On any given day, it can be difficult to feel good about Canadian democracy — particularly if the day includes a session of question period, Parliament’s regularly staged (but poorly acted) exchange of shouted platitudes and rote umbrage.
But it could be much worse, as a glance at the United States over the past week would make clear — and not only because Washington has been consumed by President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
The American example of late is a useful benchmark these days for measuring the relative efficacy of Canada’s institutions. It also offers a stark warning against complacency.
To start, ask yourself which you prefer: the prime-time partisan spectacle of a State of the Union address or a speech from the throne — where the leader of the government is made to sit quietly in a wooden chair while a statement of the government’s priorities is read flatly by a representative of the country’s distant, but deferential, head of state?
As U.S. President Donald Trump finished his state of the union address on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of his speech. Tensions between the White House and the Speaker heightened as Pelosi led the impeachment case against Trump. 0:35
As the Conservative Party of Canada entered the third week of a leadership contest that will take six-and-a-half months to complete, the Democratic Party in the U.S. had only just completed the first round of a presidential primary that has already been running for a year — and may not be decided until late April, after a series of staggered and separate state-level contests.
Notwithstanding the mathematical mess of last week’s caucuses in Iowa, the race could swing in a month with the official entry of Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who is spending millions of dollars of his own money to finance a late bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
The weight of wealth in politics
Bloomberg’s candidacy is only remotely viable at this point because of his immense personal wealth — an asset that would not help him much in Canadian federal politics, where leadership candidates can only put $25,000 of their own money toward their campaigns, and where donations are capped at $1,625.
Whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be, he or she will have to contend with the historical oddity of the Electoral College — an institution that has, twice in the past 20 years, awarded the presidency to someone other than the candidate who actually won the most votes. But even if that Democrat wins the election this time, the new president could struggle to implement an agenda in the face of two separate and elected legislative chambers — along with the structural and procedural obstacles that make it difficult for anyone to do much of anything in U.S. federal politics.
Supreme Court justices wait for the throne speech in the Senate chamber in Ottawa, Thursday, Dec. 5, 2019. Our political institutions may be boring – but at least they work. (Chris Wattie/The Canadian Press)
The Canadian system is very far from perfect. Excessive party discipline still dulls the minds of politicians (and all those who are exposed to the endless repetition of partisan talking points). The access-to-information system remains more of a notion than a functioning tool for transparency. Proponents of proportional representation will never stop pining for the way they do things in many European countries.
Canada has also been lucky. Twenty-one years before Brexit upended the United Kingdom, Canada narrowly avoided a break-up over our own referendum.
A system that works (mostly)
But there are many aspects of government here that seem to work better than what we’re seeing in the other large, multicultural democracy next door.
The boundaries of electoral districts in Canada are drawn by independent, non-partisan commissions. Political donations and spending activity are strictly regulated and elections are overseen by an independent national agency.
The electoral system produces governments that can implement the policies they promised to pursue, and those governments are replaced at regular intervals. The ability of a xenophobic or nationalist party to gain power is significantly limited by the combination of first-past-the-post and a large number of ridings where visible minorities represent a signification share of voters.
An independent and appointed Senate acts as a check on the House of Commons, while still generally deferring to the elected chamber, thus avoiding the sort of gridlock common in the United States. Our unelected head of state’s appointed representative eschews politics, represents the nation, acts as a backstop to settle disputes over who should govern and imposes a measure of humility on the prime minister.
Whatever its flaws, the Canadian system works far more often than it doesn’t.
A vote of confidence
In 2018, 70 per cent of Canadians said they had confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared to just 37 per cent of Americans. Over the last three years, Canadians’ confidence in the national government has been higher than reported public confidence in any other G7 country.
The current state of affairs in the United States is not entirely the result of its institutions. America’s problems go much deeper and include a fractured media environment.
But it’s fair to wonder how much better off the United States might be with a different set of institutions, and whether Canada’s institutions might have something to do with whatever success this country has achieved.
Warning signs
This isn’t a moment for self-congratulation. If anything, what’s happening to American politics right now should serve as a warning of how far a democracy can stray into dysfunction. And it’s not hard to find similar warning signs in Canada.
Just last week, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet casually questioned the credibility of federal judges when the issue of minority rights briefly became a point of open battle between the federal government and Quebec.
Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-François Blanchet recently questioned the independence of federal judges. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)
As Michael Valpy and Frank Graves wrote last week, the opinion gap between Liberals and Conservatives on issues like climate change and immigration is growing. While public satisfaction with democracy in Canada remains relatively high, it has dropped significantly in Alberta. And the Teck Frontier project is now being spoken of both as a referendum on the rest of the country’s support for that province and as a test of Canada’s willingness to combat the global threat of climate change.
Canada’s parliamentary system might be better suited to deal with polarization, but no system is foolproof. In ways big and small, the quality of a country’s politics ultimately depends on the goodwill and discretion of its participants, and the faith and vigilance of its voters.
Whatever solace can be taken from Canada’s relative ability to function, the abiding lesson of this moment is to take nothing for granted.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
