Normally, when a leader of the Opposition's chief of staff resigns, there's plenty of speculation.  Did he quit?  Was he fired?  Why do politicians and staffers keep using that "to spend time with his family" excuse?

None of these questions was asked when Patrick Brown's chief of staff hit the bricks recently.  You would have to be an extremely dedicated follower of Ontario provincial politics, and PC Party of Ontario screw-ups specifically, to have even noticed.

That's because Ontarians have become so used to the PC Party dropping that ball that it barely even registers.  This is in the same province where the Maple Leafs lose habitually, and they still draw more attention than the Ontario PC's.  And those two organizations have even been run by some of the same people!

How did the Ontario PC's become so incredibly boring and bad at what they do, especially since the Liberals are almost, but not quite as terrible?

Laziness

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Ontario Liberals are at death's door, even many Ontario Liberals themselves.  What the PCPO does with this fact, however, is assume power is just going to fall into their laps.

If I had to come up with one image to describe the PCPO approach to winning government, I would ask you to think about that guy you know who spends all his time chasing after women and thinks it's their problem when they notice his considerable flaws and reject him.  The PCPO is That Guy.

Here's the problem: That Guy gets lucky every so often, so he's going to keep on doing what he's doing without improving.  The PCPO only has to get lucky ONCE and they will be back in power- and what's worse, they think they will be there forever, because in their minds, they were never supposed to LOSE government back in 2003.

The PCPO doesn't need to win to make money

You know how I said the PCPO has been managed by the same people who run the Toronto Maple Leafs?  And you also know how the Leafs make tons of money every year without winning the Stanley Cup or, mostly, making it to the playoffs?

Now, I don't want to imply that the PCPO is….gasp…more interested in making money off gullible, naive, and overly trusting Ontarians than they are in winning government.  I'm just saying that if you were pulling down as much money as the PCPO was, maybe you wouldn't be as hungry or desperate to win as you need to be.

The message is EVERYTHING

Every so often you will read some whiny editorial in the Toronto Sun or some other sympathetic news outlet about how if only the PCPO would stick to the message of 'it's the economy stupid' they would be able to stroll lazily back into government but wouldn't you know it?  Some idiot keeps mucking everything up by getting distracted by some social issue.  Arrrrrgh.

So this is why you get a leader like Patrick Brown.  What the PCPO powerbrokers have wanted for years is someone who will do exactly what they're told without needing to be coached.

Here's the problem with that: The powerbrokers themselves are the ones that get distracted because a) hate for the Liberals keeps them alive and they want a chance to embarrass them for a change, and b) sticking to message is boring. And this is why we get faith based schools, 10,000 public sector jobs, sex-ed flipflops, etc….but when that happens, you can always blame the membership and say "they wanted this policy!"

Provincial parties are franchises

Hey you know who you didn't hear much from during Kevin O'Leary's recent highly publicized spitting match with Kathleen Wynne?  Patrick Brown, that's who.  Not just because of the usual media blockade, but because it creates unpleasant message confusion if a frontrunner for the federal leadership and a provincial leader are commenting on the same issue.

Yes, if you haven't noticed, the federal party looooves to meddle in the affairs of the provincial parties, right down to the fact that former MP's well versed in the CPC's message control get tapped to lead.  First with Jim Prentice and now Jason Kenney in Alberta, Brian Pallister (more successfully) in Manitoba, and of course Brown himself.

Want more examples?  Just try having your provincial party convention during a federal election.  Or, if you want to run for a nomination, the best thing you could do is have a spouse who works for the federal party already.

There are limits, however.  Just because you were a federal member of Parliament or a cabinet minister doesn't mean that you can run for a nomination in a riding that you've never represented and win.  For now.

Finally- the PCPO can't think of a single original solution to a problem

Among the dreariest experiences I've had in my life is attempting to design policy for the PCPO.

Not only did none of it ever make it into the platform (which is written by staffers and powerbrokers, but that's another story), but the entire process tended to be driven by the question of how can the party do what the Liberals are doing, but better?

If you take this task on, chances are you'll be looking at the "mandate letters" written by the Premier to her Ministers and trying to design solutions to those very same problems that will appeal to various segments of the base- Red Tories, so-cons, libertarians, and so on.  All (in many cases) without speaking to a single person from one of those groups.  Or, you'll be asked to look at what other jurisdictions- jurisdictions other than Ontario- are trying, and plagiarize it holus bolus.

As safe as this is, it means that everything the PCPO comes up with is either copying the Liberals, reacting to the Liberals, or trying something that has no business being tried in Canada.  Then, when the election comes around and voters start telling candidates that "all the parties are the same!", the campaign managers can't figure out why…..

So as you can see, the PCPO has a lot of bad habits.  But, even though I complain about them a lot, it isn't actually hard to fix what's wrong with the party. Unfortunately, the worst thing you can do when you're not a PCPO powerbroker is give advice, but tune in next time when I do it anyway!

Written by Josh Lieblein

J.J. McCullough has really done it now.  An anglophone outsider criticizing Quebec is a big no-no sacrilege.  Interlopers couldn't possibly understand the incredible (inferiority) complex of solitudinous Quebec.

Yet J.J. had the brazen temerity to pen a blasphemous piece for the Washington Post entitled "Why does 'progressive' Quebec have so many massacres?" on February 1.

I've never met or spoken with fellow Loonie Politics columnist McCullough.  But I first came across his work when he was a guest on a CANADALAND podcast.  My first impression was he was a very articulate, aplomb, and garrulous conservative, which of course left the progressive hosts of the show stunned with cognitive dissonance.  I wondered, only for a brief moment, why McCullough wasn't a regular on TV panels and a columnist for a mainstream national publication.  But of course in Canada, real talent and provocative ideas are pushed to the margins, while boring conformists tow the line in praising the detrimental welfare state of Canada.  Anyone who strays from the Laurentian elites' garrison mentality is banished from the mainstream conversation.  That's why most panels typically have three or four pundits holding the exact same agreeable position.  I would hazard a guess that's also why McCullough is writing for a top American paper instead of one of our own.

In McCullough's column, he lists six high-profile and politically charged massacres or attempted massacres that have happened in Quebec since he was born in 1984.  He then has the gall to infer that Quebec may not be such the progressive and welcoming utopia the Canadian elite tout it to be, and that perhaps, ironically, it is its progressive policies which led Quebec to be more prone to massacres committed by alienated maniacs.  McCullough's theory maybe difficult to prove, but when one looks at Quebec's ideological problems and basket case economy the theory isn't that farfetched.

Then McCullough, foreseeing the backlash to come, explains how it's "deeply taboo" to criticize Quebec.  He cites Jan Wong's ostracization by the Laurentian elite (she was denounced unanimously by Canadian Parliament) after she posited in 2006 a similar theory to that of McCullough's.  Ironically enough, one could argue subsequent events like shootings and racist Parti Quebecois policies within the province have largely vindicated Wong.  McCullough then mentions the infamous 2010 cover story published by Maclean's that asserted Quebec was easily the most corrupt province.  Again, the Laurentian elite denounced the fair criticism as libelous, and again, if it hadn't already been in plain sight, Maclean's was vindicated by the bombshell Charbonneau Commission.

McCullough's piece was an important take down of the false mainstream narrative propagated by the Canadian chattering classes that the Quebec City massacre was proof Canada has an Islamophobia problem.  Politicizing the event, these shameless media hanger-ons made leaping jumps in logic, claiming Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen were partly to blame for the attacker's senseless act of violence because he had liked these two political figures on Facebook.  (Never mind that the mass murderer also liked the Parti Quebecois and New Democratic Party of Canada.)  These are the same commentators and politicians who insist Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, and always deny the connection when the next slaughter of innocents in the name of Allah takes place.  And they will support silencing fair criticism of Islam by giving their approval for the Liberal's anti-Islamophobia motion, further desecrating free speech in this country.

Yes, the doublethink is incroyable, and it's remarkable they can propose such an absurd theory and then in turn be so affronted by McCullough's more grounded logic.

However, it wasn't a surprise when Quebec politicians had an inquisition into McCullough's piece and "responded" to what was "beneath" them.  The Quebec legislature took the time to unanimously pass a motion to condemn and demand the columnist's remarks be rectified.  The government of Quebec then wrote a bizarre letter to the executive editor of the Washington Post, refuting McCullough's "baseless claims" on a province that is "inclusive and outward looking."  The letter then invited the Washington Post to "assign more reporters" to get a "better understanding of Quebec."  One can only hope the paper calls the government on its bluff and sends several investigative journalists to La Belle Province to help dredge up the beastly rot beneath the varnished veneer.  These journalists would be guaranteed a warm welcome by attentive politicians and police monitoring their every move.

On top of the surreal condemnation of the entire Quebec government, Canadian Heritage Minister and Montrealer Melanie Joly was also troubled by McCullough's column, saying it had "unacceptable points."  I was coincidentally interviewing Joly's press secretary last week for a couple of other stories and decided to ask him what the minister meant by her words.

"We never referred to the Washington Post piece as anything other than an opinion… So, obviously, again, freedom of expression is super important to us.  Our government denounced the comments that we believed unfairly portrayed Quebecers, and because our government is convinced of Quebec's attachment to inclusion and openness.  It was really about public, open discussion.  We never asked for things to be retracted.  And the conversation is still happening," said Heritage press secretary Pierre-Olivier Herbert by phone.

Governments taking time out of their busy schedules to denounce and condemn journalists seems like a misuse of their time and energy.  And if they genuinely wanted to have a conversation about the opinions and ideas expressed by the author, then why won't they respond to his amusing open letter or emails?  Why don't they confront the actual ideas put forth?

What is even more amusing is that these politicians' trying to belittle the unrepentant McCullough and rectify and suppress his views are only going having the opposite effect.  The actions of the Quebec government gave McCullough endless publicity not only domestically, but also in foreign publications like Breitbart and The Daily Caller and many others.  From my observations on Twitter, McCullough has also gained hundreds of new followers and been requested to do quite a few interviews.  Apparently Quebec politicians haven't heard of the Streisand effect.

As politicians talk moonshine about McCullough's work, it only emboldens provocateur writers like himself to instinctively become more feral.  I'm eager to see the next bee he'll put in haughty Quebec's bonnet.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon