Canadian Politics Facing Double Whammy

September 19, 2022

Canadian Politics Facing Double Whammy: A CPC leader who mistrusts journalists and believes in conspiracy theories, and a growing distrust and reduced influence of journalists.

The degradation of Canadian politics continues with the convincing crowning of Pierre Poiliviere as the undisputed king of Canadian Conservatives. We now have a charismatic populist politician well qualified to take on Justin Trudeau who has a few years to attempt to rebuild his popularity in challenging economic times. It will be a nasty battle of the self-proclaimed ordinary adopted son of hard-working parents and his talented political immigrant wife against the privileged Prime Minister. Question Period will be a battleground like never before with Poiliviere excoriating Trudeau as responsible for and indifferent to impoverished common Canadians and Trudeau ridiculing his reckless ideas. Not a pretty sight, and it will dominate the airwaves.

 

Our politics have been an ugly sight in other ways that continue to degrade the public’s perception of how we are ruled. It started during the last election. Here is how Fatima Syed, a MacLean’s write, summed up the increasingly violent demonstrations plaguing the Trudeau campaign in September 2021: “Many of the protests following Justin Trudeau have been marked by the kind of extreme rage that became familiar in the U.S. during Donald Trump’s presidency. Protesters have yelled “Lock him up,” “Traitor,” and “piece of s–t.” They have called for Trudeau to be hanged. They have verbally attacked members of his team…using racist and misogynistic language.”

 

Our politics will take another hit with Poiliviere taking his position as Leader of his majesty’s loyal opposition. The Freedom Convoy which occupied Ottawa, provided him with his freedom war cry and empowered his demonizing of Justin Trudeau and the “gatekeepers” who are apparently denying basic rights to Canadians and sending the country into ruinous inflation. Interestingly it was also the launch of increased aggressive attacks on “mainstream media - MSM”.  

 

Brent Jolly, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists said the Association was shocked by the level of antagonism, and Brodie Fenlon, editor in chief and executive director of daily news for CBC News recounted multiple examples of violent confrontations all over Canada: “….disturbing abuse has appeared in our inboxes and social media feeds, threatening our staff with arrest, graphic violence and extra-judicial trials. References to Nuremberg and treason are common. The dialogue is rife with allegations of conspiracy and ‘fake news.’

Clearly the Trump strategy of discounting the validity of news that a leader doesn’t like has been adopted by Poiliviere who openly supported the Freedom Convoy. Aside from saying he will defund the CBC, the largest news gathering organization in Canada, he goes out of his way to discredit journalists who take a run at him. In a particularly egregious example attacking a reporter who criticized his consorting with a well-known anti-vaccer, he put out a fulsome media release which referred to “one of Global news’s so-called journalists” and said – “Canadian’s trust in news media has reached an all-time low. And when we look at your coverage of these issues it is easy to understand why. Instead of covering the news, unprofessional journalists like you try to set disingenuous traps to attack your opponents.”  


Poiliviere has paraded his messages on social media and in convincing professionally-produced You Tube videos. Using the media of information preferred by younger Canadians and appealing directly to their needs and frustrations in his rallies has resulted in some polls showing him more popular with younger Canadians than Justin Trudeau or NDP’s Jagmeet Singh. Some observers contend that Poilievre’s momentum with youth could be a factor in the next election. *


Meanwhile the Ottawa press gallery who we rely on for perspective and context have paid little attention to Poiliviere. Former Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells did do a long piece on his economic policies, the only serious one as far as I know on his paid subscription website. Others have tended to follow an early piece by the Globe’s Campbell Clark which takes the then candidate to task for blaming inflation on The Bank of Canada’s money printing and the Trudeau government’s spending habits. His promise to fire the head of the Bank of Canada has garnered him much negative press.


All this is to remind those of us who have lived in another era that informed coverage that seems to have let Poilivere’s campaign go largely un-analyzed, has been greatly diminished by the loss of so many seasoned journalists locally and in Ottawa. The outcry over the dismissal of Lisa Laflamme, the last of the real authority figures on the most watched national TV newscast is merely the apogee of replacement of seasoned veterans in our journalist’s world by cheaper less experienced reporters. Salaries have been cut and bureaus reduced. There are fewer reporters chasing fewer stories and news outlets, whether TV, radio or print with falling advertising revenue have undergone large cutbacks in staff. Bell Media which owns many radio stations and CTV news channel and CP24 News has shed hundreds to regain profitability. The Ottawa bureaus of large regional papers like

the Vancouver Sun, Halifax Chronicle Herald and Winnipeg Free Press, and sizeable radio networks like CHUM and the former Newsradio all had Ottawa bureaus which are now gone.



TV news, which does little analysis, remains an important source for news with the internet a close second. A study by the Canadian Media Research Consortium found that 38 per cent said that television is the format they prefer for news and information; and 30 per cent said they preferred the internet. When asked where they find the most interesting news items, more than 50 per cent said they find the best stuff on the net. Only 15 per cent and six per cent chose newspapers and radio, respectively. This is good news for the Poilivere’s of this world, bad news for Canadians who need informed analysis of what is really happening in Ottawa.

 

There are still strong journalistic and columnist voices like Robert Fife and Chantal Hebert, John Ivison, Andrew Coyne, Althia Raj and John Ibbitson. However, the majority of this deep journalistic talent is found in major print media, the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail and National Post. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer Canadians, and especially young Canadians, get their news from these sources and even a cursory scan of TV Ottawa coverage reveals mainly much younger reporters covering the nation’s business.

Thus, we are entering perhaps the most divisive and contentious period in Canadian political history with an angry population deeply worried about their ability to survive a punishing economy, with a popular young leader of the opposition who speaks to them with wild policy solutions, and an unpopular Prime Minister seemingly out of touch with the electorate with few convincing new policies. Exacerbating this is a less robust and influential Ottawa press gallery to provide serious context and coverage. The result is our politics is diminished for sure.

 

In the conclusion to his excellent review of the history of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, Power Prime Ministers and the Press, Bob Lewis says: “An informed media, can in Byron’s metaphor cause ‘a small drop of ink falling like dew upon a thought’ to make millions think…reporters chasing sensation, the horse race over policies, contribute to declining faith in the legitimacy of government. One might add – and one senior politician and a segment of the public questioning the very legitimacy of mainstream journalism

 

We must take Poiliviere seriously, watch his trajectory very closely, inform ourselves from journalists who seriously watch the evolving Ottawa scene, ignore the unfact checked bits and pieces on the internet, talk and speak openly about where this country is going and dialogue with our MP’s who will be in a listening mood. We are in the kind of fluid and unpredictable political situation where being a seriously informed electorate can save us from real political decline.

 

*See excellent National Post article - Analysis: Why does Pierre Poilievre appeal to young Canadians? Sam Routley, Western University,   Sept 04, 2022 

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts