Categories for Feature

This is a tale of two “Conservatives.”

We say “Conservative” in quotation marks to make a point. And the point is this: Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre may be notionally, nominally “Conservatives.” But they are very, very — very — different.

And, for both men, it’s a very big political week.

On Thursday night, Ford is going to be re-elected as Ontario’s premier, possibly with a bigger majority than he got four years ago. And, on Friday, Poilievre is going to start adding up the many memberships he sold during the federal Conservative leadership race.

But, in the long term, Ford will be remembered as the winner of this pivotal week. Poilievre, not so much.

Ford will hold onto power in Canada’s largest province for three reasons.

One, he wildly exceeded expectations. Four years ago, Ford’s critics predicted he would crash and burn, and that he would continue to be the pugnacious Toronto city councillor — the one who was often compelled to defend the misadventures of his brother Mayor Rob Ford. And, during the early days of his government, Ford was indeed combative.

But then, he made big changes. Ford replaced his chief of staff with the genial and professional Jamie Wallace, one of our (full disclosure) former editorial bosses at the Sun chain. He shuffled his cabinet. And then he, the man himself, changed.

It was the pandemic that did it, mostly. Ford jettisoned the angry ideological conservative stuff — a pose that never really suited him, anyway. Like many others, Ford accepted that government had a right and proper role during a deadly pandemic.

Caring for the sick. Comforting the frightened. Spending to keep businesses and families afloat. Ford accepted that all of those things could only be done by government — not the private sector. And he became the face of government here in Ontario.

Two, Ford resisted the temptation to politicize the pandemic. At his near-daily press conferences, Ford adopted a compassionate tone. He jettisoned partisanship, often lauding his political opponents, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. And he seemed to be feeling, personally, the grief that too many families were experiencing. He was human, in short.

Thirdly, Ford stuck to the facts. He didn’t speculate. He deferred to his experts. When he didn’t know something — unlike too many others, such as Donald “Inject Yourself With Bleach” Trump — he said so. And when Ford made a mistake, as with the misguided decision to shut down playgrounds and give police powers they didn’t need nor want, he quickly admitted it and changed course.

Playing against type. Being kinder, gentler. Working with others. Making positive personal changes. Being as apolitical as possible. Being factual. Avoiding conspiracy theories and wacky policy.

All of those things Doug Ford did — and that is why he is going to win big again.

And none of those things Pierre Poilievre has done. None. And it’s why, when the federal election finally happens, Poilievre — as Conservative Party leader — will lose.

As many have noted, Poilievre has been simply vicious with other political players — players who are members of the same political party. He has politicized everything, offering precious little policy ideas. He has embraced conspiracy theories (like the one about the “globalist” World Economic Forum) and nutty pledges (like his opt-out-of-inflation with cryptocurrencies that are in freefall).

And, most of all, Poilievre hasn’t addressed his key weakness — that he is an angry little man, one who is the adenoidal voice of a feral stew of anonymous Twitter trolls, antigovernment extremists, and law-breaking convoy types. Instead of showing a kinder, gentler side, Poilievre has gotten more dyspeptic and antagonistic.

Bottom line: Doug Ford is winning because he’s likeable.

Pierre Poilievre will ultimately lose because he isn’t.

— Warren Kinsella advises a trade union active in the provincial election campaign

Comments (8)

Comments (1)

When does a politician’s character get revealed?

Because, as Ken Dryden once memorably said about hockey, character doesn’t get built by the political life. It gets revealed.

Our history is full of those unplanned, unscheduled moments when a leader’s character is revealed. During the October Crisis, when Canadians were terrorized by separatist murderers, Pierre Trudeau famously said: “Just watch me.” And Canadians watched, and rallied to him.

When Conservatives and Paul Martin acolytes were hissing that Jean Chretien was too old, and yesterday’s man, my former boss literally jumped on a single water ski – and figuratively flipped his enemies the bird. Canadians laughed, and rallied to him.

And when he was elected a minority Prime Minister, the very first thing Stephen Harper did was apologize for abuses at residential schools, and announce compensation. Canadians nodded, and would go on to support Harper for nearly a decade.

By the by: Harper did that notwithstanding the braying and screeching of Pipsqueak Conservatives like Pierre Poilievre, who had insinuated that Indigenous people were lazy and dishonest. That was a moment when character was revealed, but perhaps not in a way that Poilievre would like.

All those things (and more) show character, and reveal a leader’s better nature. That’s what voters are looking for. That’s what citizens are desperate for. Character.

Doug Ford’s character was revealed early on in the pandemic, twice. Neither were momentous occasions that will be written about by historians for decades to come. But they told a story.

In April 2020, when COVID-19 was rampaging and killing innocents, Ford held a press conference. He looked profoundly sad and sombre. He said: “You deserve to know what I know when you’re making decisions for yourself, your family and your community.” And Ford gave Ontarians the grim facts about COVID infections and deaths – something that he would go on to do on a near-daily basis for the next two years.

And in the same week, someone snapped a cell phone shot of Ford helping to load a donation of surgical masks at a dentist‘s office in Markham. No political aides or official photographers captured it. It was simply Ford, making an impromptu decision to help out himself. Personally.

More recently, Ford’s character was again seen in a positive light: when extremists and anarchists occupied Ottawa, and barricaded the borders, it was Ford – not Justin Trudeau – who first declared a state of emergency, who first beefed up police presence, and who first cracked down on the lawlessness. Lawlessness, by the by, that the aforementioned Poilievre had supported. And still does.

For Ontarians who remembered the old Doug Ford – the one who was often forced to angrily defend his brother’s many lapses – the new Doug Ford was a surprise. The new Doug Ford showed character, and he attracted the support of people who thought they would never give it – including people like my friend, top lawyer Marie Henein.

In a much-discussed column in the Globe and Mail, Henein – no knuckle dragging Conservative – said: “Doug Ford is the leader Ontario needs.”

Many agreed with her, and still do. During the pandemic, Ford was not perfect, as he himself admitted many times. But as the likes of Henein also noted, he did a far better job than many expected.

In times of crisis, in times of conflict, we learn things about each other. In those times, we particularly learn things about the leaders we elect.

Doug Ford revealed himself to be a good and decent man.

And one who most of us feel deserves reelection.

[Kinsella advises a trade union active in the Ontario election campaign.]

Comments (8)

Comments (1)

Wither thou goest, Conservatives, in thine dark blue car at night?

Sorry to get all Jack Kerouac on y’all, but that little line from On The Road kind of fits, doesn’t it? I mean, after Conservatives committed ritual mass political suicide on Wednesday night — in the Conservative heartland, no less — it is fair for the rest of us to wonder: What the hell?

Jason Kenney — he who was Stephen Harper’s right hand, he who delivered the elusive ethnic vote and a majority, he who united the warring factions of the right and defeated the socialists — is gone. It is mindboggling.

As my colleague Brian Lilley put it to a few of us at the Sun: “Jason Kenney not being conservative enough for Alberta? The implications for the federal leadership race are huge.”

And Lilley is indisputably right. Kenney’s conservative credentials were impeccable. Nobody in Western Canada worked harder to advance the interests of Team Blue. And in Ottawa, Kenney was feared and respected — and could always be counted on to be the happy warrior for his side.

As premier, Kenney waged endless war with Liberal Justin Trudeau, or cheered on other Conservative politicians, or travelled tirelessly — just a few days ago to Washington, to advocate for Canadian energy — to push for policies that conservatives favoured.

So what happened? How can Conservatives win, as Lilley noted, if even Kenney isn’t good enough?

As a member of the Alberta diaspora, I was and am dumbfounded by Kenney’s ouster. Kenney possesses a brilliant, agile political mind. He always seemed to be several steps ahead of his opponents.

And now, this, and his career is in ruins. Was it because the UCP malcontents felt he had become, in Preston Manning’s words, “Ottawashed,” and out of touch with his home province?

Was it because he was one of those politicians — like Paul Martin, say, or Al Gore — who needed a stronger, savvier boss in charge? Without Harper around, Kenney never seemed to be entirely what he had been. Or could have been.

Was it because Conservatives in Alberta have utterly lost any discipline? That they lack self-control and common sense?

Or was it because — as Lilley suggests — Kenney, of all people, was seen as insufficiently conservative? Was it because Kenney wasn’t right-wing enough?

If so, conservatives — federally, at least — are doomed. Kenney was a real-deal Tory. If Alberta Conservatives want someone even more to the right, they’ll perhaps get it. But they won’t get the support of most Canadian voters.

Voters, too, will be unimpressed by this latest conservative blood-letting. The federal Conservative leadership candidates were bad enough — smearing each other, calling each other liars, accusing each other of scandal and law-breaking.

But this? Jason Kenney led a majority government, and polls suggested he had a reasonable shot at re-election. To jettison him now doesn’t mean that he wasn’t good enough — it means that a lot of Alberta Conservatives have lost their minds. And their once-sterling commitment to political discipline.

Which leads us back to that first question.

Whither thou goest, Conservatives, in thine dark blue car at night?

From here, it looks like you are heading for the ditch.

Comments (29)

We Canadians like to feel superior to the Americans.

The Yanks regularly give us reasons to feel superior. There’s their fetishization of all manner of guns, which results in mass-shootings, 693 of them last year alone. Then there’s their schismatic politics, which saw a racist groper elected to the White House, and a violent insurrection against their seat of government, leaving nearly ten people dead.

And then, in recent days, there has been the draft opinion crafted by a few unelected, unaccountable extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision that will end American women’s constitutional right to control their own bodies.

Canadians eyeball all that, and we feel better about ourselves. We think we have peace, order and good government. Better decisions coming from our highest court, too.

Well, not always. Take, for example, R. v. Brown.

In the blink of an eye last week, Canada’s Supreme Court rendered this country a less-safe place. Unanimously, too. Unless and until it is remedied, R. v. Brown is a decision that will see rapists and murderers walk free here. Guaranteed.

The facts, first, as taken from the high court’s own brief: “On the night of Jan. 12, 2018, Matthew Winston Brown consumed alcohol and ‘magic mushrooms’ at a party in Calgary, Alberta. The mushrooms contain psilocybin, an illegal drug that can cause hallucinations.

“Mr. Brown lost his grip on reality, left the party and broke into a nearby home, violently attacking a woman inside. The woman suffered permanent injuries as a result of the attack. When Mr. Brown broke into another house, the couple living there called the police. Mr. Brown said he had no memory of the incidents.”

The “permanent injuries” blandly referred to, there, were basically the destruction of Janet Hamnett’s arms and hands. Brown, a body-building athlete, broke into her home, and attacked her, over and over and over, with a broom handle.

The case made its way up to our highest court, where Hamnett — and women’s groups, and victim’s rights groups — were essentially told: Too bad, so sad. Writing for an unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Nicholas Kasirer said the “extreme intoxication” section of the Criminal Code violates the Charter in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society and is thereby unconstitutional.

Why, you ask? Good question. Kasirer and his colleagues felt that the section violates the Charter because society could interpret someone’s intent to become intoxicated as an intention to commit a violent offence.

Get that? The section — which was passed by the government of my former boss Jean Chretien — has been in place for a generation, and reflects the state of the law in most other democratic nations on Earth. It reflects common sense, too: If rapists and killers know that getting wasted may get them out of jail — well, we all know what many of them are going to argue, now.

The Supremes don’t know, or they don’t give a damn. The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund did and does, however. They intervened in the case, pointing to the well-established reality: “The harm caused to women as a result of intoxicated violence is devastating and infringes on their right to security and equality.”

Janet Hamnett, meanwhile, has been left with no justice, and no recourse. Said Hamnett: “I am very disappointed with this decision, (but) it is not about me at this stage.”

“The Supreme Court basically said it’s allowable to attack, hurt, and even kill someone, if the perpetrator is out of control due to drugs or alcohol that were most likely ingested intentionally and willingly.”

Hamnett told the media that the decision creates a precedent, one that tilts the scales in favour of violent criminals. Said she: “Where is the justice in that? This opens a terrifying floodgate … and I fear for future victims.”

So should we all. The Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Brown is appalling and dangerous. Until it is challenged with a new law — the federal attorney general meekly says he is only “assessing” the ruling — there will be blood.

There will be a bit less willingness to believe we are always better than the Americans, too.

Because, in this case, we just aren’t.

— Warren Kinsella is a lawyer and was an adjunct professor at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law

Comments (11)

Comments (5)

SlapMineNutsMC’ has been slapped — right out as an Ontario Liberal candidate.

Following an exclusive report in the Toronto Sun, Sudbury-area high school student, Aidan Kallioinen, has been told he will not be permitted to run as a candidate for the Ontario Liberals in Sault Ste Marie in the June 2 election.

Responding to this newspaper, Andrea Ernesaks, the party’s press secretary wrote: “These reports were not disclosed to us in the vetting process. We have spoken to Mr. Kallioinen and have informed him that he will not be running as part of our Liberal team.”

The “reports” Ernesaks refers to, and which reported earlier in the Sun, revealed that Kallioinen referred to himself in online chats as “SlapMineN___MC” and had participated in discussions where participants joked about people “dying of AIDS.” The Sun has not verified whether Kallioinen was one of the participants joking.

The former Liberal candidate was chosen over Naomi Sayers, an experienced and respected Indigenous lawyer. Sayers has been legal counsel to one of the largest electricity providers in Canada, and is called to the bar in Ontario and Alberta.

She has appeared before courts and tribunals at all levels. Her work has been cited at the Supreme Court of Canada, and she has been a university professor at Algoma University.

Kallioinen, meanwhile, was a Grade 11 student at Lo-Ellen Park Secondary in Sudbury, three hours’ drive from the Soo. Del Duca’s Liberals refused Naomi Sayer’s application — and made Kallioinen their chosen candidate.

They did so on Monday night, news outlet Soo Today reported, with 16 minutes notice given to local Liberals. “Aidan Kallioinen will be acclaimed as the candidate of the Ontario Liberal Party in the electoral district of Sault Ste. Marie,” declared Mike Cavanaugh and Jordan Hudyma in an email sent to party members.

The appointment contradicted Del Duca’s own pronouncements about elevating female candidates to the legislature. Just a few weeks ago, Del Duca issued a statement on International Women’s Day, and said: “Ontario Liberals will fight to make sure our province has an equitable recovery. We are also committed to ensuring that come this June, at least 50% of our candidates are women.”

Except, in the case of Indigenous female lawyer Naomi Sayers, many Ontario Liberals felt, Del Duca wasn’t very “equitable.” He chose a white male high school student instead.

Sayers is active on social media. In the past, she did sex work, which she has not hidden. The law societies of Ontario and Alberta evidently weren’t concerned, because they both admitted her to the bar.

Nor did the Ontario Liberals ever raise Sayers’ sex worker past with her.

Instead, they denied her candidacy because she disclosed too much material to them.

Charrissa Klander, the “nomination commissioner” for the Ontario Liberals, wrote to Sayers and said: “Given the fact that we are days away from the election being called, and we will be unable to complete full vetting, I am writing to advise you that I have instructed staff to stop further review of your nomination application.”

There was an “enormous volume of material” provided by Sayers, Klander complained.

So, Sayers was out. A few days later, the Ontario Liberals picked young Aidan Kallioinen, who had scrubbed his own social media — but not all of it. Now he’s out, too.

Naomi Sayers is now running as independent in Sault Ste. Marie. She’s expressed sadness about what Steven Del Duca’s party did to her.

“People are upset and not happy with how the party treated me. Those are the facts — I can’t change the facts,” says Sayers. “But I am happy to have my name on the ballot as an independent candidate, and I’m looking forward to participating in the democratic process to bring a voice for Sault Ste. Marie to the legislature.”

– Kinsella ran the Ontario Liberal war room in 2003, 2007 and 2011, and has been an adjunct professor at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law.

Comments (14)

Comments (5)

What happens when the dog catches the car?

You know what we mean: dogs sometimes chase after passing cars, but they never really catch them. The cars are faster than the dogs.

But what does the dog do when it actually catches the car?

In this little analogy, the dogs are conservatives — Republicans down South, social conservatives up here — and the car is abortion. And, this week, the dog finally caught up to the car.

Interestingly, the conservatives, like the dogs, aren’t sure what to do next. They, and we, weren’t expecting this. Arf.

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States of America slammed on the brakes, to extend the metaphor. They authored an opinion that was leaked, and the opinion wants to make abortion illegal again.

And now the conservative canines — the ones who have been barking about abortion since Roe v. Wade was handed down, a half-Century ago — don’t know what to do with themselves. It’s a problem.

For them.

That’s because legalized abortion has been a prodigious source of fundraising, recruitment and propagandizing for American conservatives for decades. It has fattened the coffers and the membership rolls of conservative think tanks, candidates and political parties. It has been manna from heaven, you might say.

And now, basically, it’s gone.

The leaked Supreme Court decision has flipped the table. What was once a cherished asset on the Right has become an unexpected asset on the Left. And conservatives are now left wondering about that old saying about politics.

You know: be careful what you wish for — because you just might get it.

For progressives in the United States — mostly card-carrying Democrats — the Supreme Court’s leaked decision to take away the constitutional right of women to control their own bodies has energized them like no other issue could. Instantly, too.

Within minutes of the bombshell report landing on the nation’s computer screens, protests were seen on the steps at the Supreme Court, and my inbox was filled with abortion-related emails from the Democratic Party, busily fundraising and organizing for November’s midterms. They’ve spoken about little else since the leak.

Oh, and by the by: for anyone hoping to suggest Politico broke the story to covertly help out the Democrats, let me remind you that Politico’s last three big controversies were: (i) offering pro-Trump branded content, (ii) publishing attacks on Bernie Sanders that smacked of anti-Semitism, and (iii) cheerfully providing a platform for pro-Republican pamphleteer Ben Shapiro.

My view is that a conservative judge or clerk leaked the ruling to precondition Americans for the final one. But they — like all judges everywhere, who don’t know jack about politics — didn’t anticipate the backlash, which has been historically huge. And negative.

For American women, the Supreme Court’s decision to expropriate their reproductive systems is an unmitigated disaster. It is terrible.

But for Democrats, it is a game-changer. Already, it has energized their troops and their candidates. And it has given President Joe Biden a crusade to lead into the midterms and beyond.

And not just down South.

Canada, the last time we checked, is not an American state. But Canadian progressives — Liberals and New Democrats alike — have seized on the Roe v. Wade draft decision as if it had been rendered by our own high court. They’ve been tweeting and commenting on it 24/7, too.

There’s a reason for that, as this space noted the night the Politico story broke: pro-choice sentiment crosses partisan lines. Conservative women are mostly pro-choice, too. And they will vote against their own party if they sense Pierre Poilievre or Leslyn Lewis — both of whom have been, or are, longtime anti-choice advocates — want to recriminalize abortion.

In the war rooms I have run over the years, I sometimes remind my youthful charges that getting no answer is sometimes better than getting one. Leaving an issue unresolved is often better than wrapping it up.

Abortion was like that. Conservatives have lost the one social issue that has benefitted them the most, for decades. And now progressives own it.

The dog, you might say, has caught the car.

And now the dog is going to get run over by it.

Comments (19)