Tory parties are not what they used to be
Notwithstanding the audible gasps from the chattering classes and the vocal cries from opponents in the face of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s vow to use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to shrink the size of Toronto City Council, one thing is for certain: This is not your grandfather’s Conservative party.
That couldn’t be more obvious as stalwart grandfathers of the party, such as former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former Ontario premier Bill Davis, took turns last week voicing their disapproval of the clause itself and Ford’s determination to use it. In political terms, however, their figurative jowl-shaking matters little. Ford and his advisers know what they are doing, and public opinion suggests they know it will work.
Many point to Ford following a path first set by former prime minister Stephen Harper, a stalwart of the Conservative new school. As has been well documented by now, Harper wasn’t shy in railing against the activism of the bench, attacking Supreme Court justices and sitting out the 30th birthday party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 2012.
He did so because he believed it, but also because it appealed to his base. Indeed, past Conservative voters are two to three times more likely than past Liberal and NDP voters to say the charter has been “bad” for Canada than they are to say it has been good. Conservative voters are also the least likely to express confidence in the courts.
In disagreeing with Justice Edward Belobaba’s decision on his move to cut the size of Toronto City Council, Ford is playing to this heightened Conservative skepticism toward Canada’s justice institutions. In moving to invoke Charter Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause), Ford is also betting a figurative flipping of the bird to this country’s legal and government establishment also will resonate among the majority of Canadians, who say they feel as though they are on the outside looking in.
When the Angus Reid Institute last asked, fully two-thirds of Canadians said “the values and ideals I care about most are losing ground.” On the right-hand side of the political spectrum, the feeling only intensified, with nearly four in five (79 per cent) of past Conservative voters expressing this. Among those who were on the “very right” side of the political scale (as opposed to moderately right), this view was nearly unanimous (91 per cent).
The issues driving these feelings are more varied than the sentiment itself, but it may go some way to explaining some examples of provincial tangles with Ottawa and use of Section 33. Alberta’s former premier, Ralph Klein, tried to invoke the clause almost 20 years ago in an attempt to effectively block gay marriage. He wasn’t successful, but the effort appeared to be less about jurisdiction than a reflection that, at the time, many in his province did not agree with the values or share the arguments behind the Supreme Court decision allowing unions between same-sex couples.
Similar parallels might be applied to former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall’s decision last year to use the clause in the face of a court ruling that essentially said the province should not pay to send non-catholic students to separate, Catholic schools. Again, this decision was arguably less about which level of government has final say over education, and more about a political and ideological decision to defend parents’ choice to send their kids to religious school.
As bemused as the rest of Canada may be about Ontario — the very centre of the Canadian political universe — now employing a recognized technique aimed at piquing the so-called ruling classes, it is Ford’s nation now. As aghast as former leaders of his old “big blue machine” may be, he knows this is an effective way to tap into the disconnect between this country’s august establishment and its people. Get ready for more.
He did so because he believed it, but also because it appealed to his base.