This month has been two years since I shared my analyzes in this section. My motivations remain unchanged: to offer a point of view that draws on my past political baggage, colored by my progressive fiscal conservatism.
Being a conservative in the media isn’t easy. We are only deemed credible or taken seriously when we criticize our own political family. If I defend, contextualize or qualify the Conservative position, I am accused of partisanship or given the label of “Trojan horse” of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).
Yes, I was a political advisor and spokesperson in the Harper government and in opposition. Yes, I was a CCP candidate in elections. I don’t hide it. But I haven’t held these positions for more than four years now. This experience accompanies me and allows me to better popularize political information in the media.
Yes, Yves-François Blanchet and Bernard Drainville, like so many others before them, used their media platforms to launch or relaunch themselves in politics. I do not intend to run for a deputy seat in the next election. I would like to experience the next federal election as a political analyst, if I am offered such a platform.
For some, I am a scab. But I write opinions, I don’t do the work of a reporter. The latter cannot offer the same lighting as mine; he has not been in active politics. We must make the difference and the nuance. My role is often to interact with journalists and presenters to try to explain the motivations behind certain positions taken by our politicians. Why a motion of confidence on the carbon tax, when the Conservatives know the vote is lost in advance? Because they want to see if there will be dissent in the opposing ranks. But above all to obtain the famous clip showing Liberal and Bloc MPs rising in the House to increase taxes in order to use this excerpt when the time comes in targeted advertisements bearing the words: “Look at your MP. » When the election is called, this extract will necessarily pay off.
Unlike some columnists, I don’t tell people how to think. Even less what to think. My presence serves to balance opinions. The Trudeau government’s satisfaction rate is stark. I am not the only one who thinks that change is needed in Ottawa, it is not a matter of partisanship.
My decision to join the CPC in 2008 was largely due to the political legacy and career of the late Brian Mulroney. I heard the news of his death a few minutes before going on the air. I spoke candidly about his legacy and accomplishments. I have not had the opportunity to say that he has been and will remain a model for me. When I do debates, I always think of his exchange with John Turner during the 1984 election. And when there are cameras during discussions between politicians and voters, I wonder if this will become a “moment” Goodbye, Charlie Brown », such as the one suffered by Brian Mulroney in the mid-1980s.
I admire Brian Mulroney. During my studies, I did not perceive Jean Chrétien’s liberals as adversaries. There was a certain budgetary rigor. But there was the sponsorship scandal, the Chrétien-Martin wars. The Liberal Party has become elitist, urban and, with Michael Ignatieff, has taken on caviar left leanings. It is still ironic that the monarchy is not popular in Quebec, but that people vote for Trudeau Jr. there, as if it were a hereditary right. THE ” natural governing party » as liberals define themselves.
I preferred to learn within the PCC, over meritocracy. I started as a volunteer. I ran in an impossible riding. I worked for a minister for four years. In a way, fate wanted us to work on the continuation of one of Brian Mulroney’s works; free trade. He had achieved the impossible: a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. Stephen Harper’s government did the same with Europe, South Korea and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Often, ambassadors or officials told us anecdotes from the Mulroney-era negotiations, which we loved.
It is often said that in Canada, we govern from the center. But Justin Trudeau certainly does not govern from the center. Many columnists denounce the positions of Pierre Poilievre and defend the need for him to make a turn towards the center. But to restore balance after eight years of a left-wing government, at the mercy of the New Democratic Party (NDP), we need a serious shake-up, with a reduction in the size of the state and a tight management of public funds. Straightening public finances is what Brian Mulroney began to do, after 20 years of the previous Liberal government. This will also be the task of Pierre Poilievre.
We denounce the rise of the right in the world. It’s strange, when it’s left-wing governments that rise, we celebrate great victories. We talk a lot about populism on the right, but there is also populism on the left. When we promise that the State will solve all your problems with programs without taking into account public finances and the tax burden on taxpayers, isn’t that left-wing populism? And when we say that Quebec sovereignty is the solution to all your problems, isn’t that a simplistic, if not populist, response to complex problems? The absence of a family doctor for everyone in Quebec will not disappear if Quebec suddenly becomes a country.
Some observers are incapable of talking about Pierre Poilievre without making direct or barely veiled allusions to Donald Trump or blackening or even distorting his ideas. In doing so, they are playing the very dangerous game of the Liberals. So, yes, we need voices to denounce these mistakes. I shed another light. It’s then up to you to form your opinion.