This will be kind of a personal commentary about who I am and where I come from politically. That is, if the kidney stones I am ‘enjoying’ this week allow me to get through it.
I started as a conservative at a pretty early age, as you can see in the picture above, which is the front page of the Toronto Star on June 11, 1957, when John Diefenbaker became Prime Minister designate. The kid in the victory picture, with a wide smile on his face, is me.
I have not changed a lot since then, but politics itself in Canada has shifted a great deal over the years. I am still a conservative, although sadly, at least federally, in a fractured party where those of us who have remained as middle-of-the-road Tories appear to be in a minority.
Over the years, I have been active in conservative politics on the provincial executive, as chief of staff to one premier and a senior advisor to two others, and as a voting delegate to several federal and provincial leadership contests.
But I was never a ‘Yes, Sir, No, Sir’ conservative, as we see in almost all of the political parties today. If I thought there was a problem with the direction in which a conservative government was headed, I did not hesitate to say so. That usually didn’t happen in public, but there was one memorable occasion where it did.
When I was on the Ontario PC executive, I think then, as the senior vice president, I attended an annual policy conference, which I believed was closed to the media. Around that time, I was also the Chair of the District Municipality of Muskoka. We had a great staff there. Some were union members, and others chose to stay out of the union.
At that time, the Davis government was proposing Bill 7, a labour bill that traded compulsory check-off (mandatory union membership) for a secret ballot for union members when voting on contract settlements, so that union bosses would not know how an individual voted.
I thought this was wrong, as did many of the people I worked with in Muskoka. I thought the policy meeting was a good place to deal with this, and I did so in no uncertain terms, stating, among other things, that a secret ballot was sacrosanct in our society and did not need to be used as a bargaining tool. Youthful idealism, I suppose.
When I turned around, I found myself face-to-face with a reporter from the Globe and Mail who wasn’t supposed to be there. Of course, the inevitable happened, and the media had a wonderful time spreading all of that around the next day.
I admit to being mildly chastised for this by the Premier’s office, but I am not sorry for speaking out on something I believe in.
So, why am I telling you all of this? There are two reasons.
First, there is Doppler of which I am the publisher. We are getting some reflections from people who say Doppler is a Liberal/left-wing rag, or words to that extent. That’s okay because most Liberals do not support the far left, and I have some family and a lot of friends who are Liberal supporters. I both value and respect them.
But when some responses and private comments get to the point where a reader states that we are left-wing whackos, and that person is going to do everything in their power to “destroy” Doppler, that is where I draw the line.
So, let’s deal with this.
Doppler is an online news source. Our news stories state the facts and only the facts and are not in any way partisan. That is our major contribution and the majority of our content. Our 200,000 readers seem to appreciate that. I have absolutely no knowledge of the political affiliations of our Doppler people. That is the way it should be.
But like all reliable news sources, online or otherwise, we have a commentary or opinion section, part of which is my weekly commentary, Listen Up! Its purpose is to stir things up and to get people with different points of view and different ideas to express them in a respectful way. We are generally successful at that.
Yes, I am a Red Tory, although I confess to having voted Liberal twice in my lifetime. I don’t believe any political party has all the answers and I respect some of the ideas that come forward from Liberals and New Democrats.
My partisan side may raise its head from time to time in my articles but that is what commentators do. However, I am not afraid to take on Conservatives, or anyone else for that matter, when I believe it is necessary to do so.
To touch briefly again on Donald Trump, I look with abhorrence at what is happening in the United States today. The President claims to be a Conservative and certainly has captured the Conservative Republican Party. He was elected primarily because he stood up to two serious problems, illegal immigration and increased crime. But he has acted more like a despot, a king, or a dictator, and I would be surprised if people had that in mind when they voted for him.
Trump jails his enemies and lets those whom he likes out of jail. He thrives in revenge politics. He cares little about the rule of law, especially when it rules against him, and he pounces on anyone who disagrees with him.
One senator is reported to have said privately that at least 20 of his Republican colleagues fear for their lives and the safety of their families with the threats they are getting from their own political base.
The man is building himself a palace at the White House. He recently posted a caricature of himself in a fighter jet, wearing a crown and dumping excrement on those he disagreed with. He loves revenge politics and thrives on pursuing an authoritarian state. He has even appointed an ‘Election Integrity Team,’ with a strong Trump acolyte at its head, to try to manipulate elections, and he is encouraging states to change electoral boundaries to favour Republicans.
