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

Canadian polls on immigration have revealed consistent opinions for eons: the majority of us want to see our country's intake capped or lowered, and we want those who do come to be assimilated into the Canadian mainstream.  Yet every time these boringly common opinions are made public reporters still feel the need to affect great shock.

"Canadians may not be as tolerant of refugees and immigrants as they think, a new study concludes," wrote reporter David Aikin for Postmedia the other day.  "Study finds Canadians aren't as tolerant of immigrants as we like to think" agreed the Huffington Post's Emma Paling.

They were responding to some poll data released this week by academics Michael Donnelly and Peter Lowewn as part of a larger study on Canadian attitudes towards immigration.

The results were not surprising.  58% of Canadians agreed "too many immigrants don't seem to feel connected to Canadian society," while over 60% said "people who come to Canada should change their behavior to be more like Canadians."

A particularly interesting section asked voters from the different parties what they would think about a candidate for prime minister who espoused various pro or anti-immigration policies.  Liberal and NDP voters said they would be less likely to support a candidate advocating significant immigrant hikes, while Conservatives said — albeit barely — that they would be more inclined to back a candidate proposing an end to immigration, period.

Again, these opinions have been voiced consistently.  A 2016 poll found 68% of Canadians believe immigrants should "do more to fit in."  A 2015 poll found 46% believe the current immigration rate is too high.  A 2013 poll found 73% backing idea of immigration limits.

Yet every time, the mainstream media reaction suggests "we" should somehow be startled by these findings, which apparently contradict how "we" conceptualize Canadian attitudes towards immigration.  But as that old joke about the Lone Ranger goes, "who's 'we,' Kemosabe?"

The narrative that Canadians blindly love immigration, and have no reservations whatsoever about its social and cultural impact, is a storyline elite ideologues in this country have invented from whole cloth.  It serves to rationalize generations of radical pro-immigration policies that have originated from Ottawa despite little public demand.

At some point, something has to give.  To paraphrase John Kerry, Canada can either be a democracy or it can be a country of record-high immigration, but it cannot be both.  A StatsCan study released last month concluded that by 2036 Ottawa policy will have successfully created a new majority population, with immigrants and their children comprising "between 44.2 And 49.9 per cent" of the national population.  That will represent a demographic coup unparalleled in history, a blunt imposition of unpopular policy to its most extreme consequence (Canada has the highest per capita rate of immigration in the G7, tied with Germany).

If that characterization makes you uneasy, imagine a similar situation playing out in a different policy realm.  Imagine reams of polls suggesting Canadians did not want privatized health care, yet Canada nevertheless being on track to abolish all provincial insurance plans within 20 years.

Thankfully, there are signs Canada's political class may be beginning a gentle u-turn.  Immigration has become a relatively open topic of conversation in the post-Kenney federal Conservatives, with would-be leaders Maxime Bernier, Stephen Blaney, and Erin O'Toole all calling for lower numbers.  Even aggressively moderate voices in the party, such as Michelle Rempel, are now choosing to contrast their own views on immigration with the "fling the doors wide open" approach of the Trudeau Liberals (who, in fairness, also elected to level Canada's immigration intake at Harper rates, rather than hike them, as some voices wanted).

For this, ample credit must be given to Kellie Leitch — and her recently-departed campaign manager Nick Kouvalis — who repeatedly cited poll data to justify their decision to put a pro-assimilation agenda at the front of their "surprisingly" successful Tory leadership campaign.  Dr. Leitch is expected to unveil an even more comprehensive immigration agenda soon, which will almost certainly include a call for lower numbers.

Canada's journalistic and political establishment is terrified of Donald Trump, and the thought of an immigration critic getting elected here explains why there's been such a noticeable increase in propaganda insisting "we" have created the world's most immigrant-welcoming nation with no anxieties about immigration here, no siree.

Yet in the background, our politicians are slowly reorienting their behavior around reality.

Photo Credit: Reader's Digest Canada

Written by J.J. McCullough

We've got a surplus of talk and a deficit of action here in Canada.

This week, columnist and cartoonist J.J. McCullough found himself the subject of an actual motion in the House of Commons over a column he wrote for the Washington Post asking why so much gun violence takes place in the province of Quebec.

CPC leadership candidate Kellie Leitch and campaign manager Nick Kouvalis recently parted ways in no small part due to a backlash arising from Kouvalis calling a critic a "cuck".

And just to show that it isn't only conservatives who face widespread public condemnation for their words, Justin Trudeau's credibility amongst First Nations suffered badly when he told a crowd that young FN adults needed "a place to store their canoes and paddles."

You can call these people out for the words they use, and they can defend themselves against those call-outs.  That's freedom of speech.

But for some reason we never move past the talking to deal with the underlying issues.

How does a motion condemning J.J. McCullough, or insisting that coverage of the tragedy specifically mentions the killer's white skin and that it was a terrorist attack, stop gun violence or address any contributing factors?

