If there ever was a federal election campaign where foot-in-mouth disease sank this many candidates, I don’t recall it. The score, for those who haven’t kept track, is Conservatives five, Liberals three, since the official campaign began. Even more nominees were turfed in the months before that.
The offences ran the usual gamut of off-colour jokes and knee-jerk barbs to ill-considered musings on international politics, undisclosed criminal charges and, in one case, the dissemination of conspiracy theories.
In all but two cases, the offenders were turfed as soon as their remarks or misdeeds were uncovered. However, when controversy erupted over remarks made by the Liberal’s Paul Chiang, who eventually quit, and the Conservative’s Aaron Gunn, who is still running, the party leaders jumped to their defence.
So why did the Liberals and Conservatives take the high road to party integrity in all but those two cases? Dig a little deeper, and it’s obvious the political fallout from losing the candidates who were instantly dumped was close to nil. They were expendable cannon fodder, running in ridings they were almost certain to lose. It was a different story in the case of Chiang and Gunn, who were both predicted to win.
That might go some way to explain Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s unconscionable defence of Chiang, the incumbent MP for Markham-Unionville. Chiang floated the idea in an interview with a Chinese media outlet that people could turn over rival Conservative candidate Joe Tay to the Chinese consulate to collect a bounty issued by China. Tay, who founded HongKonger, a multimedia site promoting democracy and free speech and is running for the Conservatives in another riding, said the comment made him fear for his life. Tay has legitimate cause for concern; the CBC reported that late last year, Beijing-aligned police in Hong Kong put out a warrant for Tay’s arrest along with a bounty of $184,000.
Chiang dropped out of the federal race when the RCMP announced they were investigating his remarks as possible foreign interference. I’m guessing there was considerable backroom arm twisting from the Liberals to persuade Chiang to quit. But all the public heard from Carney was his initial acceptance of Chiang’s apology and willingness to still allow him to run and later that he accepted Chiang’s resignation.
The second is Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s unwavering tone-deaf support for Aaron Gunn as a candidate for North Island-Powell River despite offensive social media posts minimizing the devastating impact of residential schools on Indigenous people. Between 2019 and 2021, Gunn posted on X that the treatment of Indigenous people in residential schools was not genocide and claimed “residential schools were asked for by Indigenous bands in Eastern Canada.” The comments elicited calls for Gunn’s removal from BC Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. So far, Poilievre has brushed off their demands and continues to stand behind Gunn.
Why were both leaders willing to risk reputational damage from candidates whose untempered comments caused pain and offence to broad swaths of Canadians? It’s hard not to think at least part of the reason was that both were favoured to win.
As an incumbent, Chiang had name recognition and an edge in his riding where he won 48 per cent of the vote in 2021. The Conservatives weren’t that far behind with 41.9 per cent of the votes cast and historically the riding swings between the two major parties. The Liberals could well have thought removing Chiang might be enough to clear the path for a Tory win.
In the case of Gunn, his riding was left without an incumbent when former NDP MP Rachel Blaney elected not to run again. The Conservatives are gaining momentum on Vancouver Island and Gunn’s seat is projected to be an easy Tory win. Poilievre is not going to want to dump a candidate in striking distance of victory, particularly not one who is a powerful right-wing influencer and longstanding political ally.
Gunn, who runs a YouTube channel with 97,000 subscribers, has been searching for a political entry for some time. After being rejected as too extreme to run for leadership of the former BC Liberal Party in 2021 he switched teams and helped rebuild the Conservative Party of BC. Judging by his roster of YouTube videos, Gunn has spent much of the last two years boosting his profile with videos featuring him conducting lengthy sycophantic interviews with Poilievre. Their views, particularly on drugs, crime, inflation and fondness for Trudeau-bashing are so closely mirrored, it’s hard to know who is influencing who — but in some cases, Gunn’s takes have front-run Poilievre’s adoption of new speaking points.
Poilievre likely feels indebted to Gunn whose video stream amounts to a two-year campaign to elect the Conservative leader. It’s also possible that deep down, Poilievre sympathizes with Gunn because of his own experience. The biggest smackdown during Poilievre’s political life came in 2008 after he stated that former residential school students need a stronger work ethic, not more compensation dollars. The comments couldn’t have been more poorly timed, coming hours before then-prime minister Stephen Harper apologized to Indigenous people for harm caused by the native residential school program. Poilievre grovelled in the House, got a second chance and weathered that controversy.
There is no doubt that both Gunn and Chiang should have been cut loose immediately by their party leaders. Standing behind candidates who express reprehensible views smacks of political expediency and feeds public cynicism about politics. At least the Liberal candidate is now gone; no thanks to Carney, as far as we know. As for Gunn, Poilievre remains adamant he’ll be allowed to run. We can only hope Vancouver Island voters do what the Conservative leader should have done in the first place — show Gunn the door.
Comments