LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Between the events that compelled his first resignation and the cacophony of infighting, rumours, accusations, denials, threats, and lawsuits that compelled his second, Ontario Progressive Conservative ex-Leader Patrick Brown kept the race for his own replacement fun to watch.  What is to become of him now?  Will he become the Phantom of the Opposition, training naïve young backbenchers from the shadows to carry out the People's Guarantee?  Will he spend the rest of his days in his mother's house making nonsensical podcasts?  Time and petulantly worded media releases will tell.

What is more certain is what will become of the PC leadership race itself.  It will bore.  Bore like the wind.

Before the first public accusations of sexual misconduct against him, nobody could call Brown a spark of excitement.  In his approximately three years of leadership, his one memorably bold policy position was his attempt to sell a truly revenue-neutral carbon tax to his party.  Given a limited gestation period and the Pavlovian reaction of many PC voters to the phrase "carbon tax," this has gone nowhere, with all four remaining leadership candidates rejecting the idea as if on impulse.  But maybe the eventual leader will keep Brown's winter tire tax credit.

Of those four remainders, former Deputy Leader Christine Elliott has squandered the most potential.  This is her third leadership run, having suffered two previous losses to chinless white men.  As a longtime MPP, a passionate advocate for the disabled, and the better-known of Brown's leadership opponents in 2015, she was a natural choice to run again, bringing much-needed likability and experience to the table.  Yet her policy offerings are scanty: more long-term care beds, shorter hospital wait times, "a second look" at the controversial sex education curriculum.  After three leadership candidacies, voters should know what she is running for, and so should she.

In contrast, social conservative activist Tanya Granic Allen knows exactly why she is running per her website, "against Kathleen Wynne's sex-education curriculum and for freedom of speech."  On these issues, she is unfailingly articulate and passionate, providing refreshing clarity to the humdrum of provincial politics.  It is exactly that clarity that makes it so easy for voters who are not rigidly socially conservative to ignore her, except when tweeting about the Anal Sex Lady.  Worse, her opponents all agreed early that the sex-ed curriculum deserves a review, if not rejection, effectively depriving her of the fight she wanted.

If not for Granic Allen's entry, voters seeking passion would be looking to former Toronto city councillor Doug Ford.  Policy-wise, he has offered the most specifics: reducing "inefficiencies" in the provincial budget to the tune of 2 to 3 percent, ending the use of sole-sourced procurement contracts, scrapping a Muskoka power dam project, expanding infrastructure and transit in the North.  But his demeanour on the campaign trail has been unusually subdued for someone so often described as "pugilistic" in his commitment to fiscal conservatism.  Constant comparisons to his late brother may be unfair, but Rob Ford was unmatched for his ability to galvanize his base.  Ford Nation is Ford Nation, no matter what, but Doug hasn't decisively captured many hearts and minds beyond theirs.

Speaking of people with famous relatives, let's talk about Caroline Mulroney.  Her decision to run for leadership may be the most baffling.  As a first-time candidate on any level of politics, she could have easily stepped aside for more established party figures, while taking the time to build up an agenda and an image.  Instead, she jumped right into a leadership contest with only her name and her experience as a board member and fundraiser neither of which are drawbacks, but are not in themselves qualifications for public office.  Since then, she has run the safest, dullest campaign of the bunch, with few noteworthy proposals and a number of lost caucus endorsements.  In media appearances and debates, she comes off painstakingly rehearsed, just as confused about her mere presence as anyone else.

This blandness cannot continue into the June general election.  Recent polls suggest Ontario voters are ready to dump the governing Liberals, regardless of who leads the PCs.  But this party has failed to remove her twice, which should be the easiest job in Canadian politics.  With their reputation already beset by internal bungling and corruption, the PCs cannot afford to choose another uninspiring leader.

By the way, if you haven't registered to vote for leader yet, you have until March 5 to do so.  If you feel like it, that is.

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

Written by Jess Morgan

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Well it seems we won't have Patrick Brown to kick around much longer.  But before he ambles off to stage right, I'd like to give him one last boot.

Poor Mr. Brown finally decided to drop out his brief bid to replace the disgraced former leader of the Progressive Conservatives, that is to say, himself.

Brown, it was said, was looking for a way to bow out of the race with dignity.  A chance he was denied the first time around, when he had to slink off in the middle of the night.

If this is his version of dignified, maybe he shouldn't have bothered.

Brown lays out his decision in a letter posted to Twitter on Monday.  And it's worth us going though it, because it's a remarkable document that reveals a man with a remarkable regard for himself.  Throughout this letter, addressed to the party's executive committee, Brown lays out the case for why he must leave the leadership race, mere days after being approved as a candidate.

Firstly, he's doing this to clear his name.  He compares his current plight — being accused of sexual misconduct toward two women — to some of the grander fights against injustice in our time.

"I have always believed it necessary to stand up against injustice.  I have done so when supporting democratic movements around the world, when shining a light on the scourge of genocide, and when fighting political corruption here in Ontario," Brown writes.  "The lack of journalistic integrity demonstrated by CTV News led to an instant execution without a trial.…That could not be allowed to stand.  It had to be challenged."

On the one hand, genocide.  On the other hand, his good name.  Right-o.

(It's my duty here to note Brown will be suing CTV over their reporting, that he absolutely denies the accusations, and none of the claims of the women have been proven in court.)

He continues: "My focus needs to be on ensuring that due process, journalistic integrity, and democracy are preserved in Canada."

Due process, journalistic integrity, and democracy are what's at stake.  I had to read this last bit several times.  Only one, maybe two of those, involved shouting to no one in particular "DEMOCRACY?  HE THINKS THIS IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY?"

(This is actually a paraphrase, my real wording was far more profane.)

Okay, deep breath.  We're not even through the first page.  Onward.

He also says it would be unfair to stick around and be partly focused on clearing his name, and partly focused on becoming premier.  It would "jeopardize my mission and that of 100,000+ PC Party members to implement the moderate, responsible fiscally conservative policies put forward in The People's Guarantee, for the benefit of 14 million Ontarians."

I emphasize the "100,000+" bit of that sentence, because it's a delightful bit of weasel speak.  It wasn't that long ago — lo, some six weeks ago when he was still leader — that Brown was boasting about the party having 200,000 members, according to the Toronto Sun.

And after he was booted, interim leader Vic Fideli sent an email to his caucus that there were about 67,000 fewer members than there should be, by way of accounting tomfoolery.

Brown changed his tune a bit in time for his campaign launch just two weeks ago.  "Our membership has gone from 12,000, and whether it's 145,000 or 180,000 or 200,000, it's still the largest we have ever been," he said.

He doesn't mention the ethics investigation it was announced he was under the same day he was quitting.  Which is a convenient omission.  But, we must forge on, because there's one last thing he does get to.

Brown's family, it seems, has been under incredible pressure these last few weeks.

"It has become very clear that my political adversaries…will stop at nothing to preserve their own self-interests as long as I am in the race," Brown writes.  "They are no longer just targeting me. they are now targeting my friends and family.  I can take a punch, but it stings when it is unfairly directed at the people I love instead of me."

"I cannot allow my family to suffer this way as a result of my own ambition to finish the job I started."

It's a bit rich for a politician to use his family as a shield during his PR comeback tour, to lean on his family for character references.  In an interview with Global, he could hardly get through an answer without mentioning his sisters, mother, or grandmother.  No matter.

The through line in this letter is that Patrick Brown has realized that he, Patrick Brown, can no longer put himself ahead of the concerns of his party, his platform, his family, and, apparently, all of democracy.  He has seen that it would be selfish to carry on any further.

After putting himself at the centre of everything, first by refusing to step aside, then by forcing his way back into the race, by using his family as a shield, he has seen the light so many weeks later than the rest of us.

If Patrick Brown were as unselfish as he'd like you to believe, he would never have gone through any of this.  But he did go through all of this, dragging everyone around him down as he went.

A man of higher character would have had the ability to see this sooner.  But Patrick Brown didn't see it, because he couldn't.  He couldn't see it because, perhaps, he isn't the man he insists he is.

We're better off now that he's gone.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.