The reason I decided to mention Donald Trump, is because some months ago I took the strong position that Pierre Poilievre should not be compared to the current American President, but recent events have proven me wrong, not in all aspects, some of them simply do not apply to the way we do things in Canada, but still, in too many ways to ignore.
Recently, Poilievre was pretty clear that Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should be in jail. He did say Trudeau would have been charged criminally if the RCMP had been doing their job. Because the RCMP didn’t see it that way, he accused our renowned national police force of corruption. In fact, in a recent YouTube interview, he called the RCMP “frankly despicable,” a Trump tactic.
We don’t typically jail our former political leaders in Canada and while it may be just the tip of the iceberg, this is revenge politics, also a clear Trump tactic.
Pierre Poilievre does not respect the rule of law, saying that courts should have given the trucking convoy leadership people, convicted for the massive occupation of much of Ottawa a few years ago, lighter sentences. He is supporting his extreme right base, just as the rebels who stormed Congress on January 6 were supported by Trump, most of them receiving pardons from him after being lawfully convicted.
In 2003, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada merged with the Alliance Party, a successor of the Reform Party, both of which were right-wing organizations. For three years after that, Liberals under Jean Chrétien and John Turner were in power, but in 2006, Stephen Harper, formerly of the Alliance Party but now head of the Federal Conservative Party, became Prime Minister of Canada.
I did not have a problem with Stephen Harper. He was well to the right in conservative politics but did not impose his personal views on his caucus or the public. He governed between the middle and the far right of the conservative movement, keeping it relatively united.
Pierre Poilievre has not done that. He has consistently catered to the far right of conservative thinking, leaving many in that party, which has millions of members, feeling they were without a home. That is why, in my opinion, Mark Carney was able to slip through the enormous lead of the federal Tories to win government. Too many middle-of-the-road Tories saw Carney as more attuned to their views than Pierre Poilievre.
In spite of his efforts and his improvements in party standings, that is what cost Pierre Poilievre the national election.
In January, Conservatives will have the opportunity to decide whether Pierre Poilievre should stay or go as their national leader. Most leaders survive these reckonings, but some don’t. As a conservative, I hope Poilievre does not. With his present style, he will not win back disaffected Tories, and in spite of what happened in the United States, it is unlikely he can win government without them.
I would like to see a new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, one who can unite Tories and win an election. To do that, they have to draw support, not from Liberals but away from Mark Carney, who managed to sweep up so many Tories.
The Conservatives had a leader who could have done that, given a real chance, but they threw Erin O’Toole out, a highly respected and decorated Canadian, who, given the time he did not preciously have, could have united the party and impressed the country.
If they really want to win. Perhaps they should go back to Erin O’Toole on bended knee.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
100# Hugh. I enjoy your articles & look forward to reading them.
I’m encouraged to see so many thoughtful perspectives here. We may differ politically, but most of us clearly want the same thing — leadership that’s honest, competent, and focused on Canada’s future, not distracted by division.
That common ground is where Canada’s real strength has always been: steady, fair, and unwilling to be pulled apart.
Age, sex, faith, culture, or politics should not divide us. Respect and integrity should define us. That’s how Canada has always found its balance — through fairness, decency, and a shared belief that we’re stronger when we listen to one another. Those who silence others forget that democracy depends on dialogue, not domination.
Good stuff Hugh Mackenzie. Tough to know where all this will go. I do question the segment “our stories—— are not in any way partisan.” Some of us who have had pieces dumped might question that. Maybe just a little bit partisan! From time to time? And you bring O’Toole into the comment?
Brian Thompson: I don’t see how you can back M.P. Aitcheson while he doggedly clings to P.P. And then add Steven Harper to the mix. Comeback kid!
Me. I want our local M.P. to speak up. I want P.P. gone. The revolt has to start somewhere. Muskoka/Parry Sound seems pretty safe to me.
And I don’t “hate” Poilievre. I find him noisy and tedious. Nor do I see any reason to accept the idea that my comment is “lamenting”, “tiresome”, “lazy”, “lame” or “hypocritical” because it is at odds with someone else’s. It’s a different opinion that was formed after some thought, research and gut feeling.
There is a Dutch adage that says “We are too soon old and too late smart”. I was always in awe of the wisdom of my elders. And that is what you develop along the way. It doesn’t come like pixie dust on the end of a fairy wand.
I also like the comment by coach John Wooden. ” It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.” No matter what generation I got assigned, I hope I’m still in the learning part of it all.
From Howard Anglin on how the left judges conservative leaders:
“A case of retrospective progressive respectability: every right-of-centre leader is an existential threat to the state—right up until they are replaced, when, through a sort of amnesiac alchemy, they become belatedly acceptable. Many such cases. Mulroney. Harper. Reagan. Bush.”
PP shouldn’t waste time worrying about voices that will never vote for him—or for any right-of-centre leader—while disingenuously claiming otherwise.
Canada is deeply broken. It isn’t working, despite the mythology and the self-serving narratives of those responsible for the status quo. Most people under 60 know it, feel it, and live it every day.
P. Zychowski,
That’s funny. I am 41 on years old and not a Pierre Fan. And most of the folks I know are not fans of him either. I think a lot of it has to do with what we are seeing down south and we absolutely do not want the brand of politics that Pierre is bringing up here.
We need to be aware of the echo chambers we create around ourselves. They are natural; but we need to be aware of them. I know plenty of people in the Boomer Category who ‘loath’ Pierre.
Remember, nobody is immune to propaganda and that includes me and you.
Mr. Zychowski; Wow, you really have me tarred and feathered, let alone “categorized” by age, culture, and politics! I have little doubt that you might be able to check off a few boxes, but try to give me some credit for being a thinking person. I will certainly admit that during COVID pandemic, my views could become more isolated and fixed. However, I do recognize the importance of reading and listening to opposing points of view.
Not sure you have much interest in my opinions other than they can be boxed and wrapped so neatly.
However, one area I will defend by way of clarification. I am Not obsessed with identity politics. I have never fallen for the dog whistles and use of culture one way or another. In my view, identity by fixation on cultural differences is a smoke screen – one that cuts of conversation, trying to understand another’s point of view. That only leads to unnecessary division- something we need to get beyond. Thanks for reading.
Thanks to the many writers here and most of all to Mr Mackenzie- for sharing their thoughts, knowledge of history ( Mr Kear) and life experiences. I am not a PC supporter but have much respect for some of the work of our historical Conservative leaders. I find it more difficult to respect our contemporary political practitioners’ communication styles and use of social media etc for political gamesmanship. Life is precarious for many now and many young people are angry and hurting, perhaps like Mr Zychowski and his friends. We need their positive energy and solutions to make Canada’s future better for everyone – Working together like the Blue Jays to keep the joy going against the oddsmakers. Be the real Team Canada – young , old, white, brown, black, red, yellow, no matter what identity, we will still be here ( with all our relations)
Nice to hear someone speak so eloquently about the middle ground of the political spectrum, where most Canadians reside.
To Anna-Lise Kear,
There are few things more tired and played out than died in the wool leftists lamenting the current leadership of the CPC. The same people who criticize Pierre said the same things about O’Toole, Scheer, Harper, Manning, Charest, Mulroney, Ford, Hudak, Tory, Harris, etc. etc. It’s so tiresome.
“If only the Conservatives had a different leader….” is just a lazy, lame excuse at this point. If you voted for Justin Trudeau once, twice or three times, and then voted for Carney, the problem isn’t Pierre or the CPC, the problem is you.
Lastly, lamenting “culture war isolationism” is rich and hypocritical. The left’s obsession with identity politics is the driving force of the so-called “culture wars” and the deep division we’re seeing across this country and much of the Western World.
In Canada, we’re paying the price for the lost decade under the deliberately divisive Trudeau. Mr. Dithers, no-results Carney is no better. We need change in this country before it’s too late (which it may be).
Yes, Hugh, as two young early teens in 1957, we both experienced the charismatic appeal and euphoria of the ‘Honest John’ Diefenbaker vision of a ‘One Canada’ that would impact our lifetimes of healthy, thoughtful patriotism, and a deep love for this piece of political geography called Canada.
At the time, you were located in the Toronto riding of Eglington where the winning PC candidate was Donald Fleming – soon to be the finance minister in the Diefenbaker cabinet. I was located deep in the Conservative heartland of the Lanark Highlands just west of Ottawa, and had experienced the Diefenbaker phenomenon in a church hall, and was aware of Donald Fleming because of the stories I had heard as a camper at Ontario Pioneer Camp near Port Sydney in the mid-1950s. For you, Hugh, this experience has led to lifetime of engagement in Conservative politics. For me, this ‘Dief’ experience of 1957-58 has led to a lifetime fascination with the diverse and often controversial perspectives associated with Canadian politics and history.
Following my family’s transition from ‘Toronto the Good’ to the Lanark Highlands in the closing weeks of the Second World War in 1945, I had the good fortune of visiting our nation’s capital many weekends especially Parliament Hill, the Memorial Chamber located in the Peace Tower, and the National War Memorial, including a number of times during the 1950s on bleak November Remembrance Days – these somber experiences as a kid were embedded in my memory largely because my mother’s family of English immigrants had been scarred by the realties of the two world wars of the twentieth century.
Again, and in gratitude, as a young Canadian on the cusp of the so-called ‘baby-boom,’ I had the good fortune in the post-1945 era to be in the first generation of my family to have the privilege to attain a university education. The years at Carleton University (1963-67) were amazing on a number of fronts, enabling me among other things to spend time close by on Parliament Hill listening to the heated, yet usually the civil debates by the political giants of the time: Tommy Douglas (CCF/NDP), John Diefenbaker (PC), Lester Pearson (Liberal), Réal Caouette (Social Credit/Ralliement des créditistes), Alvin Hamilton (PC), Stanley Knowles (CCF/NDP), and Pierre Trudeau (Liberal).
And what about today as the historic, arrogant myth of divinely-ordained American Manifest Destiny once again comes to the forefront of our relations with our American cousins to the south, yes, explicitly questioning the very existence of our sovereignty as a nation? Maybe it is time to put aside the hyper-partisan politics of the last few years and revisit our past, the origins of our nation during the time of the horrific American Civil War of 1861-65 (around 600,000 war dead!), and its aftermath when the existence of the diverse and scattered colonies of British North America were threatened by this jingoistic American myth of ‘exceptionalism,’ its endgame being annexation.
In the face of this historic American threat during the 1860s, ‘The Great Coalition’ of the United Provinces of Canada (Canada East [Quebec] and Canada West [Ontario]) of 1864 was formed and brought together such arch political rivals as George Brown (Reform Clear Grit), John A. Macdonald (Liberal-Conservative); that former French-Canadian ‘patriote’ rebel of the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837-38, George-Étienne Cartier (Bleu); and that former Irish nationalist, Thomas D’Arcy McGee (Liberal-Conservative). The members of the Great Coalition engaged and pressured the elected officials from the other diverse British colonies at the Charlottetown Conference (September 1864), the Quebec Conference (October 1864), and the London Conference (late 1866-1867), resulting in an Act of the British Parliament creating the ‘Dominion of Canada’ on July 1, 1867, comprising the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario.
In conclusion, some words of wisdom and the learned insight of the mid-20th century Canadian historian, Arthur Lower (1889-1988), author of the 1946 seminal work, ‘Colony to Nation: A History of Canada’:
‘In every generation Canadians have had to rework the miracle of their political existence. Canada has been created because there has existed within the hearts of its people a determination to build for themselves an enduring home. Canada is a supreme act of faith.’
‘Push on brave York volunteers,’ and ‘Vive le Canada!’
Peter Kear, Huntsville.
Mr. Zychowski;
Your observation may be an accurate one. Us oldies remember when the Conservative (Progressive Conservative Party) was more policy substance than generalized, populist slogans.
The party distinguished itself with more talent in their caucus in the past, and better understanding of more complex problems with some actual solutions.
They did not so overtly lead the way, driving everyone into their culture war isolationism.
I can’t help but notice that the average age of the Pierre-haters in the comments is probably 68 years old.
Virtually every person I know under 45 is pro-Pierre.
Boomers gonna boomer, I suppose.
100# Hugh. I enjoy your articles & look forward to reading them.
The Conservatives , of which I have been a supporter of since I first voted 60 years ago , will not win an election as leader of the Conservative Party ..He achieved his popu.arity because of the absolute distate for he and the Grits at the time .When Truceau finally succumbed to the pressure from his own party and Carney took o er , it should ha e been obvious to the ” backroom boys ” ,that Poilievre, who couldn’t win his own riding , was une.ectable and needed to be replaced ! Do it now or the Conservative Party will be in the wilderness for years to come !
Good Morning Hugh,
I found myself nodding all the way through this piece. I deeply respect your integrity in speaking out from within the Conservative tradition that you has so long represented. It takes real courage and conviction to call one’s own party to account when it strays from the principles that once defined it.
Your reflection on the evolution of Canadian conservatism resonated strongly with me. There was a time when “Progressive Conservative” truly meant something when decency, reason, and respect for institutions guided both government and opposition. It’s disheartening to see that spirit eroded by the kind of grievance-based, Trump-style politics that you describe so clearly in Mr. Poilievre.
What I appreciate most in this column is the reminder that both good governance and good journalism depend on fairness, not blind loyalty. Our country needs more voices willing to rise above partisanship and defend democratic norms, truth, and civility. And, calling myself to account, we need to do it civilly.
Thanks Hugh! Whether one leans left or right, your words remind us that integrity should never be a partisan virtue.
P.S. While you seem to take the personal attacks and those on Doppler in stride, it troubles me to know that we have residents here who descend into those kind of ugly attacks and rhetoric.
Thank you, Hugh, for this honest and grounded reflection. It’s refreshing to hear from someone who remembers what it meant to be a Progressive Conservative — pragmatic, principled, and guided by respect for institutions and the rule of law.
I share your concern about what has become of the federal party under Pierre Poilievre. The anger-first approach might win clicks, but it alienates thoughtful Canadians — including many long-time Conservatives who believe in service over slogans.
I supported our local Conservative MP, Scott Aitchison, in the previous election but could not in this one. Since then, he has blocked me from his media channels, including his Ottawa communications as a shadow minister, which I found disappointing. It’s not that I dislike him — I actually have a great deal of respect for his past service. But I can’t support his alignment with Mr. Poilievre’s style of grievance politics and the party’s growing dependence on a rage-driven media ecosystem. To me, that’s underhanded and divisive — the opposite of what good Conservative leadership once stood for. It fosters an anti-institution, anti-government, and anti-truth sentiment that turns Canadians against one another.
Reading the other comments here, I think many of us are feeling the same tension — respect for individuals who have served our communities, but dismay at a party that has lost its moral and intellectual compass. Like Brian, I understand the instinct to support a good local MP in hopes the national picture will change. And like Allen, I feel it’s time for more people within the party to say, “Enough.”
Your willingness, Hugh, to speak plainly about Trump’s influence and the dangers of revenge politics is important. Too often, that kind of honesty is dismissed as “partisan,” when in truth, it’s patriotic. Canada needs more of this integrity in public life — and more voices like yours reminding us that leadership is about decency, not domination.
If the Liberals budget does not pass next week, we will be again plunged into an election with Pierre Poilievre still the Cons leader and possibly getting his wish to be PM. Like the mistaken person who threatened Doppler with extinction for being “left wing whackos”, there are lots of angry young people( men?) who feel disenfranchised and generally threatened by current culture and want it returned to some comedic fifties fantasy. Mommy waiting in her apron with home made chicken soup for them at lunch.They do not remember polio, or the Cold War. Even Pierre Poilievre cannot turn back time to an imagined Eden for them where there is no climate change or no multicultural Canada. We do not want to be the 51st State or its likeness. The world has changed and changing faster and faster.Pierre Poilievre cannot stop the earth from turning or moving around the sun.
Hugh:
Like a lot of Conservative voters I am torn…I strongly believe that MP Scott Aitchison is the right man for Parry Sound-Muskoka….and so I vote for him and will continue to cast my ballot in his favour….I do this because I think in the long term, PeePee will hopefully be out and Scott will be a member of the government…maybe even in a ministerial role…
Meanwhile, there are some in my group of friends that believe Steven Harper just might be looking at coming back to try and save the Conservative cause…(check the column last week by his Dimitri Soudas}, former aide to Steven Harper who wrote a column stating that PeePee is destroying the Conservative Party….BTW in both English and French
In the meantime, I feel I have no option but to support the efforts of PM Mark Carney…until we get real Canadian leadership with focus on our country and not on PeePee’s ego trips…
I am waiting for someone to say “Enough!” Enough of Pierre Poilievre! He’s acting like the “fool on the hill” across out southern border. Seeking revenge. Saying that he never “said” as much as he did say. Semantics won’t save him.
Maybe there are those who want PP to drone on as he does. Angry. But are there enough of them to get him elected? It doesn’t seem so since polls indicate that as a leader, PP ranks 20 points in the dust behind PM Carney. Whether that helps us or not, who can say?
But I don’t see the man as a Prime Minister or even a leader. His performance when Ottawa was held hostage was pathetic. Embarrassing.
So my question to our MP would be “What say,’ Mr. Aitchison?” Are you going to follow this man to the hill he wants to perish on?” I ask this because at one point you wanted to be the leader. This is no joke. You are the member for Parry Sound Muskoka. A PC stronghold since Methuselah was little. A “safe” riding. Ever wonder why he never asked for this riding? But you won’t have to flee west to find a constituency that will have you. As your present ‘leader’ has.
PP needs a holiday. Maybe he and Trudeau could hang out together. But somebody needs to speak up. There may be some murmurs but not loud enough yet. How about getting loud? We hardly know if you have what it takes. But I’m sure there are some on your side. Maybe you won’t make it this time either.
But show us.. In my opinion it would be a step in the right direction.