Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to call an election tomorrow, one that will end either on April 28th or in the first few days of May. By some measures it will be the most important election in Canadian history as the country confronts a bellicose United States that is threatening Canada’s economic ruin or absorption.

The possible results of this election would have been unthinkable even three months ago, but the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau, Carney’s selection as Liberal leader and Prime Minister and, most of all, the all out assault on Canada’s economy and sovereignty by Donald Trump have turned previous predictions on their heads. If current polls are correct, it will be a tight two way fight between the governing Liberals and the Conservatives, rather than the Conservative landslide that seemed all but certain. And it will likely be decided on the margins, with “blue” Liberals and “red” Tories determining the outcome one way or the other. I am one of those people and, although I voted Conservative in the last federal election and was prepared to do so again to get rid of Prime Minister Trudeau, I’m now back on the fence.

My final decision would previously have been based on the Trudeau government’s track record over the past nearly ten years and it would have been mostly negative. I fault them for policies and attitudes that weakened Canada’s fiscal position; that viewed every issue through the single lens of reconciliation with native Canadians; that created entitlement programs costing billions of dollars while ignoring the glaring defense needs of Canada even after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; that caused Canada to become an object of ridicule on the international stage while it pontificated about the virtues of whatever cause Du jour; for failing to make the necessary federal legislative changes to give provinces and municipalities the tools to deal with rampant crime and drug addiction; and for heedlessly alienating the resource producing provinces in the name of environmental purity. All this has weakened Canada and made it less prepared to confront the challenges it is facing today.

Trudeau’s “Sunny Ways” devolved into a mishmash of sanctimonious irritating announcements, often with no follow through. Perhaps this was best articulated by Trudeau himself when he stated Canada had no central, unifying identity and that it was a “post national state”. That didn’t stop him from vilifying the people who created this country, causing their descendents to be labelled as the progeny of genocidal racists, much to the delight of other countries who wish Canada harm. So, yes, I was prepared to vote for Pierre Poilievre despite some of the MAGA lite wing nuts around him and his churlish, childish behaviour. But Donald Trump has turned that calculation on its head.

In terms of substance it’s hard to offer much criticism of the Conservatives because, thus far, the party has failed to offer Canadians any kind of detailed policy platform. What little there is is couched in slogans and is mostly in response to current Liberal policies. There are some things I agree with: changing federal legislation to better support communities dealing with random crime, much of it related to drug addiction, building a military base on the Arctic Ocean, reigning in government spending, building infrastructure to get Canadian resources to both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and generally moving away from “woke” filters when setting policy. But that’s about it.

On the environment, the Conservaties single focus has been on abolishing the carbon tax and, thanks to the complicity of multiple federal and provincial governments, the tax has become so toxic that both major parties now support its elimination and on his first day as Prime Minister, Mark Carney eliminated it at least so far as it applies to individuals. Its demise was the inevitable consequence of governments using it as a cash cow and, thus, just another tax. As I said long ago, the only way a carbon tax will work is if it is revenue neutral with all its proceeds returned to taxpayers as was the case in the first Canadian carbon tax in B.C. that was introduced by Gordon Campbell’s Liberals.

Aside from the paucity of policy, the real problem with the Conservatives is their behaviour and approach to politics that is so well exemplified by Pierre Poilievre. I don’t think Mr. Poilievre is a MAGA supporter, but a significant part of his base is and he plays to them regularly. These people have little difficulty with Donald Trump which, right now, should be disqualifying. Their “take no prisoners” approach; vilifying anyone and everyone who might disagree with them; ignoring medical science and experts on healthcare and the environment, and the juvenile school yard bully language that so often punctuates Mr. Poilievre’s comments are profoundly un-Canadian. Similar behaviour there was the harbinger of the complete collapse of political comity in the United States. So the selection of a new Liberal leader and Prime Minister does create choices for me and, I suspect, many other voters as well.

Everything considered, there is only one issue in this election. Canada is facing an existential threat unlike any it has faced since the mid nineteenth century. Even our parents’ battle against fascism in Europe and Asia wasn’t in response to an immediate threat to the security and economic well being of this country. But Donald Trump and his coterie of sycophants and enablers pose such a threat. So, despite all the other priorities, the single issue in the election is: who can best lead this country in a battle for its very existence against the madness of American nationalism/populism that is threatening global stability? For this we will need a leader who can assess strategic risks and opportunities, knowing just how far to push the envelope without sending it over the edge. He (it will be a “he”) will need a calm demeanour and a very thick skin. He will be able to communicate with Canadians in complete paragraphs and in a way that engenders trust and confidence, modelling the behaviour that the rest of us must show over these next few years. Although difficult in an election, he should be perceived as above partisan politics, a leader who can unite and lead all of us against the existential threat.

So, how do the two leaders on offer stack up as we embark on the campaign? On paper at least, Prime Minister Carney has the edge. His history in academia, public service and the private sector all point to a man with great intelligence, much experience, and a deep understanding of the world and how it works. His obvious weakness is his lack of political experience, although that may be more a weakness during the campaign and not, if he is successful, after, as Prime Minister. But he stumbled out of the starting gate and I’m waiting to see if it was a “one of” or part of a pattern. Specifically, when the Conservatives raised the issue of Brookfield Management moving its corporate headquarters from Toronto to New York while he was chairman of its board, instead of giving us a straightforward and easily available answer, he equivocated and parsed in a way that would have made Bill Clinton proud. At first he said he was no longer on the board when the move occurred or when the official decision to make the move was made. While this was technically true, it soon came out that the effective decision to move was taken when he was chair of the board, something he or at least his political advisors should have anticipated. And this played right into the Conservatives’ hands. The move was never something that would excite Canadians, many of whom have investments managed by Brookfield, especially as no Canadian jobs were lost and it made good business sense for growing the business. But Carney’s response allowed the Conservative line to take hold, the one linking Prime Minister Carney with “sneaky”. This was a political own net goal. The question now is is this part of a pattern, something intrinsic to his general behaviour, or just a single slip by a political novice trying too hard to play the political game? The campaign will tell.

Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, begins the campaign with a public persona he’s spent years crafting, one wildly at odds with what most Canadians are looking for in a Prime Minister at this time in our history. We do not need an attack dog nipping at Donald Trump’s ankles (although I like that image). And to make matters more difficult for him, there is nothing in his background that suggests he will be the kind of thoughtful, strategic leader we need at this time. Mr. Poilievre’s work history is entirely in politics, beginning as an employee of the old Reform Party, becoming a Member of Parliament from Ottawa, serving as a Parliamentary Secretary in the Harper Conservative government and then, finally, holding two minor cabinet roles in the final days of that government. Since becoming Leader of the Conservative Party he has cultivated his image as an aggressive partisan, never once rising to what most would consider Prime Ministerial behaviour. Most recently, his response to Justin Trudeau’s resignation and then Mark Carney’s ascent as Liberal Leader and Prime Minister showed no grace, no civility and seemed completely tone deaf in this moment. His base may like this but that’s not enough to get him elected.

So, as the election starts, both the major contenders have work to do. Mark Carney must show he can connect with ordinary people and, to some extent at least, be above the partisan political fray. Pierre Poilievre must demonstrate he can be Prime Ministerial and represent all Canadians at this time of crisis. Thirty seven days isn’t very long but long enough to demonstrate who is best qualified.

Just sayin

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

After a seemingly endless walk in the snow, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has bowed to the inevitable and announced his resignation. The timing couldn’t be worse as he emulates President Biden holding on until the last possible moment as the Canadian ship of state drifts inexorably towards the iceburg of Donald Trump’s America. While it’s not surprising he would hold on until the last possible second, even by those standards these past three weeks have shown a breathtaking lack of concern for Canada as he spent his time on a skiing vacation while “reflecting” on his future. As has always been the case, it’s all about him.

Although it has a habit of making chumps of us all, I predict history will not be kind to Justin Trudeau, and not just because of his leave taking. The country he bequeathes to his successor is less united, less capable of facing external challenges and less prosperous than the one he inherited. In fairness, there are accomplishments that are to his credit. Navigating through the first Trump Presidency and rescuing the North American Free Trade Agreement is certainly one of them, as is relatively good management of Canada’s response to COVID 19. Also, legislative changes to the Child Tax Credit have significantly reduced child poverty in Canada. Ironically, a fourth accomplishment that will serve Canada well, particularly in a world where America cannot be trusted as a reliable partner, is the purchase and completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline which allows much greater access to Asian markets for Canadian oil exports and lessens the stranglehold America had over Canadian oil. I say “ironically” because this action infuriated his enviromentalist supporters and put a significant dent in his claim to priorize the fight against climate change.

But against these accomplishments there is a litanty of failures, the first of which has to be the relentless undermining of Canadians’ sense of our history and our place in the world; an undermining that begins with his pronouncement there is no central Canadian identity, that Canada is a “post national country”, whatever that means, and that our history is at best irrelevant and, more often, shameful. And we see the results every day as signifiers of the struggles of our ancestors are devalued, destroyed or removed.

For Justin Trudeau, reconciliation with the natives who inhabited what is now Canada before the arrival of Europeans and Asians is the paramount objective, and every government action has to be measured against it. This has led us to place the interests of a tiny minority of Canadians above those of everyone else, and where that minority is encouraged to believe their ancestors lived in a prelapsarian paradise, at one with their neighours and the natural world around them, when the reality was quite different. The lives of native Canadians prior to the arrival of European settlers were brutish, primitive and short, and any other narrative is a fairy tale but it’s one that has infected much of Canada’s public discourse during Justin Trudeau’s time as Prime Minister, at least partly because he so enthusiastically embraced it and then led the country into a permanent state of mourning, or at least regret, for all that has happened over the past four hundred years.

This isn’t to say native peoples in Canada haven’t been treated badly and should be supported as they work to become fully successful members of the Canadian family. But tearing down everyone else’s historical narrative and imposing intergenerational guilt doesn’t help and has done great harm to the pride and reputation of this country. And that’s on Justin Trudeau.

And aside from undermining the core essence of what it means to be a Canadian, he and his government have failed on so many other files. Whether it’s immigration, where their blind commitment to bringing new residents to Canada regardless of the country’s ability to absorb and integrate them has made a majority of Canadians hostile to further immigration; or Canada’s role in the world, where we have been reduced to, at best, an irrelevance and, at worst, a laughing stock; or defence, where, despite dramatically rising threats around the world, they have drastically underfunded the military and, only in response to great pressure from our NATO allies, have made half hearted and probably insincere commitments to increase military spending to the minimum NATO target by 2033; and to the government’s finances, where debt and deficit targets have been blown past over and over again, they apparently believing that deficits and debt don’t matter.

Under Justin Trudeau Canada has ceased to be a serious country. Instead we claim the moral high ground and hector the rest of world over their shortcomings. No wonder Donald Trump sees us ripe for the picking.

So, no question, it’s time for a change, not some slight cosmetic makeover, but a fundamental change that returns Canada to the country our ancestors built and defended.

But there’s a problem: Pierre Poilievre, the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and currently, if polls are correct, the Prime Minister in waiting. Canadians have now had a few years to get to know Pierre Poilievre and clearly many like what they see. But I suspect that is a minority with the rest turned off by his demeanour and public persona. I know I am. Of course, this is the public Pierre Poilievre and he may be charming, engaging, friendly, generous and even likeable in private but that sure isn’t the image he’s worked so hard to show to the Canadian people.

And what does he really stand for? Aside from glib catch phrases, usually on par with the discourse of a schoolyard bully, there is little if anything to go on. Get rid of the carbon tax he says (or more precisely, “axe the tax”…cute I suppose). Okay but what then? How will Canada respond to climate change? Get rid of the bureaucratic roadblocks to housing and resource development. Okay, but how? Many of said roadblocks are the result of decisions by municipal and provincial governments and, particularly when it comes to resource development, the courts often backing their decisions by The Charter of Rights and Freedom. How, exactly, is he going to undo/circumvent those roadblocks? Get rid of DEI. Well, in it’s more extreme forms, I agree, but what exactly does that mean coming from a federal government?

Of course Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can answer many of these questions in an election campaign where, one would hope, they will lay out detailed policy proposals. He might even present us with a complete personality transplant but I somehow doubt it. I suspect what we see is what we get and any hope his ascending to the Prime Minister’s role is going to somehow make him more “Prime Ministerial” is going to be disappointed.

So, as Canadians, we find ourselves in a bit of pickle. On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who has demonstrated his unfitness for the job and, on the other, a Leader of the Opposition who defines his brand with nasty one liners and little, if any, concrete policy. And, despite all the polls to the contrary, that might, just might, create an opening for a new Liberal Leader. I know it’s a long shot and the best that can probably be achieved is elevating the Liberal brand to the point it can form a strong opposition although, given the vagueries of Canadian politics, keeping the Conservaties short of a majority is not out of the question.

To have any hope of a Liberal rebirth the party must choose a leader who can put some significant real estate between him/herself and the current government. That would seem to disqualify most, if not all, of the potential candidates who are members of it, particularly those who are cabinet ministers. Currently, the only two “outsiders” being mooted are the former Governor of the Banks of Canada and England, Mark Carney, and the former Premier of B.C., Christy Clark. I suspect the latter is more of a long shot than the former although she would certainly represent the most dramatic departure from the status quo.

And then there’s the wild card: Donald Trump and his persistent trolling of Canada as potentially the “fifty first state”. No one knows how serious he his about this. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t either but, given his outlook on the world, not to mention his personality, it wouldn’t be all that surprising if he does levy massive tariffs on Canada and, at that point, all bets are off for both the Liberal leadership race and the next election. It won’t be long before the single most important consideration by far will be who is best able to lead this country through what is likely to be an extended period of conflict with the United States. In that case a name closely connected to the current government, Chrystia Freeland, will come to the fore, helped by Trump’s stated dislike for her and her role in the previous renegotiation of NAFTA.

We live in interesting times.

Just sayin.

GH

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.