DEI is ‘illiberal, anti-merit,’ says analyst as Poilievre pushes to end government DEI programs

The echo chambers reinforce each other. While some measures of merit are objective, character measures are more challenging. And of course the irony given that much of this discourse comes from South of the border, where merit and character are sorely lacking among many politicians and political appointees:

Bringing an end to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives within Canada’s government, as proposed by Pierre Poilievre, would allow people to be chosen for roles based on merit and character, says the founder of a Canadian think tank.

It goes to the basic question of what kind of society you want and what governments should be doing. Governments should not have bureaucracies whose job it is to discriminate based on skin colour, ethnicity, gender,” Mark Milke told National Post.

Milke is the president of Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, which is dedicated to renewing a common-sense approach to public discourse and policy.

He said diversity, in general, within Canada “adds to the potential for greater understanding, for greater economic growth.” But used within the context of DEI, it can lead to restrictions of Canadian identity based on skin colour.

Milke’s comments come after the Conservative leader urged Canadians to show support in shuttering such programs within the government by signing a petition. Poilievre said he wants to “restore the merit principle” in a post on X….

Source: DEI is ‘illiberal, anti-merit,’ says analyst as Poilievre pushes to end government DEI programs

Delacourt: Pierre Poilievre says he’d stand up to Donald Trump while taking a page from his playbook

Along with the anti-DEI petition:

…On the Friday before the long weekend, Poilievre also endorsed what another Conservative MP, Michelle Rempel Garner, was preaching — an end to birthright citizenship. Or, as Poilievre called it in another post, “birth tourism.”

Again, there’s an echo from one of Trump’s first executive orders on taking office.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” the order states, going on to explain that citizenship would not be conferred to any child born in that country to a mother or father not lawfully present in the U.S. or there on a temporary basis.

“Canadian citizenship is a honour and privilege, and it must always be treated as such,” Poilievre said in an Oct. 10 post on X, formerly Twitter.

Neither of these seemingly Trump-inspired initiatives by the Conservatives are scourges in Canada. Fewer than 1,500 of the nearly 400,000 children born in Canada in 2024 were born to mothers whose residence was outside Canada. Railing against diversity, equity and inclusion may get some politicians votes, but it can also play into backlash against immigrants — which the Conservatives always hasten to point out, they’d never do….

Source: Pierre Poilievre says he’d stand up to Donald Trump while taking a page from his playbook

CPC Petition: DEI spending and government waste needs to DIE

Virtue signalling for their base and fundraising as a party petition, not one to be tabled in the House of Commons:

Whereas the Liberals are wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on bloated Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs;

Whereas the Liberal government has wasted $1.049 billion on DEI bureaucracy while Canadians struggle to make ends meet;

Whereas research funding must reward the best ideas – not identity checkboxes;

Whereas by tying research funding to identity politics, the Liberals are undermining academic freedom, silencing dissenting voices, and eroding trust in Canadian institutions;

Whereas this Liberal government is out of touch, wasting billions on bureaucracy and ideological projects while Canadians face the highest cost of living in decades.

Therefore, we the undersigned support the Conservative plan to restore fiscal discipline, end the billion-dollar DEI bureaucracies, and put taxpayer dollars into services Canadians actually need.

    Source: DEI spending and government waste needs to DIE, Star article Diversity, equity and inclusion are coming under scrutiny — and Pierre Poilievre is ready to push the conversation

    Poilievre calls for ‘severe limits’ on Canadian population growth

    Without, of course, giving any numbers. At some point, both Poilievre and critic Rempel Garner need to provide some numbers to define what they mean by “severe”. Halving numbers back to the Harper government, less or more?

    Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says the Canadian population has grown out of control and is calling on the Liberal government to further reduce immigration.

    “We want severe limits on population growth to reverse the damage the Liberals did to our system,” Poilievre said during a press conference Tuesday in the foyer of the House of Commons.“The population has been growing out of control, our border has been left wide open. This has caused the free flow of drugs, illegal migration, human trafficking and much worse.”

    Poilievre did not take followup questions from reporters on what he meant by “severe limits on population growth.”Global News has reached out to the Conservative Party of Canada for clarification but did not receive a response at the time of publication…

    Source: Poilievre calls for ‘severe limits’ on Canadian population growth

    Christopher Dummitt: Four ways Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can fight woke ideology 

    Suspect some of these ideas are being seriously considered by the Conservative Party in planning for a likely change in government. In an ideal sense, this would lead to a new thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis, reversing some of the excesses of the current government while recognizing that greater attention to diversity and inclusion issues was needed to address representation and other gaps.

    However, it is more likely that the temptation will be to wade into such “cultural war” virtue signalling given its appeal to their base and the lesser importance of these issues to Canadians compared to housing, healthcare, infrastructure, foreign interference etc. Checking and rating candidates for political viewpoints raises any number of issues whether with respect to right or left-wing views.

    But Kaufmann and Dummitt should know better the risks of simply replacing one dominant ideological tendency with another rather. Interesting that they choose that approach rather than arguing for a “merit-based” or more balanced approach., suggesting the intent is as much ideological than arguing for of …Kaufmann outlines a 12-point plan but I’ll simplify it to four points and a coda.

    I have sympathy for the view that the pendulum has shifted too far and that a rebalancing is needed but not convinced that some of these ideas are workable or lead to an improved syntheses:

    Insist on politically neutral institutions

    Conservatives should take the high ground and insist on politically neutral institutions. In everything from the CBC/Radio Canada to university research funding and heritage institutions, the government should enshrine political neutrality. This means not disseminating politically divisive concepts like “white privilege” or claiming that psychological “harm” can override free speech.

    Even though some conservatives might not agree, the BBC in the U.K. could be a model. I used to live in London and attend live tapings of topical radio comedy shows. For every joke they did about one political party or idea, they had to have another taking on the other side. It was sometimes over the top—certainly, the comedians poked fun at it—but the emphatic insistence on equal treatment mattered. Right up and down the public service, a new conservative government should insist on politically neutral institutions and the end of spreading woke ideas “on the sly” through the seemingly neutral dissemination of leftist ideas. If an overwhelming majority of the public accepts these ideas—only then should they be taken up by public institutions.

    Redo DEI to include political viewpoints

    Kaufmann thinks that while it might be tempting to get rid of DEI this probably isn’t feasible. What is possible is to insist that it be done right. Any institution that wants to hire based on categories of identity must include political viewpoint as an equity category. Many of our institutions, especially but not only universities, are now left-wing monoliths. A Conservative government should insist that this obvious lack of diversity be tackled right alongside other issues.

    A Conservative government should also insist that DEI be done accurately. That is, it can’t be done by comparing the share of a certain group’s place in a profession, like engineering, with their share in the general population. It should instead be based on that group’s share in the applicant pool. We should try to identify where the problem arises. Are discrepancies happening because of actual discrimination in hiring or are there just not enough applicants? If there aren’t enough applicants, deal with that problem (if indeed it is a problem). We shouldn’t expect every group’s share of the population to be exactly replicated in every field of work. Only if we have evidence of discrimination should discriminatory hiring quotas be implemented.

    Focus on national belonging

    Different groups of Canadians will find different parts of the Canadian story more meaningful. Maritimers will likely be more interested in our seafaring heritage. African Canadians might take more pride in Canada’s place as one part of the Underground Railroad (though others will of course be fascinated too). But our national heritage institutions should stop focusing on what divides us and instead embrace what brings us together.i

    It doesn’t mean overlooking our blind spots. However, it does mean interpreting them correctly. A Conservative government should insist that those dark places in the Canadian record be considered from a global perspective. We should get rid of woke parochialism which exclusively focuses on Canadian and Western sins. When dealing with issues like colonialism and violence, heritage institutions must be made to interpret these parts of our history in line with the existence of worldwide non-Western forms of slavery, imperialism, and violence including among pre-contact Indigenous peoples.

    This means embracing a “retain and explain” cultural policy where the assumption should be that names, statues, and other honorifics are retained except in very exceptional circumstances. What’s more, explanations cannot be one-sided accounts but must interpret figures and events within their global context.

     Remember it’s about the people

    Given that so many of our institutions have been taken over by woke activists and their liberal sympathizers, a new Conservative government should make it a priority to restaff the boards and institutions to achieve political diversity. Time and again, conservative governments are stymied because the actual people in the public service align with non-conservative beliefs. This means working on two fronts.

    First, find and appoint non-woke political candidates to cultural and public service institutions across the country. The goal is political balance. Second, and this is where Kaufmann really focuses, conservatives need to build pipelines to ensure that when a government goes looking for people, they can find qualified and trained individuals. This means creating a Federalist Society for the public service—the equivalent of that highly influential American conservative legal organization that funnels law students and ideas into the American legal system. Similarly, we need an Austrian School for culture—a conduit for woke-critical ideas in our university world that can generate an idea base that can serve as the cultural equivalent to what the Austrian School did for economic liberalism.

    Coda

    Finally, a coda. All of the above will help and can be put into action. But Kaufmann also has one final and important bit of advice that can be done right now. Stop using the woke language. Rip off the velvet glove and expose the radioactive illiberalism that lies beneath.

    This means insisting on using evocative words and images. Unless there is specific evidence that a particular institution has been discriminatory, when that institution hires based on DEI quotas this should be called out for what it is: anti-White or anti-Asian or anti-male or anti-heterosexual prejudice. Unmask the language of equity to show the discriminatory and vengeful impulse at its heart.

    Don’t accept the language of “gender-affirming” care when we are talking about giving adolescents drugs that might chemically castrate them. When people want to bind young girls’ breasts or surgically remove them, describe it for what it is: gender-based violence. Use vivid imagery like pictures of the outsized prosthetic breasts of the Toronto area teacher who caused such controversy recently. Canadians support liberal non-discrimination. They want a country that accepts all its citizens. But they also can smell when something is foul and conservatives need to be sufficiently brave and clear to point out when woke ideas are illiberal.

    What all of this means is that modern social conservatism can look a lot different from the Liberal attack-ad caricature. A new Conservative government could stand for policies that treat all Canadians equally, could enshrine politically neutral public institutions, and could show pride in our national history and culture. These aren’t just defensible shield issues; they are worth going on the attack to promote.

    Source: Christopher Dummitt: Four ways Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can fight woke ideology

    ‘We won’t forget’: How Muslims view Pierre Poilievre’s stance on Israel-Hamas war

    We shall see, look forwards to any comments on my analysis of the possible impact:

    ….The National Council of Canadian Muslims and dozens of Muslim organizations, mosques and groups signed an open letter to MPs ahead of Ramadan, asking them to stay away from events during the holy month if they couldn’t commit to taking several stances, including support for an immediate ceasefire and condemning some of the actions of Israeli forces.

    When asked about Polievre’s outreach this year, Conservative spokesman Sebastian Skamski said Poilievre has articulated a clear position that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Palestinians need humanitarian relief “as a result of the war that Hamas has started.”

    Andrew Griffith, a former director of multiculturalism policy for the federal government, said while Muslims are not a monolithic group, it’s likely Poilievre’s loud pro-Israel stance will cause some people to turn from the party, including in key ridings around Toronto.

    However, he said, given the current polling numbers, it would be unlikely to do much damage to Conservative fortunes when the next election rolls around.

    Skamski also pointed to a speech Poilievre delivered Tuesday in Montreal to the Beth Israel Beth Aaron Jewish congregation, where he addressed the matter head-on.

    “I want you to know,” Poilievre the crowd, “I say all of these things in mosques. I do go to mosques. I love meeting with the Muslim people, they are wonderful people.”

    He went on to say that when the issue of Israel is raised, “I say, ‘I’m going to be honest with you — I’m a friend of the state of Israel and I will be a friend of the state of Israel everywhere I go.'”

    That runs counter to the approach taken by Justin Trudeau, continued Poilievre, accusing the prime minister of muddying the government’s position.

    “While it might make for good politics to have one individual MP who says the right thing in order to get a seat back and keep Justin Trudeau in power, it does not solve the problem of having Canada take a right and principled position,” he said.

    Skamski said Poilievre has met with thousands of Muslim Canadians during his team as leader and has connected on their shared values of “faith, family and freedom.”

    “You can’t talk to Muslim Canadians about faith, about family values, all of those things, while at the same time turning a blind eye to 30,000 dead,” Tahir said, referring to the number of people killed in Gaza since Israel began bombarding the territory in October.

    Tahir said many were disappointed in Poilievre’s opposition to funding the UN aid agency UNRWA….

    Source: ‘We won’t forget’: How Muslims view Pierre Poilievre’s stance on Israel-Hamas war

    Pierre Poilievre’s inner circle divided over how to tackle gender issues, sources say

    Not surprising. Some difficult distinctions to make and hard to communicate nuanced distinctions such as counselling support vs chemical of physical treatment for minors:

    Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s advisers are divided on the position the party should take on issues of gender identity and diversity, multiple Conservative sources told Radio-Canada.

    While some Conservatives see questions of gender and identity as matters of principle, or as opportunities to make political gains, others fear that the polarizing issue could turn some voters against them in the next election campaign and distract from the pocketbook issues that have been the focus of Poilievre’s messaging.

    Radio-Canada spoke with about ten Conservatives anonymously, to allow them to express themselves freely.

    “We have not yet taken a clear position on the issue,” said one Conservative source. “I expected us to go further and move more quickly.”

    Other party advisers say the leader intends to remain vague on the subject for now.

    “He’ll be clearer when it’s beneficial for him,” said one Conservative strategist.

    Among those who have Poilievre’s ear, “there are those who think they can use this issue to make gains with the base, and those who think the bet is too dangerous because it could lose moderate voters,” said a third source.

    Asked to comment on internal discussions within his party on the issue, Poilievre’s office responded by referring to his past comments in the media.

    In June, Poilievre said that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had no business weighing in on New Brunswick’s policy on LGBTQ students and called on him to “butt out and let provinces run schools and let parents raise kids.”

    Conservative members of Parliament steered clear of the issue when asked on Wednesday,following a directive from the party not to speak publicly about the issue.

    “I stay out of it,” said Manitoba MP James Bezan.

    Alberta MP Glen Motz simply said “thank you” and walked away when asked.

    Provincial governments in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have moved to require parental consent before students under 16 can have schools use their preferred pronouns and names — a measure that critics say could put LGBTQ kids at risk.

    Poilievre has said that parents’ rights must be respected and that it’s up to the provinces to decide how to manage the issue in the education system.

    No position on gender-affirming care for minors

    Last month, at a Conservative Party of Canada convention in Quebec City, party delegates voted to ban “surgical or chemical interventions” for gender transition in minors.

    Poilievre still has not said whether he supports this idea.

    He also has not commented on Saskatchewan’s proposed use of the notwithstanding clause to attempt to shield its pronouns policy from a legal challenge.

    Some Conservative advisers argue Poilievre is missing an opportunity by not getting behind the policy approved by Conservatives at the convention.

    “These stories really affect people and it’s good for us,” said one party strategist. “Our members’ vote is in sync with the silent majority of Canadians. If Pierre Poilievre openly supported it, he’d get a lot of votes quickly.”

    Several sources told Radio-Canada that the issue of protecting children against “transgender ideology” is popular with women and some cultural communities, particularly in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal — demographic groups that Poilievre is actively courting ahead of the next election.

    But the consensus among Conservatives is that economics must be their main focus going into the next election campaign.

    “It’s our bread and butter,” said one source.

    Still, the issue of gender diversity concerns Conservatives because they see it as a double-edged sword — an opportunity to make political gains that also would open them up to Liberal attacks.

    Sources told Radio-Canada some of Poilievre’s advisers are warning the party against trying to make quick political gains with a volatile and polarizing issue.

    “We have to be careful to avoid this issue becoming an Achilles heel,” said a source.

    Recent demonstrations like the 1 Million March 4 Kids, intended to protest against sexual orientation and gender identity education in schools, attracted some protesters who held signs with homophobic and transphobic messages.

    “We remember what happened with (former Conservative leader) Andrew Scheer and abortion, which undermined his campaign. We definitely don’t want to replay that film,” said another Conservative source.

    During the 2019 campaign, Scheer said he was not going to reopen the issue of abortion. During the first debate in French, he repeatedly refused to say whether he was pro-choice. Soon after, his polling numbers dropped.

    “If this subject turns against us, especially in big cities and more progressive regions, it risks distracting from the economic message,” said another Conservative.

    The issue of transgender rights in schools “is a political sideshow,” said one party source.

    “It’s a tactic of the Liberals who want to trip us up on social issues,” said another. “If we put too much emphasis on this issue, we give them a stick to beat us with.”

    Despite the mounting pressure from different factions within the party, the leader has been slow to take a clear position.

    “Pierre is very cerebral,” said one adviser. “He wants to take the time to form an idea and take a position without having to change his mind.”

    Source: Pierre Poilievre’s inner circle divided over how to tackle gender issues, sources say

    Kheiriddin: Pierre Poilievre’s path to victory could run through the culture wars

    She may well be right given that most of these resolutions were carefully crafted and reflect issues that many may feel activists and advocates have been excessive in their demands and approaches. And her point on that voters may have different views on each of these resolutions appears likely:

    The Conservative policy convention has come and gone amid a hail of plaudits, photo-ops, and favourable polls. Leader Pierre Poilievre has managed to unite the party faithful and win over Canadian voters, by tapping into their economic angst and fatigue with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is increasingly seen as out of touch, and out of time.

    But the convention also opened a new political fault line: the culture wars. Delegates voted that children should be prohibited from gender-related “life-altering medicinal or surgical interventions,” upheld women’s rights to single-sex spaces and sports, and rejected mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training and race-based hiring practices. A majority also supported allowing Canadians to refuse vaccines on the grounds of “bodily autonomy.”

    Pushback was swift. A former Conservative candidate who is trans said a vote against gender-affirming care could cause some children to commit suicide. A local riding president warned against reopening the vaccine debate. But most of the criticism came from the media and analysts who say the culture wars are a distraction that will hurt the Tories at the polls, like the “barbaric practices” tip line did in the 2015 election. Poilievre has a huge lead, based mostly on economic issues: why blow it? People only care about the rent and the grocery bill; these other concerns will not inform their political choices.

    For some voters, however, these issues are highly motivating. Research firm Angus Reid Institute recently asked Canadians what they think about the culture wars, and identified two groups of voters who strongly engage on them: “zealous activists” who favour “progressive” policies like pronoun use and represent 17 per cent of voters, and “defiant objectors” who reject such changes and constitute 20 per cent of the electorate. Broken down by party affiliation, a clear pattern emerges: 47 per cent of Canadians who voted Conservative in 2021 are defiant objectors, while only three per cent of Liberal and NDP voters are.

    But while 44 per cent of NDP voters are zealous activists, only 22 per cent of Liberal voters are, suggesting that there is much less dogmatism in this group.

    For the parties, this means picking their battles and carefully choosing their bedfellows. The culture wars are not intersectional. Parents who object to the medical transitioning of children do not necessarily support restrictions on abortion. Advocates for women’s only spaces don’t necessarily believe people should be able to refuse vaccines. They may also be uncomfortable lining up with people who do.

    Angus Reid will be publishing more data in the weeks to come on specific issues, but their findings on gender identity align with the results of the Conservative convention: 43 per cent of Canadians say parents should both be informed and give consent if a child wants to change how they identify at school, while 35 per cent believe that parents should be informed but consent is not required. Those who supported the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2021 federal election are twice as likely as past Liberal voters (64 per cent to 30 per cent) and three times as likely as past NDP voters (20 per cent) to say parents’ consent is needed. At the Conservative convention, the resolution outlawing medical transition passed on the convention floor with 69 per cent.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the three words that came up most often in the survey to describe the culture wars were divisive (60 per cent), exhausting (59 per cent), and unnecessary (40 per cent). Pundits who say they are a side issue are wrong: they have seeped into Canadians’ daily lives. Their kids go to school and are told to state their preferred pronouns on the first day of class. Their grandmother goes to an aquafit program and is uncomfortable changing alongside men in an all-gender locker room. They attend DEI sessions where they are shamed for their skin color and just “go along” so as not to get cancelled.

    As pollster Nik Nanos observed, although some may see risk on the social-policy front, the reality is that the Conservatives don’t need every voter: they need about 36 per cent. “A majority could oppose their social conservative agenda and they can still win an election.” And a silent majority could guarantee it.

    Source: Pierre Poilievre’s path to victory could run through the culture wars

    Conservatives had sudden, unusual drop in votes in ridings of concern for Chinese interference: data

    Good analysis of election data and hard to argue that there was no effect due to Chinese government influence or interference given the scale and concentration of the drop. The pollsters consulted I think are being overly coy and neither I believe has detailed polling of Chinese Canadians or understanding of their issues (the Harper government was more harsh on China and yet did well among Chinese Canadians):
    Evidence of China’s alleged influence in the 2021 federal election might be found as much in what didn’t happen as what did — namely, the significant number of previous Conservative voters who did not show up to cast a ballot in ridings in British Columbia and Ontario.
    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced probes into allegations of foreign interference last week after several media reports suggested Beijing had directed an interference campaign in a few ridings in the Toronto and Vancouver areas.The National Post reviewed voting tallies from ridings identified as areas of concern by various reports and by Conservative campaign officials. The ridings are all home to large populations of Chinese Canadians.

    Across multiple ridings, a similar pattern emerged: Conservative candidates saw significantly fewer supporters coming to the polls, however the Liberals did not see large gains, indicating not that large numbers of voters switched allegiances, but that for some reason, large numbers of voters did not vote at all.

    Markham–Unionville is one of the ridings Conservatives have pointed to as a concern. The former MP, Bob Saroya, won the suburban Toronto seat in 2015 and 2019 as a lonely blue island in a sea of Liberal red across the region.

    In 2015, Saroya received 24,605 votes, about 3,000 more than his Liberal challenger, allowing him to take a seat from the Liberals even as the Trudeau government was swept to power. Saroya held the seat in 2019, receiving just over 26,000 votes, but in 2021 his vote total fell by more than 7,000 and he lost.

    The victorious Liberal MP, Paul Chiang, put on a strong campaign garnering nearly 22,000 votes. It was Chiang’s first election, and on doorsteps he emphasized his strong local roots in the riding and his decades of work as a police officer. Trudeau visited the riding several times. But Chiang only received 1,500 more votes than the previous Liberal candidate did. Far more important to the election result was the steep drop in support for Saroya.

    Chiang has shown no evident favouritism to China since being elected, voting for a motion condemning the Chinese government for their treatment of the Uyghur genocide just last month.

    In B.C., former Conservative MP Alice Wong won the seat for Richmond Centre in 2015 with more than 17,000 votes and in 2019 with more than 19,000 votes. But in 2021, her vote count sank by almost 6,000 votes, to 13,440. She lost to a Liberal, despite the Liberal vote increasing only by about 2,000.

    Several other ridings around Toronto and Vancouver with large Chinese Canadian populations saw declines in Conservative support, without the bulk of that support switching to other parties.

    Former Conservative MP Kenny Chiu lost his Steveston-Richmond East riding after 4,400 fewer Conservative supporters voted for him in 2021 than in 2019. He has alleged a misinformation campaign was spread on Chinese social media apps, including WeChat, about his party and his positions, including that the Conservatives were going to ban WeChat.

    However, Chiu also said many of his constituents were extremely cautious of COVID and Trudeau’s decision to run an election during a pandemic hurt his campaign.“It’s understandable right in the middle of the pandemic, that people not only would not open their door, let alone go out to the ballot and vote,” Chiu said.

    Chiu’s riding has been hotly contested in the past. He won fairly narrowly in 2019 after losing in 2015. He said he is still convinced there was outside interference, because the time between the 2019 and 2021 elections had been so short, and most of the news about the Liberals during that time was negative.

    “Between 2015 and 2019, there are four years. Between 2019 and 2021, there are 22 months, and all of that (time) it’s all pandemic and it’s full of government scandals,” Chiu said.

    Éric Grenier, a polling analyst who runs The Writ website, said it’s clear the Conservatives lost support in a wide swath of ridings, and supporters mostly stayed home“It is pretty clear that the Conservatives were in trouble in ridings with big Chinese Canadian populations, because they did lose a lot more support in those ridings than they did in neighbouring ridings,” he said.

    Grenier said many factors could explain the drop. To begin, overall voter turnout dropped by five per cent between 2019 and 2021. He also points to local candidate factors and other possibilities.

    “In these ridings, it’s clear that something was happening that was motivating those voters, it’s just impossible to say what it was.”

    Andrew Enns, vice president with polling firm Léger, said these ridings are an anomaly because the Conservative vote declined, even as it rose more broadly across Ontario and British Columbia. He agrees there could be many other factors at play.

    “You’ve got to really look at other factors, the quality of the candidate. Did something happen to that local candidate in the campaign? And I don’t have any answers to that. But it is certainly an unusual trend.”

    Enns said it is also possible Chinese Canadians soured on the Conservatives. While there was evidence of misinformation circulating about the party’s view on China, the party’s then leader, Erin O’Toole, generally favoured a more hawkish stance with the country.

    Source: Conservatives had sudden, unusual drop in votes in ridings of concern for Chinese interference: data

    Clark: Three Conservative MPs who saw no evil until after lunch

    Good analysis and depressing reality that Pierre Poilievre is overly beholden to the more extreme elements in the party. And Max Bernier is already fundraising off this “discreet” repudiation of the AfD by Poilievre:

    If you’re not familiar with the policies of the Alternative for Germany, the party represented by MEP Christine Anderson, you’re not alone. But the three Conservative MPs who met her for a long lunch last week didn’t get there by accident.

    That is not to say the three MPs are racist. Leslyn Lewis, Colin Carrie, and Dean Allison aren’t known as that at all. They are the Conservative Party’s unofficial conspiracy caucus.

    So when the Conservative Party issued a statement that said the three didn’t know Ms. Anderson’s views, and later two organizers of the three-hour lunch said the MPs knew a lot about who they were meeting, well, both of those things might be sort of true.

    It’s easy to find out the AfD stands for anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and xenophobic views, because it can be quickly discovered on the internet, in newspapers or videos, or from many sources. But it also seems very possible that these three read about it and didn’t believe it.

    Mr. Carrie apparently didn’t believe COVID-19 vaccines were safe, so, according to a Conservative source, he was one of the four MPs who did not go the Commons in person in the fall of 2021. Mr. Allison apparently didn’t believe public health officials who said the veterinary anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin wasn’t proven for treating COVID-19, and he gave a presentation about it to a group of Tory MPs. Last year, Ms. Lewis falsely claimed a then-undrafted World Health Organization treaty would give the WHO power to dictate all of Canada’s health care decisions in a pandemic. The three wink at the theory that the World Economic Forum is a cabal to control Canada and the world.

    And guess what? Ms. Anderson shares a lot of their views about vaccine mandates and globalists. They saw her as an ally, and apparently chose not to see the rest. She tells people she is not xenophobic or anti-Muslim, although she doesn’t really eschew those sentiments. “I do not have problems with Muslims. I have a problem with Islam. I do not consider Islam to be a religion,” she told the right-wing website Rebel News.

    Prominent AfD figures have played down the Holocaust and Nazi era, and spoken of immigrants as invaders. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs raised concerns about the three MPs meeting with Ms. Anderson. The AfD tends to target Muslims with its policies, but they include banning kosher meat and “non-medical” circumcision. Its politicians aren’t the advocates of freedom they claim to be.

    So Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre did the right thing when he issued a statement to reporters who asked that criticized Ms. Anderson’s views as “vile.” That’s unequivocal. The party issued a statement saying the three MPs had not known about her views. Mr. Carrie took the extra step of tweeting that he regretted his mistake and will do better.

    That didn’t settle it, however. Mr. Poilievre didn’t put his statement on his or the party’s social media or website, and critics accused him of try to keep it low-key with his own base.

    But he probably got more criticism from the right – and Mr. Carrie got a helping of it, too – from people who accused him of backing down in the face of criticism from the media. Rebel News ran a piece that said Mr. Poilievre “panicked” and threw his MPs to the “media wolves.” They didn’t feel the Conservative Leader stood up for principle, but rather that he caved.

    That is a message to Mr. Poilievre that he will pay a political price on his right wing if he distances the Conservative Party from extremists like the AfD. And, by the way, the People’s Party is waiting there.

    It’s worth noting Ms. Anderson’s AfD evolved into what it is because of how it dealt with extreme elements.

    Alternative for Germany came out in 2013 as an anti-European Union splinter from conservative parties, but its first leader, Bernd Lucke, quit in 2015 complaining the party was taken over by xenophobic elements under new leader Frauke Petry. In 2017, Ms. Petry lost a power struggle with the more extreme far right wing of the party, and later quit the party, too.

    So if there’s a vein of folks in the Conservative Party that doesn’t want to see the extremism of some who claim to be allies, they should be warned. There is a line. If you choose not to see it at your lunch table, it just gets closer.

    Source: Three Conservative MPs who saw no evil until after lunch