Categories for Feature

Comments (38)

Governments defeat themselves.

But opposition parties can defeat themselves too. And, this past week, the Conservative Party of Canada was busily doing just that.

Three well-known Conservative MPs — one of them a two-time leadership contender — met with Christine Anderson, a member of the European Parliament from the Alternative for Germany party (AfD). The three Ontario Conservative MPs, Leslyn Lewis, Dean Allison and Colin Carrie, are seen smiling as they stand alongside Anderson, who is on a cross-Canada tour.

Big deal, some might say, and have. But Anderson — and the AfD — are extremists, and the meeting led to a condemnation by Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA).

Wrote CIJA: “We’re deeply concerned by CPC MPs Leslyn Lewis, Dean Allison [and] Colin Carrie meeting with Anderson – a member of the far-right German AfD party known for Islamophobic and anti-immigrant views. We raised this directly with [the Conservative Party].”

Lewis, Allison and Carrie can be (and have frequently been) dismissed as fringe kooks within their own party. Last year, when leadership contender Lewis likened vaccination to — as another Conservative leadership contestant put it, “being tortured in a Nazi concentration camp” — she was condemned widely. The Jewish Independent, among others, called her words “irresponsible and base.”

Colin Carrie, for his part, last achieved fame when he told the Commons the “subversive” World Economic Forum (WEF) organization had “infiltrated” the Liberal government — adding that the WEF had “penetrated more than half of Canada’s cabinet.” Which earned Carrie condemnations by other opposition MPs.

Allison, meanwhile, has promoted his links to anti-vaccination types — among them Paul Alexander, a Canadian who worked for the Donald Trump administration in the U.S., and who famously called for American health officials who advocated for vaccines and public health measures to be imprisoned.

So, a trio of Canadian kooks met with a European kook. Does it matter? When one examines the words and deeds of Anderson and her AfD it does.

A summary:

— Anderson has attacked Muslims on social media, calling Muslim immigration “billions in costs for the welfare state.” She supports Russia over Ukraine. She’s participated in street marches organized by PEGIDA, a group whose acronym stands for “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the Occident.” PEGIDA has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “far-right, anti-immigrant street movement.”

— Her AfD is anti-immigrant, anti-Islam and — often — anti-Semitic. Formed in 2013, the AfD has already established itself as a force in Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, and the European Parliament.

— Two years ago, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution called the AfD “a right-wing extremist endeavour against the free democratic basic order” and as “not compatible with the Basic Law,” and actually placed it under intelligence surveillance for being an extremist group.

— Evidence of the AfD’s extremism isn’t difficult to locate. The Anti-Defamation League has described it as “proudly extremist, anti-immigrant, and anti-minority [and] its leaders have made anti-Semitic statements and played down the evil of the Nazi regime.”

— Its party leaders have called Holocaust memorials “shameful.” They have dismissed the horrors perpetrated by the Nazi regime as “bird shit.” They have defended former Canadian Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, and promoted the notion that “not a single Jew” died in the Nazi gas chambers. They have referred to Jews as “Satanic elements in the financial oligopoly” who have “political control over Germany.” They have said of Auschwitz and refugees: “Both are wrong.” And so on.

There is much, much more about Anderson and her AfD online. Lewis, Carrie and Allison could have found it in a simple Google search, as this writer did. There, too, they would have found Israel’s ambassador to Germany adamantly refusing to meet with Anderson’s party because they are “highly insulting for Jews, for Israel and for the entire issue of the Holocaust.”

So why did Leslyn Lewis, Colin Carrie and Dean Allison meet with the AfD’s Christine Anderson?

After the Toronto Sun brought the issue to his attention, Pierre Poilievre strongly condemned Anderson and the AfD. The three MPs then rushed out a tweet, claiming they didn’t know about the extremism views of Anderson or her party.

But few will believe that claim.

Do governments defeat themselves? They do, they do.

And, this week, the opposition Conservatives were defeating themselves, too.

— Warren Kinsella is the author of the national bestseller Web of Hate.

Comments (51)

Is Canada broken?

Most Canadians apparently think it is.

The political debate about whether the country is broken or not has been going on for a few weeks, now. On the one side is Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who says that it is – or, at least, that it “feels” broken.

On the other side is Liberal leader Justin Trudeau who says Canada isn’t broken at all.

Back in November, Poilievre told a press conference that “most everything in Canada is broken and Justin Trudeau carries a good deal of the blame.” A few days later, Trudeau responded, telling lobbyists and staffers at the annual Liberal holiday that “Canada is not broken.”

Then, after the Christmas break, and as the Tories were kicking off a two-day caucus retreat, Poilievre doubled down. Said he: “Everything feels broken.” Pause.“Oh — I just offended Justin Trudeau. He gets very angry when I talk about these problems.”

Trudeau was unmoved and unimpressed. In late January, the Prime Minister said: “Mr. Poilievre has no real solutions. He’s just trying to exploit people’s anger and concerns. When you twist the facts or make things up for political gain, that’s not responsible leadership.”

The punditocracy weighed in on one side or the other, as it always does. (This writer, for what it’s worth, opined that the country isn’t broken – its politics and politicians are.)

Inevitably, the pollsters decided to step in to name the winner of the debate.

And: it’s Pierre Poilievre – and it’s not close, either. Because most Canadians agree with him. To them, the country indeed feels broken.

The pollster Leger went first. They issued a survey last week, and it found that nearly 70 per cent of respondents – across Canada – agreed with the view that “Canada is broken.” A whopping 30 per cent even told Leger that they “strongly agreed” the country was broken.

Four per cent said they were happy. Thirty-seven per cent said they were only “somewhat happy.” And the majority – 50 per cent – said they were very or somewhat angry.

Abacus, another polling firm that tends to offer optimistic perspectives on the Trudeau government, got into the field. They asked 4,000 Canadians for their opinions on the “Canada is broken” argument. And, in the resulting poll released Thursday morning, they found that Leger got it right.

Abacus’ numbers spell big, big trouble for the sunny ways of the Trudeau regime. The Ottawa-based firm found that nearly 50 percent of Canadians are dissatisfied with Canada – and more than 20 per cent of them are “very dissatisfied.”

Out on the prairies, where Poilievre does well and Trudeau doesn’t, the dissatisfaction with the country was most pronounced – around 60 per cent in Alberta and Saskatchewan. But over in vote-rich Ontario, things aren’t going too swimmingly for Trudeau’s side of the debate, either: there, nearly 50 per cent aren’t happy at all.

What’s causing the unhappiness, the dissatisfaction, the “Canada is broken” sentiment? It varies from region to region, and demographic to demographic – which explains why Poilievre cleverly points to an array of issues as the source. Crime, cost of living, taxes, even airline travel woes: Poilievre now regularly offers up a laundry list of misery, and it gets heads nodding.

And not just older white and white-haired heads, either. The polls show that Poilievre – who remains unpopular with female and Quebec voters – is beating the even-more-unpopular Justin Trudeau because he is talking about the main issue Canadians outside of Ottawa are talking about.

Namely, that Canada is broken.

Because Canadians increasingly think it is.

[Kinsella was Jean Chrétien’s special assistant.]

Comments (20)

Comments (16)

He’s gone.

And we don’t even have to say who. You already know: John Tory.

Full disclosure: I’ve known him — and been friends with him — for 25 years. I helped run two of his campaigns, in 2003 and 2018. I stepped away from his 2022 campaign because (tellingly) he had closely associated himself with a political bottom-feeder.

I didn’t know about what he blandly called “a relationship” with a woman to whom he was not married. I was shocked by that.

I was appalled, too, when the Toronto Star transformed itself into a broadsheet Drudge Report, and broke the “story” that every newsroom in Toronto had known about for weeks. I was proud, however, that my own editor refused to let this paper get down in the muck with the Star.

Oh, and this: I’m not worried about John Tory, and you shouldn’t be, either. He’s a white, wealthy man of privilege, and he’ll get by.

Personally, I’m more preoccupied with his wife, an extraordinary and decent person I have also known for a long time. His kids, too, who are wonderful.

For what it’s worth, I also sympathize with the unnamed young woman, who I don’t know. She doesn’t deserve to get the Monica Lewinsky treatment, with her life turned into a punchline. But that sordid process now seems to be well underway.

I told John Tory he needed to resign, and — when he seemed to be wavering — I also told him I would publicly condemn him if he didn’t. But, as he promised, he formally tendered his resignation right after his administration’s $16-billion budget passed. So, that’s settled.

What isn’t settled, however, is the state of Canada’s biggest city. Because, in the Tory years, some things got manifestly worse in Toronto. And, now that he’s gone, I am conflict-free to write about them.

There are five main ones. Each represent a critical failure of leadership over the past eight-plus years.

CRIME: Under Tory, crime got dramatically worse. Period. Every category of violent crime surged. And while murders have dipped slightly in recent years, Tory was at the helm when the city endured a record-high 98 homicides in 2018, smashing a record that had stood for 28 years.

You don’t need to hear the shocking litany of crime statistics to know the truth — in Toronto, crime has become a veritable growth industry. Everyone has heard about the seemingly never-ending stabbings and beatings and robberies. What they haven’t heard, from anyone at City Hall, is an intelligent and practical plan to combat crime.

GRIDLOCK: As in every other major city in the world, the pandemic scared the public away from public transit in Toronto. It isn’t clear if they will ever return because of that, and the near-daily reports of assaults and attempted murders in the transit system certainly haven’t helped matters.

What is clear, however, is that Toronto’s streets, always congested, have become much more so. The city’s total inability to plan, along with its addiction to development fees — and its Byzantine fetish for bike lanes where they are unwanted and unneeded — have rendered Toronto streets virtually impassable. Toronto is getting more and more people every day, and not all of them can ride a bike to get around. Those people deserve less gridlock, and an easier way to get to work, school and the like.

DECAY: Toronto politicians famously like to describe the city as “world class” — whatever that means. But if it means a clean, attractive, prosperous city? Well, Toronto is no longer that.

Overflowing and neglected trash bins. Graffiti and vandalism in every neighbourhood. Shuttered and/or bankrupted businesses. Decline, debris and decay everywhere you look. But we sure have a hell of a lot of cannabis stores. There’s that.

Meanwhile, the services for which Toronto residents pay plenty of taxes are too often nowhere to be seen. Apart from trash and recycle collection, what service do city residents regularly get in exchange for the tax dollars they fork over? Precious little.

FINANCIAL PROBITY: The city has a spending problem. As my colleague Brian Lilley has often pointed out, spending by the city’s managers is essentially out of control when compared to inflation. And the city counts far too often on the province and Ottawa to bail it out.

While this year’s city budget passed relatively quickly, municipal leaders need to exercise more restraint and better judgment. Look at their announced plan to change the name of Dundas Street — at a cost of more than $6 million. Now it turns out their sole reason for doing so — Henry Dundas’ alleged support for the slave trade — is very much in question. Not impressive.

VISION: Taxpayers actually don’t ask for much. And they don’t expect that every wish on their list will always be fulfilled. What they do want, however, is leadership that stands for something. They want a leader, or leaders, who possess a vision for the future, and a plan for executing it in the present.

That necessarily means saying no to some vested interests. That necessarily means planning the way households do — with a budget, and a timeline. That means possessing a real, honest-to-goodness vision.

Because of crime, because of decay, because of reckless spending and decision-making, Canada’s biggest city needs the best leadership it can get.

John Tory very often provided that, but sometimes he and his administration just didn’t (see above). The historians will write his chapter soon enough.

Toronto residents need to start thinking about their city’s future — because, right now, that future is unwritten.

Comments (21)

Comments (58)

What happens when a political party loses its mind?

It can happen. It has happened. Often.

The Conservative Party produces ads mocking the facial deformity of Jean Chretien, and gets reduced to two seats. The Liberal Party selects a leader who hasn’t lived in Canada in decades, and gets reduced to third place, for the first time in its history.

The leader of Alberta’s United Conservative Party sides with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine, and is pilloried internationally. The B.C. New Democrats run fake charities to funnel money to themselves, and end up on the receiving end of criminal prosecution.

And now, the once-mighty Ontario Liberal Party wants to recruit a new leader.

From another political party.

Unless you’re a political junkie with a lot of spare time on your hands, it’s possible you haven’t heard about this profoundly, deeply stupid stunt. Nobody really pays attention anymore to the once-mighty Ontario Liberal Party, after all. Not even in Ontario.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is part of the reason. He’s won two majorities in a row because he’s shrewdly captured a sizable chunk of the Liberal voter base — both federal and provincial.

But another part of the reason why you, we, don’t care about the Ontario Liberals — why they lost party status under Kathleen Wynne, and repeated that pathetic result with Steven Del Duca — is easy to ascertain.

They did it to themselves.

Their open letter to Mike Schreiner, the current leader of the Ontario Green Party, is a prime example of the idiocy that now grips the party of former leaders.

David Peterson and Dalton McGuinty: neither of those two men, who were proven winners, would ever countenance what various party big names have done – praise another party, and diminish their own.

The letter was sent even after Schreiner had said no. It was signed by myriad Wynne-era luminaries like Deb Matthews, Greg Sorbara and Peter Donolo. Wrote these political geniuses: “We are taking this unprecedented step — to reach outside our ranks to urge you, the leader of another party — to join the Ontario Liberals and run for our party’s leadership.”

Their arrogance, their conceit, is revealed in that single word: “our.”

Speaking only for myself — not as the chairman of the Ontario Liberal War Room in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even though I was — I say: How dare you! How dare you say, implicitly or explicitly, that the Ontario Liberal Party is “yours.” Because it isn’t.

Forget about the fact that you have now dramatically improved the fortunes of the provincial Greens, and seriously damaged the provincial Liberals. Forget about the fact that floor-crossings almost never work, because voters rightly regard them as the product of dirty backroom deals.

Forget about the fact that you have diminished the many contributions of the real Ontario Liberals seeking the party’s leadership, a couple of whom are actual elected members of the provincial Legislature.

Forget about the fact that Schreiner is now delaying any kind of a response, likely to maximize his party’s fortunes, and maximize the Ontario Liberals’ pain. Forget about all of that.

No, what is really offensive is your arrogance. That you somehow know better than the thousands of card-carrying Ontario Liberals who work hard, who volunteer, and who have never received a cabinet post or a fat contract. That it is “your” party.

Will Mike Schreiner take you up on your offer? He’d be insane to do so. But either way, one result is inevitable.

A third majority term for Doug Ford.

— Kinsella has been the leader of winning war rooms for Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty.

Comments (18)

Comments (65)


Defund the police.

Those three words became a rallying cry in the Summer of 2020, when a Minneapolis man named George Floyd was brutally murdered by members of that city’s police force. Across the United States – and across Canada and Europe – hundreds of thousands of angry people rallied to protest police brutality.

And, for many, their rallying cry became “defund the police.”

It was a pithy phrase, not too many syllables, and – to some – it seemed like the best way to prevent police brutality: take away police funding. That’ll teach them.

Except that it was foolish. It was madness. And, in particular, it became the best way for Donald Trump and his ilk to illustrate the excesses of woke folk. They repeatedly reminded voters that the Democrats wanted to defund the police.

And it worked.

Joe Biden may have won the presidency in 2020, yes. But the “defund the police” refrain shattered the Democratic Party’s hopes to sweep the Senate and the House of Representatives.

James Carville, Bill Clinton’s election mastermind, called the defunding cry “a terrible drag” on the Democratic Party. Joe Biden, for his part, was blunt: “I do not support defunding the police.”

But the damage had been done. Democratic Party ambitions were crushed by the “defund the police” idiocy. And now, up here in Canada, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has seized on the issue, too, and it’s working: he’s way ahead in the national polls, in part, because of it.

You’d think that urban progressives would remember all of that. You’d think that they would recall that the best way to alienate the majority of voters is to advocate “defunding the police” – in effect, leaving people to protect themselves and their families.

But no. They’re at it again.

The recent decision of Toronto Mayor John Tory and Toronto’s Chief of Police to assign up to 80 police officers to the city’s transit system was denounced by many progressives who should know better. Despite the shocking number of murders, assaults, rapes and robberies taking place on or near city buses, streetcars and trains, the defunders have not been swayed.

“People are already criticizing the increased police presence on the TTC,” ran the headline in the much-read BlogTO. It went on to quote palliative care doctor Naheed Dosani, who tweeted: “Make no mistake: The violence we’re seeing on the TTC won’t be addressed by having more police present.” What was needed instead, Dosani wrote, was “more compassion.”

And, yes: more compassion is always desirable. But when your 16-year-old is being stabbed in broad daylight on a city bus – as one was, just a few days ago – feeling compassionate towards the person wielding the knife is a bit hard to do, isn’t it?

Like Dosani, author and activist Judy Rebick was unimpressed: “Some people, particularly Black and Indigenous people, will feel less safe on the TTC with more police.” BlogTO also quoted Jessica Neil, who pins a “defund the police” message to her Twitter profile. Wrote Neil: “Please understand this will not improve the safety of transit.”

Except, well, it does. And it has.

Three months ago, New York city mayor Eric Adams beefed up police presence in the Big Apple’s transit system. And it has worked. In just three months, major crimes have plummeted by nearly 20 per cent in NYC’s transit network.

The state’s governor, Kathy Hochul, appeared at a press conference this week with Adams to declare that the dramatic drop in crime “is a trend that we can feel good about.” Experts were similarly laudatory. Christopher Herrmann, an associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, suggested Adams and the police “can certainly pat themselves on the back” for their decision to bolster the ranks of cops.

Does police brutality happen? It does. Should it be investigated and punished, whenever it happens, without exception? It must be.

But the recent experience of New York City shows that defunding the police is not the solution. It in fact shows the reverse.

Don’t defund the police.

Deploy them.

Comments (21)

Comments (54)