“Hardcore” against CINO

Do you know a CINO? It’s the Canadian version of a RINO (Republican in Name Only), Donald Trump’s supreme insult against his enemies. We should soon have the Canadian version: CINO (Conservative in Name Only), conservatives in name only – like Jean Charest, as seen by supporters of Pierre Poilievre.

Mr. Charest is said to have made up his mind: he will be running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, barring a last-minute obstacle – possibly the rules of the race, which are not yet known.

Mr. Charest will necessarily be the candidate of the former Progressive Conservatives rather than the most radical. We saw it in the letter published this Tuesday in The Press. ^⁠1 A letter so laudatory that a second version had to be prepared because “the first smelled too much of the censer”.

On the other side, the only officially declared candidate is the MP for Carleton, Pierre Poilievre, a supporter of an assumed and uncompromising right. A formidable parliamentarian who is not used to sparing his blows, against opponents from other parties, but also those who are in his party. And his supporters are currently the majority in the party.

We saw it with the episode of the “freedom convoy”, several members of the Conservative caucus took up the cause of the truckers. And not the least. Mr. Poilieve, of course, but also former chief Andrew Scheer and the soon-to-be acting chief, Candice Bergen. This meant that the “law and order” party ended up voting against the Emergency Measures Act.

We saw it, too, in the rebellion against Erin O’Toole, who had had the misfortune to go to the center on hot issues in the Conservative Party, such as the price on carbon and gun control.

Positions to which Mr. Charest adhered with enthusiasm when he was Premier of Quebec.

With an adversary like Pierre Poilievre, the former premier of Quebec should expect to be attacked on all fronts, on his conservative purity as well as on his ethics and the way in which he transformed the Liberal Party of Quebec into a fundraising machine. .

Among Mr. Charest’s supporters, we know all this, but above all that nothing is won in advance and we remain optimistic, even if the campaign will be very difficult.

We don’t worry too much about the fact that the letter of support in The Press had only eight signatures, including no one west of the GTA and only four MPs. It is pointed out that the Quebec caucus is solidly behind Mr. Charest and that when he announces his candidacy, there will be several MPs from across the country who will support him. Even from the West? “There will be a few,” they say.

The question of the rules remains the last obstacle. A vote that is too quick – in June, for example – would essentially take place with the current membership, which would not be to Mr. Charest’s advantage.

Among his supporters, we have noticed and feared the presence of the former deputy leader of the Reform Party, Deborah Gray – whose enmity towards Mr. Charest is notorious – among the members of the committee which will be responsible for establish the rules of the race.

In fact, anything that would have the effect of helping to open up the party’s current membership will be seen as a custom-made hindrance to harm Jean Charest. So what will happen to the rules committee, which has about twenty people, will be closely scrutinized.

But while Mr. Poilievre has the advantage among the party’s most militant, there are also members who, after three straight defeats, want above all else to win the next election.

A poll that would show that Jean Charest would have a much better chance of becoming prime minister than Pierre Poilievre could be decisive in the campaign.

“In fact, I suspect that the poll has already been done and that if Charest decides to run, it’s because he has this poll in his pocket,” said a longtime Conservative.

There is also the entry of other candidates who could ultimately help Mr. Charest in a preferential vote. Much is said about columnist Tasha Kheiriddin and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, former Ontario Conservative leader.

Mr. Charest has indicated that he is keen on the idea of ​​a preferential ballot – in which one indicates his preferences in order on a single ballot – because it would be to his advantage. He would undoubtedly be the second choice of other more progressive candidates.

Nothing is decided yet, but it is already certain that the fight will be tough and probably very dirty. Many old conservatives, however accustomed to internal bickering, tell us to fasten our belts because things are going to stir.