If someone tells you Mexico is safer than Vancouver, it doesn’t mean it is
As I get ready to step out of court and onto a dock for summer break, I thought it would be charitable to do something that turns my stomach: offer some constructive advice to the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre.
Pierre, not every problem is a catastrophe. Not every policy disagreement is proof that civilization is collapsing. Hyperbole can be a useful rhetorical device, but like hot sauce or tequila, it should be used sparingly and by responsible adults. If everything is an emergency caused by the Liberals, eventually, nobody will pay attention when there is a real emergency. The boy who cried wolf learned this lesson the hard way. Or, if you prefer, the wolf learned it the tasty way.
At a recent press conference in Vancouver, Poilievre told reporters, “I met a lady at the airport the other day who told me that she moved from Vancouver to Mexico so that she would feel more safe. Let that sink in. She feels more safe in Mexico than in Vancouver.”
Let that sink in, indeed.
When a reporter pointed out that Mexico is, by virtually every objective measure, more dangerous than Vancouver, Poilievre did not back away from the claim. He did not acknowledge that perhaps a single conversation in an airport departure lounge is not the gold standard of social science research. Instead, he doubled down.
Why bring it up?
“Because it is a story a woman told me at an airport.”
Poilievre then went on to blame Liberal laws for crime, attack online commentators who questioned the anecdote, and suggest that Liberal policies have unleashed chaos on the streets of Vancouver and across Canada.
My initial thought was that Poilievre had made up the story, which is consistent with his past behaviour. The airport anecdote is, after all, absurd. But at least one X user is now self-identifying as Pierre’s airport informant. On June 5, an X user named lioness0817 posted a photograph with the Opposition Leader, noting that she “would have loved the opportunity to share in detail why I left Canada.”
Now, to be fair, the woman may very well feel safer in Mexico. Feelings are real. Perceptions matter. But feelings are not facts. If I meet a guy at Gate 14 who tells me the Earth is flat, that does not obligate me to call a press conference and demand an inquiry into globes.
Poilievre should be concerned that so many people thought he made up the story out of whole cloth. But this is exactly the sort of skepticism serial exaggerators should expect.
Poilievre recently appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and treated listeners to a buffet of claims ranging from misleading to outright false. He inflated immigration numbers, claimed Alberta’s oil sands had “no impact” on groundwater or the environment, repeated debunked claims that beef tallow is healthier than seed oils, misrepresented safe supply programs, and painted a misleading picture of the causes of inflation.
At some point, the pattern becomes difficult to ignore.
When the facts are inconvenient or require any degree of nuance, Poilievre reaches for a simple story, a slogan, a dog whistle, or a grievance. Even if doing so requires exaggeration or distortion.
One of the most important skills a prime minister can possess is the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, and between anecdote and evidence. Trust matters, my man.
A responsible opposition leader, one hoping to appear prime ministerial, might have asked a few questions before swallowing an airport story hook, line, and sinker.
A brief review of the X user’s social media history reveals an obsession with many familiar right-wing grievances: gender issues, immigration, and, perhaps most unfortunately for Poilievre, sympathy for Trump-style politics. After an historic election collapse that was driven in part by a seeming reluctance to push back against Trump, Poilievre may not want to publicly align himself with a woman who tweeted, “Canada has fallen … This just pushed me over to wanting to be the 51st state.”
So, are the streets of Vancouver a hellscape solely because of Liberal policies?
Well, crime is down in three of the last five years, including an 8.25 percent decrease in 2024. In fact, both the number of crimes and the crime rate in Vancouver are lower now than they were under the Harper government. So too is the number of homicides.
In Vancouver in 2024, there were 37 homicides, or 1.19 per 100,000 population. That represents a 26.08 percent decrease from 2023 and fewer homicides than when Poilievre was a cabinet minister.
And, of course, Vancouver’s homicide rate is lower than that of Mexico City, Yucatán, Campeche, and even Baja California Sur, where Pierre’s airport friend says she moved.
Then there was that little incident back in February when violence erupted in Mexico following the killing of powerful cartel leader El Mencho, resulting in Global Affairs Canada advising travellers to exercise a high degree of caution while in the country.
So, no, Pierre, Mexico is not safer than Vancouver, and for all their faults, the Liberals are not responsible for the Mad Max hellscape you really want to believe Canada has become.
A real leader, a serious grown-up, someone genuinely interested in making Canadians’ lives better, might have thought to look a few things up and ask a few questions before rushing to a podium to catastrophize.
The real rub is that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Liberal justice policy. There are real policy gaps that need to be filled. There is a lot of work to be done. But when Poilievre chooses to bloviate, exaggerate, and focus on the politics of grievance, those real issues go unaddressed. And, my dear Pierre, you miss an opportunity to score real points and look like a leader doing it.
Moderation, nuance, insight, and intelligence can still be effective political tools. That is the lesson Poilievre should learn. According to the polls, what he is doing is not working for him. And it certainly isn't helping to make Canada a better place.
