Federal Leader’s Debate, 2025

 

(At least we hope there isn’t another election in 2025)

I watched the leader’s debate in English on Thursday evening, as I’m sure many of you did.  I came away with some impressions that I would like to share with you.  I’ll do them by party from right to left on the platform.

Bloc Quebecois

Mr. Blanchette, it turns out, is a one trick pony, “Quebec, Quebec, Quebec”.  His constant reference to “Quebec and Canada” became annoying but it did show his only message. To paraphrase – I’m only interested in getting things for Quebec. That was about all he contributed.  He was also quick to butt into other speakers’ discussions and demand a response for Quebec. It is obvious that he wants to win a preponderance of Quebec seats.

It is interesting that the Bloc, who only field 78 candidates is included in the debate, whereas the Green Party, which is fielding 200, is excluded. It shows you that it would be very hard to start a new political party in Canada. (Note that the Peoples’ Party was also not included)

NDP

Mr. Singh wants, so badly, to be the fly in the ointment; to have a minority government that will need an agreement with him to stay in power.  He obviously enjoyed when he had the agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. He constantly referred to the various social programs that he claimed he got through because of it.  The fact that, during that arrangement, he didn’t need to pay for the programs did not arise. He was, by far, the most prolific interrupter throughout the evening.  He was mostly trying to overwhelm Mr. Carney.

Liberal

Mr. Carney is the shortest leader in height which makes him look vulnerable. But he does not act vulnerable. He tried hard to explain his platform, although some of the explanations were a bit hard to fathom. He did not respond to questions, or accusations, about his previous employment nor his net worth and this will be seen as a fault, but his net worth is, in my opinion, nobody’s business. He was “accused” of having more discussion time than the others, but a lot of that time was taken up by other leaders, most notably Mr. Singh, interjecting and trying to talk over him which made it very difficult to get his message across. Nonetheless, I was impressed by his ability to keep his cool and keep trying without retort or remark.

Conservative

Has anyone else noted that Mr. Poilievre seems to have a perpetual sneer. Nobody challenged him on his platform (or lack of it). He certainly does not seem to have a sound climate plan, except to ship the problem overseas. He wants to increase oil and gas exploitation but ship it to foreign countries (China and India were mentioned) so it would not count against Canada’s contribution to GHG.  He was not often challenged on any of his statements, but he too often tried to shout down Mr. Carney. His big push was on crime where it seems quite prepared to use the Charter’s not withstanding clause to impose harsher and harsher sentences.  I have always been against the use of that part of the Charter for any reason and I find it very dangerous in the hands of the federal government. He even hints that he wants to do away with bail, at least for some accused. This platform on crime seems to be based on a misinformed idea of the state of crime in Canada.  (Saturday’s Globe and Mail has an editorial about the real state of affairs in this regard.) He tried to defend his reasons for not getting a security clearance, perhaps not realizing that even without it, if he sees or discloses classified information, he is still subject to the Official Secrets Act. He reserved his biggest blasts against the idea of a fourth Liberal term in office. It was almost like another one of his three-word slogans, “No fourth term”.

Summary

The debate was interesting, but I’m not sure that it would change very many minds. Mr. Poilievre did not land the killer punch he no doubt hoped to. Despite the interruptions, Mr. Carney did not come across as weak nor a copy of Justin Trudeau. He is his own man and has his own ideas. Mr. Singh did not endear himself nor did he come up with anything new that might entice some people to change their votes to him. Fortunately, most of us do not have an opportunity to vote for Mr. Blanchet. I’m not sure anybody outside Quebec would want to.

Elections are always important, and this one is probably a bit more so. I’m not sure that debates such as this are designed to explore new ideas or defend existing ones. To me, they are most valuable for showing the character of the contenders.  On that question, I think this debate was a success.

Wouldn’t it be exciting to see a leaders’ debate where at least half of the leaders were women.

Electioneering

 

Today (Tuesday, April 15^th) I attended an election event. It was a “coffee with candidates” in my riding of Peterborough – Kawarthas.  It went from 9 am to 10 pm today so there is no way of knowing how many people will show up during the entire day.  Each of the candidates was there and were allowed to make a short introduction speech.  I missed the first couple of speakers but got a chance speak to one of them later.

There were tables set up around the room, one for each candidate. I tried to get to speak to at least three of the candidates. But I never got a chance to talk to the NDP candidate because she never showed up anywhere near her table and I did not know what she looked like to see if she was roaming the room.

 I next succeeded in talking with the Conservative candidate.  She is the incumbent in this riding. But there was always a large number of people wanting her attention. I tried twice but did not get a chance to talk to her. If the number of people surrounding her are any indication, she will probably win her seat back. For the Conservative party, I wanted to find out if they would, in fact, use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to impose a law that has already been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If so, I think that it is the worst thing that could happen. Some of you may remember that I have written in previous blogs about my negative feelings about that section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how it has been misused by some provinces. In the hands of the federal government, it is downright dangerous.

I moved on to the Liberal candidate.  After a short wait, I was able to talk to her about my main interests in this election: national defence; and climate change. Unlike other candidates, she had briefing papers for a number of her party’s platforms.  I started by reading a couple of these and then was able to talk to the candidate about these two subjects. Most of the discussion was about national defence. Having spent quite a bit of my working career in defence procurement, both in my military and civilian careers, I have a pretty good idea how the procurement system works. I did not ask about what the party would do, that was explained in the paper, but how they were going to do it. I got some very positive answers on that.

What’s interesting about my presence at such an event is that it is the first time I have attended any such political event.

An interesting fact about this riding is that all the party candidates are women, all five of them.

Elections are a vital part of our democracy, and we should make every effort to vote in them. But remember what you are voting for, not against.

 

Gripes

 

Thinking

Do we think any more? More importantly, do we think critically anymore? Can we listen to other opinions and decide if they make sense? Higher learning is supposed to promote critical thinking and expose young people to alternate ideas and theories. And yet we see institutions that cancel or turn away speakers who may not adhere to the “staff answer”.  In doing so, they deny people of exercising their critical thinking about whether the speaker is telling the truth of if their truth aligns with the listener’s value and truths. It’s no wonder that people so readily accept the misinformation and distortions of self-proclaimed demigods such as Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Victor Orban and other such proclaimers. Most North American universities tend to be left leaning so right-wing speakers are turned away. We tend to be more sympathetic to the Jewish and Israeli cause, so we don’t want to hear from those who plead for Palestinians. The list goes on. When are we going to start thinking critically again?

Courage

We all see depictions of the physical courage shown by sports players, those who make extraordinary plays, or soldiers in war or western movies.  These men and women are extolled in every medium.  They are enshrined in Halls of Fame or with medals and honours.  But what about other types of courage.

In grades seven and eight I attended a brand-new school named after a British Field Marshall, Bernard Law Montgomery, he of World War Two El Alamein and Northwest Europe fame. Each year I was there, he would visit the school and give a talk to the students.  His message was about moral courage.  He told the story of the boy (himself?) at a boarding school who, despite the hazing of his classmates, would get down on his knees each night before bed and pray.  That was his example of moral courage.  And it stuck with me. I also remember my parents showing the same courage when they were the only two to stand up to oppose a church measure agreed to by all the rest of the congregation.

Today, I have to ask what has happened to moral courage. Why do we meekly go along with the so-called consensus even when we disagree with it. Why, for instance, are more people not speaking out against the outrageous pronouncement and decision coming out the US White House? The President seems, for example, to want to destroy the press if they question him. Where is the moral courage to decry lies and distortions coming from politicians in almost every democratic country?  On an individual basis why are people not willing to resist when some outspoken person shouts you down when they tell you that your ideas or political leanings are all wrong? Too many seem willing to just keep quiet to preserve ‘harmony’.  Can we not address these people with reasoned arguments about our leanings?  I seem to be a bit cowardly in this regard since I do my arguing in writing.

I am certainly not holding myself up as some paragon of moral courage, but I do see where this lack can lead us; unquestioned acceptance, lack of reasoned opposition, loss of freedom of speech or belief.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton

 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
  - George Orwell

 

None of us are a paragon of virtue, but surely, we can have the moral courage to be the conveyers of truth.

 

Thoughts on America

 

Light Moments

Men – if you need a haircut in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, I recommend ‘Biker Babe Barber’.  Yes, there is such a place and person, and she gives a good haircut.

The only two types of television ads in the U.S. appear to be for injury lawyers (“Morgan and Morgan, the largest injury law firm in the world”, probably because Americans are the most litigious people in the world) and prescription drugs (most of which don’t tell you what they are supposed to cure, but the side effects seem worse than any disease they may address).

Serious things

Among my other ridiculous habits is my habit of collecting quotations.  You may have noted that I use them frequently in my blogs.  However, they can be handy in illustrating messages using the wisdom of notable people from the past. So, here a few which could well describe the United States of today.

“Whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.”

  - Harry S Truman (Elon Musk, are you listening)

 “Democracy was a fragile thing, stable and steady until it was broken and trampled. A man who didn’t care about shattering every convention and then found new mays to vandalize the contract that allowed free people to govern themselves, could do unthinkable damage.”

 From ‘A fever in the heartland’ by Timothy Egan referring to D.C. Stephenson, founder and leader of the Klu Klux Klan in 1920s Indiana.

 “In America, anyone can become president. That’s the problem.”

George Carlin

 Okay, enough of quotes.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper (and it even got published!) in which I wrote that Mr. Trump should rightfully be called CEO Trump rather than President Trump. In examining why Mr. Trump wants to annex Canada and Greenland, I said, “One must look into Mr. Trump’s background to find the answer. He made his mark as a land speculator and real estate developer.  He still thinks like one. The one thing that both Greenland and Canada have is a lot of land.”

When I expounded of why Mr. Trump should be referred to as the CEO, I said the following, “CEOs have almost unlimited control of their company.  They can hire and fire on a whim. Promote whoever they choose. They can reduce their decisions on anything to do with their company to a memo.  Executive orders are Mr. Trump’s memos.  Although most CEOs must answer to a Board of Directors, Mr. Trump sees himself as the Chairman of the Board, a board of one.”

It would appear that the US, and by extension many other countries, is in for a very hard two to four years. In the 2026 mid-term US elections, where every congressman (congressperson?) and one third of the senators must stand for election, we may see a shift in power in the American legislature.  But that is not guaranteed. Come 2028, who knows what the situation may be. Remember what has been described as an ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”

U.S. Adventure

 

Well, that was, to say the least, interesting. We just spent the month of February in the United States; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to be exact. There are a lot of thoughts that came about from the trip. I’ll try and summarize some of what we encountered.

The US overall

The US is a strange place these days.  I’ve visited there often and lived there for two years in the 1970s. I was there when Richard Nixon (“I’m not a crook”) was forced to resign. But I have never seen anything like what is going on now. People are treading carefully, not knowing what might come next. There is a sense of buyers’ remorse among the people. They are confused about what is going on and what might come next. When some people found out we were Canadian, they apologized to us on at least two separate occasions. A poll while we were there showed that 77% of Americans did not want to annex Canada.  There was a fine on-line letter from a Florida pastor who asked why the US should want to annex Canada and gave several reasons why it should not be done.  We did not have any problems from any of the people we encountered, it’s only their government that seems to be the problem.

The best advice that I can give on this matter is to embrace the American people while you condemn their government. At some point, the majority of the American people are going to realize they have been duped by Mr. Trump and will start to resist his demands. Show our friendship to the American people and they will respond.  They have no issue with Canada.

Weather

We went to Myrtle Beach for some sun and warmth; an opportunity to get out and walk and enjoy.  Well, as I said to my kids in an e-mail, one out of two ain’t bad.  For the first two weeks, that seemed to be the case. The warmer days (mid to high teens C) were overcast with heavy fog most days.  On sunny days, it was colder and windy.  The only changed to better weather came in the last week or so we were there. Note that today’s (March 8^th) temperature there is 26 C. and sunny. Oh well, at least we missed the many snow falls here.

What the weather never did was stop us from walking on the beach every day.  The beach there is long and flat. The beach below the high tide mark is nice and firm and good for walking. There was only two rainy days, and on those, I used the resort’s fitness centre to maintain some semblance of conditioning. The extent of the beach in Myrle Beach and North Myrtle Beach is 17 miles and is part of a 62-mile beach stretch along the coast of the Carolinas.

Driving

Last October, I bought a new Hyundai Tucson Hybrid. It was an upgrade to my 2021 model of the same model. I have become a true believer in hybrid cars. They combine great range between fill-ups and tremendous gas mileage. I averaged over 35 miles per US gallon diving down there, reaching 40 mpg at one time. One of the features of this car is the ability to change the settings between metric and American units. Thus, I was able to drive in miles and show temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit while in the US. The car drives very well, is a pleasure to drive and is quiet to be in. Oops, I’m starting to sound like car salesman. To me, hybrids are a great compromise and transition to all-electric vehicles.

US drivers were quite inconsistent. Some of them very fast, particularly on freeways, but many would not even drive the speed limit in urban settings.

At the condo timeshare where we were staying, we saw licence plates from all over the US, and a few from Canada. The farthest state was Iowa, the farthest province was Newfoundland and Labrador.

Retail

While you’re in the states, there is always the temptation to shop, and we did some of that. What gets you is the sheer size of many of the retail outlets. The usual suspects such as Walmart and Costco are expected to be big, other outlets surprise you with their size. I visited a PGA golf store (one of two in Myrtle Beach) that was the size of a good-sized department store. The biggest surprise was a liquor store which was several times as big as the biggest LCBO store I have every seen. It had two sides, one for hard liquor, whisk(e)y, rum, gin, vodka, etc., and one for just beer and wine. Americans, it seems, like things big.

Finis

As you can see, it was an interesting experience. We did enjoy the experience, but at the end, we were glad to get home. Just remember, the ordinary people in the US want to be friends, it’s their government that is the antagonist.

Short Snappers Again

 

I’ve written Short Snapper blogs before. They are an opportunity for me to cover a few different items in a shorter form.  Enjoy.

Carbon Tax

It would seem that the carbon tax is about to end, no matter who the next Prime Minister turns out to be. Even the people vying for the leadership of the Liberal Party are prepared to get rid of it. That is a shame. Many analysts will tell you that it is the most efficient means of trying to lower our dependence on fossil fuel. Any other attempt to reduce carbon use (if there is even one) will be more costly and will no doubt hit us in our taxes. The Liberal government’s introduction of this tax with its rebates was perhaps the most brilliant move that government made. What’s next? Or do we just give in to climate change?

 Trump’s 51^st State

Mr. Trump is threatening to make Canada the 51^st state. But that is unlikely to happen. The 51^st to 60^th state, as one commentator has suggested is even less likely. Oh, he might take over Canada, but he would never allocate the privileges of statehood.  He, or his advisors, must know that the majority of Canadians, about 25 million voters, would be more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. This would introduce 2 more Democratic senators and a significant number of mostly Democratic congressmen. It would also introduce a large number of Democratic delegates to the Electoral College. We might become a territory of the US with very limited influence in the US government, but never one (or 10) state.

By the way, if economic pressures don’t bring Canada into the US, military force may be his answer. Feasible? There is a US Army combat division in northern New York state that could be in Ottawa in 48 hours.

The Federal Conservative Party

Has anyone heard any meaningful plan from Pierre Poilievre and company to address any of their promises? Three-word slogans do not policy make. Oh, they will obviously eliminate the carbon tax, but then what. They have said they have a plan, but what is it? Will it be accepted by western members of his caucus? How will it be paid for? To balance the budget, what major programs will be sacrificed.  There are really only two such programs that could yield significant saving; defence and health. Which one would you sacrifice?  There are several other slogans that need clarity such as housing, or lowering taxes for example. Will any of them be fleshed out in an election campaign, or will be an election of slogans?

Ontario Government Propaganda

The Ontario Conservative party (read the ruling party and your tax dollars at work) has introduced a number of adds attacking Bonnie Crombie, the new leader of the provincial Liberal party.  Her biggest sin, according to these adds, is that she (alone) raised municipal taxes every year she was mayor. First, mayors do not unilaterally raise taxes, city councils do. Second, have you every heard of a municipal government that has not had to raise taxes each and every year.  The fact the cities are not allowed to undertake deficit financing coupled with the spectre of inflation in payrolls and goods and services pretty well guarantees annual municipal tax hikes are inevitable.

Inauguration Speech

Did you watch President Trump’s inauguration speech? If so, you would have watched him declare war against a sovereign country, Panama. Panama includes the Panama Canal. Mr. Trump has said America will take it back. That can probably only be done by force. That, dear reader, constitutes a declaration of war.

What do we want to be?

 

In his excellent book about the US Civil War, ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’, James M. McPherson writes the following about the aftermath of that war, “Before 1861, the two words ’United States’ were generally rendered as a plural noun, ‘the United States are a republic’. The war marked the transition of the United States to a singular noun.” The US Civil War was fought for states’ rights, in this case the right to own slaves.

Why is this relevant to Canada? Because Canada is also being challenged by a movement of provincial rights.  At a time where provinces (and territories) are demanding more money from the federal government, they also want more autonomy from federal actions. Alberta has toyed with a law to that effect.  Quebec has trampled on several constitutional rights by use of the ‘not withstanding’ clause.

You have to wonder what the provinces really want in this struggle. Do they want total control of their rights above federal law? Do they want to control their own destiny as the Confederate States of America (CSA) did in 1861? (By the way, the states’ rights were a key policy of the southern states but were one of the key weaknesses of the CSA). Do they want to bleed the federal treasury dry with their demands for ever more money?  Do they want to reduce the federal government nothing more than a money pit, and oh yeah, national defence?  Do they want to abrogate the Supreme Court of Canada from hearing and judging constitutional challenges? Their increasing use of the not withstanding clause would seem to indicate that, in some cases, this last is true. Do they want one Canada or ten or twelve individual entities? 

Nonetheless what do the people want? Surely the majority of us want one Canada. Surely the effort to win over Quebec during the last referendum showed us that we want to stay together as one country; one that includes Quebec and Alberta. Surely, we want one set of overall laws that govern all of us equally more than twelve sets of laws that divide us.

There are a number of factors that divide us. Limits on interprovincial trade are one. Perhaps we should be looking for something like the US interstate commerce laws to try and govern this issue. The provinces would, of course, loudly protest against such a move, but perhaps this is where a strong federal government can overrule. We complain about health care in this country, too often comparing ourselves to the United States (even although our lifespans are longer, and our infant mortality is lower than that country). Our model, however, should be government health systems in Europe. The difference? European health systems are national in scope, not provincial.

You may have discovered in this and previous writings that I am strongly opposed the section 33 (the not-withstanding clause) of the Canadian Constitution. And you would be right. I find it a real threat to our rights that has been used for some of the more ridiculous abuses in Canada (to limit the size of the Toronto City Council? Really!). However, the thought that one of our national political parties would threaten to use it is abhorrent. It is quite conceivable that such a government could limit or eliminate every right we think we have before the law. Even if it were only effective for the five years allowed under the Constitution, it could badly change the way our entire society works.

What, you may ask, do I want by these writings? I want the elimination of the ‘not withstanding clause’ and a federal government that is strong enough to ensure that equality and opportunity are available from coast to coast in this country.