Similarly, endless poring over every word our politicians have said in search of a quote that can be shoehorned into an attack ad too often distracts from the business our MP's should be tending to.

But then again, those same MP's who have been part of governments that have reannounced the same funding for the same project over and over again without any progress to show for it, who have blamed other levels of government for inaction, and who feign outrage- poorly-before the cameras during Question Period are just as guilty of letting words substitute for action.

Our media is just as much to blame for this sad state of affairs.

Thanks to them, we have now have been thoroughly educated about the origin of the word "cuck" and its various meanings, but if anyone has come up with a way to prevent the spread of this demonic phrase, I have yet to see it reported in the pages of a Canadian newspaper.

Whatever the word's power to do harm, the media has only increased that power by giving it a dark and terrifying quality.

I haven't quite figured out why Canadians settle for the same old excuses and empty words time and time again.

I do know that some Canadians have an overstated sense of their own reputation "on the world stage", which is why shaming can be so effective at reigning them in.

If you've checked the international scene lately, however, you know that naming and shaming has become somewhat less than effective at keeping established politicians in power.

And if you know anything about the alt-right, you know that shamelessness is one of their most powerful weapons.

I'm willing to bet that dealing with the concerns these people have and taking them seriously instead of making false shows of empathy or shaming them would do a lot more to stop the rise of the alt-right.

But that would require establishment politicians to move outside their comfort zones.  It would require them to do something about a problem, rather than just talking about it.

And here in Canada, those with the power to effect change seem too ashamed to do so.

Written by Josh Lieblein

The slaughter of six innocent men at Quebec City's Islamic Cultural Centre was a Canadian tragedy now forever engraved in this country's dark history of public violence.  Yet whatever emotions of sobriety it may have inspired in the moment were quickly eclipsed by a scramble to politicize the crime for the benefit of a certain faction.  Much as Marc Lépine's 1989 killing spree at the Polytechnique de Montréal has been largely reduced to an ideological talking-point for a certain kind of feminist, progressives from the Prime Minister on down have been keen to turn the Quebec City killings into a helpful tool to silence critics of multiculturalism.

When massacres occur in the social media age, the trickle of confused and contradictory details prompt predictable scoldings about the dangers of "jumping to conclusions" before all facts are known.  This advice was quite explicitly not heeded on the evening of January 29.

Though there has been no greater killer of Muslims than Islamist radicals, initial reports of a mosque shooting immediately prompted leading voices in Canadian media and politics to conclude that a white-on-Muslim hate crime was the only conceivable explanation.  Progressives have long assumed Islamophobia to be the true horror of our times, and journalistic standards are routinely shed in the search for anecdotal confirmation.  Even as early reports described the killer as a man of "Moroccan descent" shouting "Allah Akbar," reporters were appending their stories with special features about how "people who practice Islam haven't always been made to feel so welcome in the province," and an oft-repeated anecdote about a pig's head left on the mosque's doorstep.

That the killer did, ultimately, prove to be a white guy matters little.  That conclusion was reached long before there were facts to support it, and bodies were turned into political props before they had cooled.

Mere hours after the attack, Prime Minister Trudeau released a statement declaring "diversity is our strength," while Thomas Mulcair vowed to battle "those who peddle the politics of fear and division."  Michael Chong, who is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party on a platform of unbridled hate for conservatives, tweeted that the attack was "no accident" but the "direct result of demagogues and wannabe demagogues playing to fears and prejudices" including "politicians talking division, not unity."  (Gee, you think he had anyone in mind?)

Alexandre Bissonnette's massacre could not have come at a more convenient time for many on the left, given President Trump's much-loathed temporary travel ban on seven terror-sponsoring nations had been announced the previous morning.  Eager to link one story to the other, reporters cherry-picked to turn Bissonnette into an alt-right stereotype.  It was noted he'd "liked" Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen on Facebook, though few mentioned he'd liked Jack Layton as well.  Sources were found claiming he'd posted "trollish" comments about refugees, but nothing hard was produced.  The creator of a pro-refugee page Bissonnette had supposedly terrorized conceded to the Toronto Star that "he did not recall particular attacks that targeted the Muslim community."

I'm perfectly self-aware.  If Sunday had been an Islamist massacre I'd be writing a very different column today.  But I'd also be writing in response to a terrorist ideology that explicitly, loudly, and endlessly advocates the murder of unbelievers.  Regardless of what you think of those carrying deep skepticism, even hatred, of Islam, there is simply no mainstream faction of our culture demanding the mass execution of Muslims.  Whatever evil motivated Bissonnette was a product of his own twisted mind, and those who have expressed measured, rational skepticism of radical Islam have nothing to atone for.

My own suspicion is that in the weeks to come, Bissonnette's political opinions will prove to be incoherent paranoia.  He'll likely resemble Jared Lee Loughner, the would-be assassin of Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords and a gibbering madman who was initially portrayed as an evil conservative because that was more politically useful.

There is nothing morally wrong with reacting to a massacre of Muslims by attending public rallies and giving speeches about how Islam poses no threat to anything and no one should question the country's refugee policy.  That is a conclusion drawn from perceived evidence, in the same way those who witness an Islamist massacre may call for immigration restrictions or a more aggressive foreign policy.  It is the public's job to decide which conclusion seems like an appropriate response to the challenges of our time and which is a shallow exercise in demagoguery.

Written by J.J. McCullough

Shortly after the US election, BuzzFeed Canada media editor Craig Silverman's coverage of fake news sites that were widely shared and engaged with on Facebook during the election began an outbreak of the buzzword being reported ad infinitum by mainstream media around the globe.  Pundits, pollsters and journalists claimed this supposedly new phenomenon of fake news had a major impact on the American zeitgeist, and potentiallygasp!on the election's outcome.  The peddlers of fake news were convenient scapegoats for why the mainstream media's predictions were so spectacularly wrong; too many were duped by these faux news scoundrels into voting for Trump.

However, when scrutinized, fake news sites' influence was minimal and the overblown moral panic over it was unjustified.  On the contrary, far more insidious than phoney fringe news sites is the fake news knowingly or unwittingly reported as truth by the mainstream media itself.  The public is much more susceptible to being duped by this type of fake news.  News outlets tend to echo each other's false narratives, resulting in ubiquitous reporting of fiction as fact, which then leads to a major swaying of public opinion, sometimes with violent consequences.

After the election, the press presumed there was a sudden spike in hate crimes due to Trump normalizing racial hatred.  But upon further inspection, many of these supposed hate crimes  turned out to be threadbare yarns.  A Reason article revealed that many of the supposed acts of hateful vandalism proliferating after Nov. 8 were perpetrated by left-wing activists or juvenile delinquents carrying out false flags or pranks.  Just one of countless examples was the supposed outbreak of hate crimes in Ottawa that turned out to be a lone teenager (perhaps inspired by media reports of fake hate crimes) spray-painting swastikas and racial slurs on mosques, churches and synagogues.  Of course these acts of vandalism were repulsive, but they were a far cry from a gang of adult white nationalists crawling out of the woodwork, emboldened by a Trump presidency as the media wrongly suggested.

Another story widely reported by the mainstream media was the accosting of a Muslim woman by two white men wearing Trump hats.  This turned out to have never happened, yet news outlets ran with it.  This was just one of many stories that circulated on social mediawidely and unquestioningly reported by the mainstream mediaabout Muslims, blacks and gays being attacked by Trump supporters, which were debunked as hoaxes.  Journalists were so convinced Trump's victory was the catalyst for unleashing a wave of hate crimes across America that they began actively seeking out hate crimes to feed their confirmation bias, which only further encouraged hoaxers and stoked anger.

The above is not meant to minimize the importance of real and despicable hate crimes, but rather to point out that the media giving voice to bunk stories sparks fires.  Some of the attacks on Trump supporters and minorities were brought about by the mainstream media's witless reporting on a spike in hate crimes.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy when the media energetically reports a phoney spate of attacks and hatred levelled against minority groups that inevitably some mercurial individuals become enraged enough to retaliate to the ruses.  That is what happened when a hostile group dragged a Trump supporter from his car and beat him.  That is what happened when four impressionable teens, citing their hatred of Trump supporters, kidnapped and tortured a young man with special needs.  And these were just two of the most extreme examples of people being targeted for verbal and physical assault for being Trump supporters.  As much as the mainstream media blamed fake news for a gunman holding up a pizzeria, the real press is far more effective in stoking violence and hatred within the public with its own fake news.

But reporting of ruses as real events, which smeared Trump supporters as violent racists, didn't just begin after the election.  Controversial right wing activist and mudraker James O'Keefedismissed by many journalists because of his organization's funding from the Trump Foundation and former arresthad undercover reporters infiltrate and catch Democratic National Committee-contracted political operatives admitting to plotting protests and inciting violence at Trump rallies.  Even the New York Times reported on this bombshell.  The revelation revealed that violence at Trump rallies, like the riot in Chicago, were (at least partly) funded and orchestrated by Democrat groups.  The mainstream media for over a year had been reporting these protests as organic and that Trump supporters seemed prone to violence.  But now it appears to be manufactured by political operatives.  And now in another video released by O'Keefe the Monday before inauguration, it appears organizations were planning to use illegal and violent tactics to disrupt celebrations.

When the media makes broad generalizations about Trump supporters being by-and-large racist and violent by reporting fake news about them as fact, other people, misinformed and misled, become hateful and resentful of their fellow citizens, leading to more confrontation.

If the press wants to combat this new "post-truth" world swirling in rumours, hoaxes and innuendo, where Trump lies routinely with his "alternative facts", the mainstream media must resist the increasing urge in a 24/7 hyper-ephemeral news cycle to report first, ask questions later.  Reporting false stories that Trump supporters are racist and violent, committing hate crimes across America, only further erodes the press's record low credibility.  The media must do a better job of discerning fact from fiction.  Otherwise Trump's crack"You're fake news!"will stick.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon