Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing. – Edmund Burke
The fawning, sneaking, and flattering hypocrite, that will do or be anything, for his own advantage. – Edward Stiffingfleet
A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy. – Benjamin Disraeli
Frank A. Pelaschuk
Notwithstanding his efforts to change his appearance and demeanour from shrill angry shoot-from-the-lips partisan politico to a political mild-mannered Clark Kentish homebody and one of the regular good ol’ boys, the man who seems poised to lead Canada’s next government, Conservative Pierre Poilievre remains the same old same old one-note, mean-spirited, pandering, vitriolic blowhard with nothing to offer but noise and slogans appealing to the fears and worst of Dick & Jane readers. One would like to believe that the next prime minister, should it be him, would be one of substance and character but his behaviour, from his first days as MP to the present, as leader of the Conservative party, makes it difficult to conceive. Watching him on television during Question Period, one gets the sense of him performing for his audience and colleagues while leaving little doubt that what you see is what he is, a man of fire and desire but fuelled by an animus deeply personal directed at one individual: Justin Trudeau.
I feel I’ve seen the plot before. A rival, perhaps the younger brother or a childhood friend of poorer circumstances, seething with envy, resentful that the older brother or friend is much loved and doted upon seemingly handed everything while he, the smarter, more deserving, the harder working, barely noticed, receiving no love, no fortune, go girl, no future. It’s unfair. So, what to do? Perhaps remove the obstacle, take, by any means, what is justly his. Well, that’s the movie, a bad one at that.
Even so, unfairly treated or not, Poilievre has always drawn attention as smart, ambitious and eager to prove himself with his hustle and energy. As a young politician, he was even more impressive, he was going places though some, women in particular, found him a bit too brash, loud, angry. They didn’t like what they saw: angry, loud, abrasive, shrill, straight for the jugular no prisoners taken. That was no politician but a resentful teenager hamming it up in the House back bench with colleagues Paul Calandra, today Ontario’s minister of municipal affairs and housing, and Dean del Mastro, who was forced to resign and serve a month when convicted of election overspending in 2008. That appeals to a particular segment of society, those too often fed by resentment and envy knowing they deserve better and more but have been dealt a bad hand of bad luck with others stacking the deck favouring the less deserving. They hear him, know he understands their pain, knows Big Government and Big Business are out to screw them making it harder for them while easier on criminals with their soft on crime approach and open door policy welcoming illegals into the country to be fed and housed on their hard-earned dime only to also take their jobs and end up having more than those born here failing to notice that many, many, start off with the most menial of jobs, often two or three and part time. So when Covid struck and government mandates came into play taking away even more forcing them to isolate, wear masks, get the shots, that was the last straw, no one was going to tell them what to do or believe and they certainly didn’t believe Covid shots worked, in fact believed they did more harm, responsible for autism and other illnesses allowing billionaires like Bill Gates to get rich injecting them with serum blended with molecular robots reading and controlling their thoughts. No one was going to stop them from mixing with the public. As for the evidence of millions dying? Fake news by mainstream media. If the “sheep” wanted to wear masks, that was their problem. Trump knows. Poilievre knows, not only because he’s smarter than Trump, but because he came of modest means, born to a sixteen year old mother and adopted by two teachers. He actually likely understands many of the issues and hurt driving so many of the angry.
It is no stretch for them to gravitate to Trump in the US of A or to Poilievre at home because both men are willing to exploit the grievances, real or imagined, of their constituents, Poilievre because he most likely shared much of their experiences, willing to let them know they are heard and believed, that none of the failings in their lives were their fault, willing to tell them they were not alone and loved. And didn’t Poilievre prove his love by visiting the so-called Freedom Convoy holding Ottawa hostage for three weeks, calling them “peaceful protestors” as he had photos of himself taken with the leaders evidently oblivious to the neo-Nazi and white supremacist symbols some wore and waved as they called for the overthrow of an elected government and harassed residents for wearing masks as they went to work? When he became leader of the party, months later, those wallowers in victimhood knew, simply knew, they had found their man and their voice.
Two years after the convoy meeting, he spoke before an audience of police members, hinting at imposing Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Notwithstanding Clause, an odious escape clause allowing political leaders, premiers and, evidently, prime ministers, the ability to discard and replace portions of the Charter they don’t like with legislation that works for their agenda whether just, decent, called for or desired. But for his base, informed by social media platforms, conspiracists and Fox News, this was good news confirming what they already know and embrace: the game is rigged against them and someone hears them. As for mainstream media? Fake news by elites, the favoured word of the right. And didn’t he prove his love again, in April, when he met a group on the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick border protesting the carbon tax with signs offering unequivocal musings on love — “F___K Trudeau” — entering a camper to which was affected the Diagolon flag, a part of an extremist group which Poilievre may not have noticed. He paused long enough to call Trudeau a liar many times.
Do these folks even listen to themselves? If asked, could they articulate exactly what it is about Canada that Poilievre screams is broken? Can Poilievre? Theirs is a rage that seems incoherent and against — well — everything. So, Poilievre’s message, such as it is, strikes a chord for many: harsher sentences for criminals. Eliminate bail for some accused and make it harder for others. Replace concurrent sentences for those found guilty of multiple injuries or deaths during a crime with consecutive sentences so that life actually does mean life without any possibility of parol. It’s less about justice than simple, understandable, good old fashioned retribution. Imagine what would have been Umar Zameer’s fate if Poilievre and gang hand their way. Zameer was charged with the murder of Det.- Const. Jeffrey Northrup in 2021. The charge was considered dubious by many, including the judge who granted Zameer bail. Toronto’s Mayor John Tory, premier Doug Ford and sundry others raised their voices in opposition. Just acquitted, there was another chorus of outrage. Innocent or not, the fact that his race may have played a part, Zameer was guilty as far as the public was concerned, the charge against Zameer more than enough reason to put him behind bars. That is what Poilievre is playing to.
The Notwithstanding Clause is fraught with danger for all citizens and will certainly be the tool most often reached for by those with a tendency for despotism as evidenced by the populist voices growing louder with each day, not just in Canada, but around the world. We have seen this by the actions of some of the premiers with Alberta’s Ralph Klien to prevent same sex marriage, Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall to void a court’s ruling removing funding for non-Catholic students attending Catholic schools, Ontario’s Doug Ford to reduce the size of Toronto’s council and then three years later to override the Ontario Superior Court decision voiding his move to expand pre-election third party spending from six months to one year while maintaining third party ads of $600, 000. It’s an undemocratic tool too easily deployed and often to the advantage of the governing party.
The day following Poilievre’s audience with the police, April 30, conservative Rachael Thomas was ejected from the chamber during Question Period for suggesting Speaker of the House, Greg Fergus, was acting “in a disgraceful manner” for his handling of the House by which, I suspect, she meant his favouring of the liberals over the conservatives in attempting to tame a particularly raucous, but by now normalized aspect of Question Period. She and her colleagues claim she withdrew the comment when asked to do so but, if so, it had not been picked up by Speaker Fergus because MP microphones are usually shut off when the Speaker speaks. Then, moments later, it was Poilievre’s turn for expulsion for use of unparliamentary language when he called Trudeau “wacko” for which he refused to apologize offering instead to use in place “extremist” and “radical” neither of which Fergus accepted. When Poilievre left the chamber, conservative members followed him to then immediately go on social media to seize the opportunity to highlight their “unfair” treatment by a liberal House Speaker undoubtedly racking up more support and dollars for their cause. Nice stunt for the shameless!
Not only does Poilievre and gang feed the conspiracy beliefs of their supporters who wallow in such — Big Government even screws politicians fighting for constituents! — they also join the crowd of victims proudly crowing over their antics, prouder still of Poilievre’s expulsion and even more proud of turning their backs on the House to monetize and exploit all in service of turning Question Period into a monkey house Gong Show of silly buggers. They can now claim further victimization by the liberal Speaker Fergus for his failure to control them; hence their calls that he resign was justified.
Laurence J. Peter once quipped, “There’s no such thing as a cheap politician.” He’s right. But then, when it comes to character, 118 conservatives immediately spring to mind.
Opening the door to Section 33 for Prime Ministers to invoke the measure would set a precedent and lead to invocation as a default maneuver for politician’s with an anti-democratic leaning. Judging from his words and actions, past and present, Poilievre would be that politician.
Several years after becoming MP, Poilievre was appointed to Harper’s cabinet becoming Minister of Democratic Reform (2013-2015) when he sought to bring changes under Bill C-30 the inaptly named Fair Elections Act and Bill C-50 the Citizens Voting Act by which he clearly meant to rig the game favouring election outcomes for conservatives. With Bill C-30, the Chief Electoral Officer’s Role was to be greatly limited to encourage voting and informing citizens on the process of voting. Poilievre sought to remove the ability of the CEO to investigate electoral irregularities and fraudulent activity. This came about because of the Conservative Party’s involvement in voter suppression by the use of robocalls during the 2011 campaign in which voters in ridings favouring other parties were misdirected to non-existent polling stations on voting day. Too, several conservatives ridings had also engaged in the so-called “in-out” gambit in which money was transferred between ridings to circumvent campaign spending limits. But that wasn’t enough for the conservatives. Poilievre sought to have winners of of elections to determine who would manage polling stations in their ridings during the next election. This is extremely important because this allowed poll managers the discretion of qualifying and/or disqualifying voters should questions arise. As well, he sought to disallow vouching, i.e., the process of allowing another voter to vouch that someone without I.D. who wanted to vote was who he said he was. This, of course, mostly affected students of voting age away from home and transient citizens of no fixed address who, it may be argued, were perceived as sympathetic to the Liberal and NDP parties.
Bill C-50 was introduced by Poilievre to make it more difficult for expatriates living out of Canada for five years or more to vote by adding to the process of voting requiring additional documentation and paperwork. Evidently, the Harper government believed Canadians (presumably even military members) living outside of Canada were considered unlikely to vote conservative.
Oh, he was young when he first became MP but no innocent, observing, learning and expanding on Stephen Harper’s playbook of politics. His go to mode was prorogation of Parliament. The first prorogation was to announce the Harper government’s success in achieving five priorities of his agenda (2007), the second, to avoid risk of losing a non-confidence vote (2008), the third to gain time to get a senate majority to avoid investigation of torture of detainees by Canadian soldiers during the war in Afghanistan (2009), and the final effort to avoid the expense scandal in the senate (2013).
Poilievre cannot be underestimated. He’s a quick learner and plays by his rules only and ruthlessly which apparently satisfies his colleagues and supporters. But what is really achieved by an official opposition led by a shrill maestro who leads a chorus of folk who reflexively reject the introduction of every piece of legislation by the governing party, who conducts a chorus of voices to jeer, heckle, sneer, shout, fleer and table pound without coming up with any offerings that are constructive or construed as solutions to fix all the ails that make Canada “broken” as they claim? They have made a mockery of Question period, creating a cacophony of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing of value. Yet, their fortunes rise. Is this what we need? Pay for? Want? Deserve? To the last: probably yes. Federally we have only elected conservative and liberal parties to govern the country and, with each change over expect a different outcome. That’s a form of insanity as Einstein observed.
I do not support the liberals and suggest voting for conservatives under Poilievre reckless endangerment of the nation. It’s time voters paused to dwell upon what kind of Canada we want and what kind of people to do our business.
In 2023, while under protection of the House during question period, Poilievre asked Trudeau a question shocking because of it’s unmistakable reference to an unsupported roumour. Trudeau was asked by the opposition leader why he had left his teaching position abruptly mid-term. When asked to explain what he meant outside of the chambers by reporters, Poilievre did not answer the question preferring to equivocate and divert before walking away. Too, in February of this year, he declared he would not support the government’s online harm’s bill governing hate speech saying he would not accept “Justin Trudeau’s woke authoritarian agenda” nor take any lessons from one who had spent “half his life as a practicing racist.” This was a reference to revelations during the 2019 campaign of photos of Trudeau appearing in blackface in a 2001 year book. Evidently that had not been the only time. Stupid yes but enough to convince me Trudeau is racist but to convince me what kind of man Poilievre is. Character assassination by innuendo may appeal to the voyeurs and garbage collectors but hardly sign of leadership, decency or even maturity. What it does show is lack of imagination and the the depths to which Poilievre will wallow. Nothing is too low or too vile to not be embraced if it helps his cause.
That is the vision of life with Poilievre at the helm.
I do not like Trudeau. I don’t support his party. But there is something about Poilievre that is more troubling and deeply disturbing. There is a smug mean-spirited certainty about almost everything he does and says as if he is incapable of tempering his rage or, if so, only for brief periods of time.
I have little doubt that he relishes the role of the underdog who made it. In many ways, he is an open book and can be trusted to never quite tame the nature he was born with and that fits so naturally. His shedding of glasses and wearing jeans and offering heartfelt images of his family just doesn’t work because it cannot mask the anger, resentment and ambition that fuels him when in the House or before cameras. He is somebody to be reckoned with and one day he may become a better man than he is today. I don’t see signs of that happening in the near future. His appeal may endure, but not for long is my hope. In the world of politics, shrill, one note slogans and an endless supply of anger will eventually exhaust even those who wish to believe in him. Like Trudeau, Danielle Smith, Scott Moe, Doug Ford, and so many others, there’s plenty of noise, plenty of hot air but otherwise not much there there.
***
But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.
Political Knocks 