rule.  They had an express agreement with the Federal Liberal party back in the 80s (well before the collapse of Social Credit) that a person would only be a member of both the Provincial and Federal Liberal party if the person buying the Provincial membership elected to be a member of both.  Again this is historical and goes back to a time when the Federal Liberals were very unpopular here.  I am not sure if the rule is still in place but given interia it wouldnt surprise me if it hasnt been changed.

Btw I know this because back in the mid 80s when Vander Zalm introduced his anti abortion policies I tore up my Social Credit card and signed up for the Provincial Liberal party.  The person who signed me up walked me through the fact that I would never be considered a Federal Liberal (a fate worse than death back then).  He assured me that I would never end up on any Federal Liberal list.  And he was true to his word.  The guy that signed me up in the university pub all those years ago?  He was a Federal Liberal then and is one of Clarke's closest advisors now.

[crazy canuck]

Ezra Levant gets schooled by the Globe

Ezra Levant, Sun Media columnist and Sun TV commentator, has complained about a recent Globe and Mail story. He has said The Globe story is wrong and that his column is completely correct.

So let's look at the facts from a journalistic point of view. Mr. Levant wrote a Remembrance Day column that said the Greater Essex County District School Board in Ontario circulated an e-mail that, according to him, says: "Teachers should be prepared to exempt Muslim students from Remembrance Day."

Problem No. 1: Nowhere does the memo state anything like that. So his lead paragraph is wrong.

He backs up that assertion with this quote from the actual memo: "Some families may be reluctant to have their children attend your location municipality's ceremonies. Please note that meaningful alternate activities should be provided at the schools for those families who do not wish their children to participate in any Remembrance Day activities."

Do you see anywhere in that quote a suggestion that teachers should be prepared to exempt Muslim students? I don't and, as an editor, I would have asked him how you prove such a statement with no evidence in the memo.

Mr. Levant's column goes on to say that while the school board did not specifically point to any families, it pointed to two Muslim-themed websites.

Problem No. 2: This, too, is not correct. At the end of the memo, the school board says: "The Canadian War Museum has lots to offer with resources that are reflective of our Canadian nation – and our equally diverse local population." The memo then includes a link to the Canadian War Museum toolkit for teachers. It also includes a link to a website by an army chaplain on spirituality that references one Muslim-Canadian soldier's views on spiritual values and a separate link about the first Canadian Muslim woman to wear a hijab in uniform as well as photos of aboriginal, Asian-Canadian and African-Canadian soldiers and veterans.

Clearly that last thought in the memo relates to ways of promoting Canadian diversity.

You can read the full school board memo at the end of an article written last week by Simon Houpt of The Globe and Mail. The headline on it is: "Ezra Levant wrongly accuses Ontario school board of allowing exemptions for Muslim students on Remembrance Day."

In my view, the story is both accurate and fair. It includes the full memo, not just a selected paragraph, so that you can understand it fully yourself.

After the article appeared, Mr. Levant reached out to Mr. Houpt to complain that the article was wrong. He offered e-mail correspondence between his producer and the school board.

Problem No. 3: The correspondence includes the producer asking about a policy exempting certain students from Remembrance Day activities. The board spokesman answers in a narrow way about the bureaucratic policy under which accommodations can be made: through religious accommodation.

At no point did the producer ask the key questions. 1. Why did you send the memo? 2. What do you mean in the memo by some families are reluctant to attend Remembrance Day activities? Why would that be? 3. Have there been any circumstances in which families have asked to have their children not participate in the activities? If so, was it for religious reasons and what religion was that?

Had those basic journalistic questions been asked, the story might have been quite different.

Nothing in the partial memo received by Mr. Levant or in the follow-up questions justified his conclusion because it is not based on the truth.

Mr. Levant also objects to the last line of Mr. Houpt's article in which he says Mr. Levant's column ends with a call to sign a petition at a website. There supporters can purchase T-shirts. They can also buy tickets to a speech with Mr. Levant and another Sun commentator. Mr. Levant says this is wrong.

He does urge people to sign the petition at the website. The bottom of that website proclaims it as a project of another group with a direct link. That other group includes the same T-shirts and the sale of the tickets.

In my view, that is not a significant factual error and so no correction is needed.