`I can win this'
`CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC' TORY LEADERSHIP CONTENDER PATRICK BROWN SPEAKS OUT IN A Q&A
Nobody saw Patrick Brown coming when he won the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party in 2015. Can the current mayor of Brampton, Ont., former three-term MP and ex-provincial leader repeat the feat at the federal level? In the most wide-ranging interview he's given, Brown tells John Ivison that he is “cautiously optimistic” about victory.
Q You have only lost one campaign in your political career and you tend to sign up lots of new members. But your leadership campaign has been low-key and you didn't take part in the first debate. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre has been packing them in. Do you have enough membership sales to win?
A We feel really good that we can win this. We made a decision to participate in all the official party debates, but there'll be a lot of unofficial debates and at this point during the membership drive, unofficial debates take us away from signing up new members. The first debate looked like a bit of a circus anyway, so it was probably a good thing that I missed it.
I feel that we're one of the few campaigns on the ground actually signing up members. We see Pierre spending a lot of time on rallies and endorsements but we don't see him signing up members. And so, you can have a rally attended by 2,000 people, and put a lot of money and time into putting that rally. But if you sign up 20 people, then that's a very low return. We're holding a high number of meetings with a high number of individuals where the output is much, much, much higher. And so, I feel cautiously optimistic.
Q In the debate last week, you and Jean Charest almost seemed to be tag-teaming Poilievre. You called Charest your mentor. Are you really in a contest with him, or are you trying to help each other out?
A So, there are many people that I have a high regard for from my time in politics. I've mentioned in my own book (Takedown: The Attempted Political Assassination of Patrick Brown) that I found the role Jean Charest played in the 1995 referendum campaign to be inspiring and I think Canada does owe him a debt of gratitude . ... At the end of the day, I think what Jean Charest and I agree on, and I think you'll find other candidates like Leslyn (Lewis) and Scott (Aitchison) would agree on, is that Pierre Poilievre simply isn't electable; that the reasons we're running is that Pierre has taken positions that will render our party's ability to grow and be successful in the next election non-existent . ... There's commonality in our perspective that Pierre is too extreme.
Q Going back a little, you've served at every level of Canadian politics (federally, provincially and municipally). How has that informed your view of federal politics?
A It's actually been really helpful, in the sense that every government has a history of pointing the finger at each other and when you have served at all three levels, you realize the reality is, governance is a lot more complicated. When you have served at all three levels, you see where there's missing links and where we can do better, particularly if you look at an area like criminal justice, where you have all three levels of government that play a role. I have been able to see where, frankly, we let our residents down ... I see where there are loopholes and where the integrity of the system is damaged. One example that I've given often is bail reform, where you get the same frequent flyers using the system again and again. One high-profile case we had was where someone was let out five times and the fifth time, despite the Crown opposing it, the individual committed a murder of his intimate partner.
Q Poilievre has raised the loan you received from a friend to buy a house (which led to a finding by the provincial integrity commissioner that Brown had breached the Members' Integrity Act). There have been other controversies in your career that we don't need to re-litigate here. But people pay about two minutes a week to politics and may come away with the view that you are untrustworthy. How would you reassure them on that point?
A First of all, the fact that I keep getting elected in the areas that Conservatives can't get elected, or haven't been elected, shows that voters do trust me, in the sense
that they wouldn't vote for someone that wasn't (trustworthy). I think my electoral record speaks to the confidence and trust the voters have in me. Listen, I think the reason Pierre is going negative is that he's worried about his grip on this.
Q On the issue of the voters who elected you, when the federal Conservatives won a majority government, they created a coalition between rural, Western and new Canadian voters in the suburbs. That was tossed away in 2015. You have resurrected part of that coalition by winning in Brampton. How about your pitch to rural and Western voters? Can you bring the coalition back together?
