adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

What Pierre Poilievre’s polarizing past on Parliament Hill says about his present

Published

 on

OTTAWA — Pierre Poilievre’s first words in the House of Commons were a sure sign of things to come.

It was October 2004, and though at 25 years old he was one of the youngest faces in the room, he had beenpreparing for this moment.

As a teen, he had read economist Milton Friedman’s 1962 book “Capitalism and Freedom.” At 15, he had joined the board for his member of Parliament in Calgary, Preston Manning. By 20, he had penned an essay about being prime minister.

In university, Poilievre led his campus conservative club. He learned the ropes of campaigning from political heavyweights such as Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day.

So when Poilievre rose to speak for the first time as an MP, he knew exactly what he was doing. He went straight for Paul Martin’s jugular: “The prime minister has engaged in a smorgasbord of patronage that is so impressive it would make even his predecessor blush.”

Eighteen years later, what strikes those who knew him then is how little the 43-year-old has changed.

“He was fully prepared on day one to stand up in question period and go right after the prime minister,” said Jeremy Harrison, a Saskatchewan cabinet minister and former Conservative MP who was elected in his early 20s alongside Poilievre.

“Fearless,” he said, with “a lot of talent.”

Poilievre, one of the first people elected under the banner of the federal Conservative Party of Canada, is now the presumptive front-runner in the contest to become its next leader.

If he was already a firebrand then, his image has been made even more polarizing by his embrace of the anti-lockdown vein of right-wing populism that fuelled this year’s “Freedom Convoy.”

Looking back on his early career offers a glimpse into his making as one of the most divisive figures in Canadian politics.

It was easy to underestimate Poilievre, back then — at least, before he opened his mouth.

When Poilievre ran for his federal seat in what was then the Ottawa-area riding of Nepean-Carleton, the first-time candidate was a gangly 24-year-old upstart looking to take it from popular Liberal David Pratt, who was then the minister of national defence.

“I swear to God, I looked like I was 14,” he said during a panel discussion about youth in conservative politics, back in 2009, recalling reactions to a photo distributed on campaign materials during the dying days of the campaign.

“Our office started getting so many calls asking, ‘How old is this kid? Can he actually vote for himself in this election?’”

But Poilievre proved himself a quick study and an enthusiastic door-knocker with a knack for connecting with people, including teens he recruited to volunteer on his campaign.

In Parliament, the high-energy, baby-faced MP earned the nickname “Skippy” and showed his prowess for debate and a penchant for coining catchy phrases, slamming the Liberals’ proposed national daycare program in 2005 as “the great government babysitting bureaucracy.”

Poilievre’s profile continued to rise once the Conservatives took power in 2006 under former prime minister Stephen Harper, another of his teachers.

Harper appointed him as his parliamentary secretary in 2008 and he was trotted out as the government’s defender-in-chief. Poilievre’s scrappy style and impressive command of various political files — served with a twist of self-satisfaction, critics say — made him the Conservatives’ go-to attack dog.

Former Tory MP Scott Armstrong remembers that when Poilievre spoke, he and his caucus colleagues would take notes on his delivery.

“I watched how he sort of handled himself, physically,” said Armstrong, who would later become parliamentary secretary to Poilievre during his brief stint as employment minister in 2015.

“He was probably our most effective communicator,” recalled Armstrong. “He can actually get the Conservative message out.”

Poilievre seems to know that his talents are rare. During his 2009 speech to young conservatives, he dubbed communication Parliament Hill’s “most demanded and least possessed skill.”

“I have found it a real struggle to hire people who know how to write in language that real people understand,” he said.

Poilievre’s mouth has also got him into trouble.

In 2006, he was caught scoffing “f— you guys” under his breath to members of a parliamentary committee, the young MP wearing glasses, a roomy blue pinstriped jacket and centre-parted hairstyle popular in the late ’90s.

And in 2008, Poilievre apologized after questioning in a radio interview whether Canada was “getting value for all of this money” by compensating Indigenous residential school survivors. He also suggested they should instead work harder — making those comments hours before Harper delivered a historic apology in the House of Commons for the country’s wrongdoing.

“It showed to me just a real lack of judgment,” said Charlie Angus, a longtime NDP MP, in an interview.

Poilievre’s judgment was questioned again in 2010 when, one day, he grew so impatient waiting in his car to go through Parliament Hill’s security check that breached protocol by pressing a button to let himself through.

If the brash way that Poilievre presented himself in those early years had significantly evolved over the course of his time in the Commons, Angus would have been there to see it. But he says today that Poilievre “hasn’t really transformed from that.”

Despite those few exceptions, or perhaps because of them, by Poilievre’s early 30s his message discipline was becoming a well-oiled machine. His caucus colleagues began to notice that he was adding physical discipline to his arsenal, too, with a vigorous workout routine.

He was still young, but a little less gangly, when he was appointed to Harper’s cabinet in 2013 as democratic reform minister.

Chris Alexander was appointed to oversee immigration during the same cabinet shuffle. He described Poilievre as being open about his lack of life experience outside of politics and eager to make up for it.

“He always had a book, or was talking about what he was reading, and asking what the rest of us are reading,” Alexander said.

Poilievre was tasked with shepherding through controversial legislation altering Canada’s election regime. It included a provision outlawing “voter vouching,” or allowing a person without documentation of their name or address to bring someone to the polls to vouch for their identity. Critics argued this could lead to the disenfranchisement of voters. The current Liberal government has since reversed that policy.

When then-chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand criticized the proposed law in 2014, Poilievre attacked his motives: “He wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability,” he said during a Senate committee meeting.

Former NDP MP Craig Scott, the party’s critic on the issue, said that a well-known antagonist being the face of the bill made it easier to drum up public opposition.

Scott mused that people already suspicious of the Harper government tended to read ulterior motives into everything Poilievre touched. They’d think, “Because this is Pierre Poilievre, surely something even more is going on,” he said.

Despite his prickly exterior, those who worked more closely with Poilievre say the well-prepared MP was always funnier, kinder and more down-to-earth than his performances implied.

Those who were there to see his beginnings have stuck around.

Former Conservative cabinet minister John Baird, then a political mentor, now serves as his campaign chair. Jenni Byrne, a longtime party operative whom Poilievre dated in his early career, is a senior aide on his team. His wife, Anaida, whom he married in 2018, also works as a political staffer on Parliament Hill.

They’re believers in the recipe for political victory that Poilievre had shared with Conservative youth earlier in his career.

“If you want to be successful in Conservative politics,” the young Poilievre instructed, “you have to stand for something.”

“You have to stand for ideas that excite large numbers of people. Electricians, mechanics, carpenters, everyday working people that might not be totally fascinated by politics.”

Poilievre has grown up in public. He spent his the past 18 years crafting a reputation for being a bold and to-the-point communicator, cutting to the chase in a way that made critics curse him, opponents loathe him and colleagues admire him.

Now, the career politician might be about to put the days of defending other leaders’ policies behind him.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 5, 2022

 

Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press

 

 

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending