So, Andrew Coyne muses that Justin Trudeau should just step aside in the wake of a recent by-election defeat. His reasoning? Well - it's a bit of a jumble of deflection, redirection and obfuscation. Oddly enough, he makes a far better summary of his reasoning in one post on X (FKA Twitter):
In his column, Cone opines as follows:
But there is no equivalent in Canada to Mr. Trump’s attempts, by a combination of force and fraud, to overturn the results of a democratic election, or his threats to use the Justice Department to “go after” his political opponents, or his privately and publicly expressed desires to see some of them executed, or his efforts to intimidate officials in his several criminal trials and otherwise undermine the rule of law.
Is there no equivalent in Canada? That's very much a matter of perspective. Can we truly say that there is no Canadian equivalent to Trump's January 6 assault on Capitol Hill? Not really - because only a year later the so-called "Freedom Convoy" would descend upon Ottawa not only with a demand that the Governor General dissolve Parliament and install the Convoy leadership as some kind of interim junta.
Likewise, on the matter of going after political enemies, we cannot ignore Pierre Poilievre's recent hints that he would cheerfully invoke the Notwithstanding Clause (S33) of the Charter to insulate his laws from Charter scrutiny. If you don't think this can be weaponized not only to realize his "tough on crime" agenda, but also to attack perceived and real political enemies, you aren't paying attention - because S33 is essentially a clause that puts Charter Rights in abeyance indefinitely. Not only does that undermine the concept of "rule of law", but it creates an environment where the rule of law becomes arbitrary, and politicians can rewrite the rules pretty much at will.
The politicization of nearly every public office – prosecutors, sheriffs, even judges elected on party political lines – has no equivalent here.
I would ask if Mr. Coyne has been paying attention for the last decade. Literally every appointment, every official action of the Trudeau government has been attacked and politicized - from committees and judicial appointments to things that have nothing to do with Trudeau himself. We see a constant stream of invective directed at undermining Trudeau. Here in Alberta, what is the first thing the UCP has done to attack the newly selected leader of the NDP? Oh, they try to make him out as "Trudeau's Lackey".
In fact, in my lifetime, I have never seen a Prime Minister subjected to such a constant stream of attacks - both legitimate and petty. All of this has been clearly in the name of undermining Trudeau and making it as difficult as possible to govern.
So it is more than a stretch for the Prime Minister to pretend that his own troubles are part of some worldwide trend to instability, or to insinuate that democracy is on the ballot in the next election. And if it were? If the Conservatives, or Mr. Poilievre, represented the same threat to democracy as Mr. Trump’s Republicans, or the same far-right philosophy as France’s Rassemblement National?
Here we come to the point where Mr. Coyne shows us exactly how wilfully blind he really is. His position here ignores a whole bunch of facts and factors which are at play.
As much as I would like to simply point at the Harper-led International Democrat Union (IDU) which really is a central piece of the worldwide movement towards fascism that we are seeing, it's not that simple here at home.
First, there is a long-standing history of collaboration between conservatives in both Canada and the United States. Canadian conservative politicians regularly attend major conservative political conventions like Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the US; likewise they often attend US-based training at places like Morton Blackwell's "Leadership Institute" (LI). There are a number of notable Canadian conservative politicians who have attended courses at LI - like Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, and others. Similarly, in Canada, we have the Canada Strong and Free Network (CSFN) conference, and mysteriously US conservatives attend and speak at it.
A significant number of Canadian conservative politicians have worked for campaigns in the US - most notably recently being Alberta's Devin Dreeshen who was active in Trump's 2016 campaign, but we can't ignore guys like Rob Anders whose political career starts with being a paid heckler for a Montana GOP candidate in the early 90s.
All of this is to evidence that there is a long history of collaboration and sharing of ideas, people, and skills between US and Canadian conservatives. So, it is no reach at all to observe that what is done by conservatives in the US almost always appears in Canada in some form or another.
So, let's look at the last decade of conservative attacks on the government led by Justin Trudeau for a moment. From 2008-2016, we watched as the GOP in the US did everything it could to obstruct President Obama. It was stunning to watch as the GOP basically refused to cooperate with anything that the Democrats attempted to do whether it be legislation or matters like judicial appointments.
What have we seen in Canada? Exactly all of the same strategies. Either attacking the Prime Minister and his government for any action taken or anything even remotely associated with Trudeau was open to attack. As has been shown with the WE scandal, no matter how unfounded the attacks, they were persistent to the point of breaking the target - anything to erode the credibility of the government. While there are clear differences in the particulars, the fundamental strategy is consistent - do anything you can to discredit the target.
There's no doubt in my mind that the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) chose Justin Trudeau as their leader that the conservatives lost their collective minds. The hatred of Pierre Trudeau in the modern day CPC is as ripe today as it was in 1980s Alberta in the wake of anger over the NEP. They just directed all of that anger straight at Justin Trudeau. So, when the government passed a new environmental assessment into law, it was immediately reframed as an attack on Alberta, and the first Convoy protest was assembled. In many ways, it was the trial run not only for the 2022 Freedom Convoy, but also for the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Similar messaging, similar organizing techniques were used, and they were refined over time.
More recently, we have seen the US GOP legislators implementing a vast array of legislation designed to attack transgender people and restrict their rights and ability to move through society. Is there a parallel happening in Canada? Absolutely there is. We have several conservative Premiers who are implementing anti-transgender legislation, complete down to invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to insulate what is obviously a violation of fundamental rights from being challenged in the courts. While the legislation in states like Florida or Texas is leagues more malevolent than even what Danielle Smith has proposed in Alberta, there is no doubt that the approach is basically figuring out how to impose similar legislation in Canada. Conservative Premiers like Ford, Moe, and Smith have been more active in invoking S33 to insulate their legislation for some time. The effect is predictable: although people get outraged with the legislation initially, over time, they stop paying attention when it doesn't affect their lives directly.
How does this connect to the Federal picture with Poilievre? Let's pay some attention here. Poilievre has already hinted that he is willing to invoke S33 to insulate legislation. On top of that, he has also indicated that he doesn't think that trans youth should have access to puberty blockers and other medical interventions. This is not an accident.
I think it's also important to note here that conservative politicians have long histories of engaging in voter suppression strategies - and Poilievre's one piece of legislation was basically an attack on voting rights, and let's not ignore the history of the Harper era conservatives engaging in all sorts of shenanigans like redirecting voters to incorrect voting stations (Robocalls Scandal). Where do you think those ideas are being imported from? If you guessed the GOP, you're partly correct.
It's easy to dismiss similarities between Trump and Poilievre as simply being "populism", not when it's clear that there are shared tactics and strategies.
That's a lot of words to point out that Mr. Coyne is profoundly wrong when he suggests that the situation in Canada is not the same as that in the US. In fact, the increasing alignment of the Trump aligned GOP and the CPC says otherwise.