A I believe I can and I believe that I am uniquely equipped to do that. And so where Pierre and (Poilievre campaign manager) Jenni (Byrne) were responsible for the policies that blew up that coalition, you know, the barbaric practices tip-line announcement and the press conference on the niqab, where that trust was broken with the Conservative party, I have a history of being on the right side of issues of equity, issues of advocacy with the communities that make up the cultural mosaic that reflect the beauty of our country. I've got a track record and capacity to make massive inroads in suburban Canada. At the same time, I've represented rural areas. I handily won a byelection in rural Simcoe County and represented a part of rural Ontario in the Ontario Legislature. I frequently toured rural Ontario and heard their concerns and so I believe that there's a path to balance both the growth of the party in suburban Canada and maintain existing support in rural Canada.
Q In Ontario, you supported
a revenue-neutral carbon tax but you've turned your back on that. What's the plan now?
A So when I was in Ontario, there was no choice, it was the federal carbon mandate. I come from the perspective that I do believe in manmade climate change. I don't want to stick my head in the sand on the issue of our environmental obligations. But I also think that the situation has evolved, in the sense that we now have 10 provinces with ambitious climate change plans. And we don't necessarily need an Ottawa-knows-best approach. I think we can have room for provincial autonomy going forward. Right now, you've got Justin Trudeau, who continues to raise the carbon price at a time where there's an affordability crisis, which is tone deaf to the challenges that the country is facing in terms of livability and affordability. I also think we need to have conversations on where we can be most helpful in terms of Canada playing a part in combating climate change that goes well beyond taxation. I look at the ability to export liquefied natural gas to China, which is relying on coal-fired generation. I look at the fact that maybe we should have a carbon tariff at the border, in the sense that you've got large polluters who are able to dump product in Canada with no consequences. My starting point is, I'm not going to impose a federal requirement on provinces. But I do want to come up with a climate change plan that is credible and meaningful. And what I've learned from past experiences is that it is really important to do this in collaboration with the membership. In recent years, the Conservative party has articulated plans on climate change before the membership had a meaningful role in it. And so, my commitment
is that we'll have a policy convention where the entire membership will have an ability to work together and build a plan that is meaningful and balanced as to the affordability issue and the ability to combat climate change.
Q On policy, you came out and said you would invoke the “notwithstanding” clause to overturn the Supreme Court decision that struck down life sentences without the chance of parole. Do you worry about judicial activism?
A I was bewildered by that decision. I believe in consecutive sentences, and I believe concurrent sentences let mass murderers and terrorists off the hook. So, I do hope that the will of Parliament wins the day when it comes to our judicial system; that if the government has a mandate to create a justice system that balances the rights of victims and criminals that Parliament has the ability to do so.
Q Do you recognize the unprecedented nature of the federal government using the “notwithstanding” clause? If you overturn that decision, would you overturn others like medically assisted dying, for example, given you voted against euthanasia when you were an MP?
A I certainly think the government should be cautious when using the “notwithstanding” clause.
I think ensuring consecutive sentences, rather than concurrent, would reach the threshold where it would be helpful. But no, I would not be using it on a weekly basis for political purposes and it would have to meet a substantive requirement.
Q You're very much against (Quebec's) Bill 21. But Bill 21 is only law because the
Quebec government used its “notwithstanding” provision to shield it from the courts, which ruled it was discriminatory. It seems strange to me that you would use “notwithstanding” in the case of the life without parole decision, when you disagree with the way it has been abused in other cases.
A The difference is that Quebec's bill is clearly against the Charter. It's the obligation of the Government of Canada to defend our Charter and in the case of Bill 21, it infringes religious freedom. The Government of Canada should be there, participating with intervener status to make sure that precedent is now set in the Supreme Court.
Q Finally, you call yourself a “pragmatic” Conservative. I suspect I am not putting words in Pierre Poilievre's mouth by saying that just makes you unprincipled. How do you define your own conservatism?
A First of all, I think Pierre has a purity test on Conservatives that would create a very small party. Last week he wanted to kick out Ed Fast (MP for Abbotsford) and at the debate he wanted to kick out Jean Charest. I believe in a big tent Conservative party, where all aspects of the Conservative family are welcome. And my approach to conservatism is to say I'm a pragmatic conservative or a kitchen-table conservative where we're going to be reasonable and act in a manner that helps Canadian families. I'm not going to dogmatically follow a position if it's not in the best interest of Canadian families. For me, the litmus test is going to be: “how does this make life easier or more affordable for the average Canadian family?”