federal election Archives - Page 5 of 7

Democracy is a wonderful thing. But it can be downright exhausting.

In the warp and woof of our many-layered system of government, Albertans often end up with more than one election in a year.

The province and the feds campaigned in 2015, with election dates about six months apart. In 2019 once again both Alberta and Ottawa held their elections about half a year apart.

This year the overlap is significantly tighter and it’s between federal and municipal levels of government.

Voters will be voting on members of parliament, city councillors and Alberta senatorial candidates between now and the end of October. Folks in Fort McMurray will also get a provincial by-election in the next six months because their current UCP MLA just quit to run federally.

And there’s a referendum ballot along with the municipal election on whether Alberta should dump daylight saving time and whether equalization should be removed from the constitution.

It’s a heck of a challenge for the average apathetic voter. Good thing so many Albertans are political junkies.

Municipal candidate lawn signs had begun sprouting up in the big cities well before the federal writ was dropped. With no incumbent for the mayors’ chairs in Calgary and Edmonton, the civic race has attracted more attention than usual.

Now those municipal candidates must combat election fatigue as the federal race begins, with its attendant heavy news coverage and federal leaders popping up now and again to glad-hand.

There will be much blending and shaking of this political cocktail as the weeks tick by. The UCP government is so deeply invested in battling the federal Liberals that voters can be forgiven for trying to parse out who’s dog is in which fight.

It appears the federal Conservatives, who rarely have much to worry about in Alberta, are trying to keep the lid on this year’s campaign. Incumbent Conservatives, with the exception of the MP in Fort McMurray, are sticking it out and running for re-election, giving them an edge on name recognition.

While it’s unlikely there will be huge surprises, the abysmal polling numbers for Jason Kenney’s UCP must have Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives somewhat spooked.

There could be other interlocking factors between the federal and municipal votes. While municipal candidates don’t tout party allegiances, one of the front-running Edmonton mayoral candidates, Amerjeet Sohi, is a former federal Liberal cabinet minister.

In the polarized world of Alberta politics, if the Liberals win by a landslide on Sept. 20, frustrated conservatives may come out in droves on Oct. 18 to punish Sohi.

The referendum further muddies and blurs the federal-provincial-municipal lines.

Daylight saving time is a relatively non-partisan question. Both the UCP and the NDP have had kicks at that particular cat in terms of trial legislation.

But equalization is a hot-button partisan issue which the UCP uses as a proxy for its many grievances with the central government.

The question is: “Should section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 – Parliament and the government of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making equalization payments – be removed from the constitution?”

Does the average voter understand that their vote on this most federal of issues has absolutely no effect? Electors in one province can’t mess with the constitution.

And finally there is the Senate election, a provincial vote, happening in conjunction with a municipal election, which is non-binding. If the Liberals win the September election, the October provincial vote will have no effect, since the Liberals don’t embrace the notion of provincial electors picking their Senate representatives from a pool of mostly conservative candidates.

The nuance and complexity of this many questions in short a space of time really works against the democratic process.

It’s tough enough to keep track of and assess the worthiness of candidates for one level of government. Tossing in a second and third level and questions with attendant grudges and partisan gamesmanship is too much.

Maybe we need a referendum on how many elections a province can have at one time.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

I have three unrelated observations to start this campaign.

Here’s the first:

We’ve all heard how politics makes strange bedfellows – but in the 2021 federal election, so far what’s strangest is how the current bedfellows are an exact inverting of the 2019 script.

Whereas in 2019, Justin Trudeau ran – hard – against Ontario Premier Doug Ford, in 2021 we read The Star’s Rob Benzie reporting that there is a “nonaggression pact” between the federal Grits and the provincial Tories.

But it’s more than a ceasefire; is there an actual alliance at play here?

The first sign was when federal Conservative leader Erin O’Toole was in a bind to start the campaign, walking into the trap set by the Liberals over mandatory vaccines. As O’Toole sputtered to clarify his position – ahem, not unlike Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who wanted to try out all the positions before settling on the right one – Ford put out hints that he would unveil mandatory vaccines in Ontario’s health-care settings and in schools.

He then did so, more or less.

As O’Toole launched his platform, a central component of which is to end the Liberals’ agreements with various provinces to deliver childcare, Ford’s education minister was hinting Ontario could reach a deal with the feds to deliver the Liberals’ signature social program.

Here’s the second:

Having canvassed for four Liberal candidates in the Greater Toronto Area – North York, Newmarket and Etobicoke – I have a pretty direct observation.

The gender gap right now is wild. Even doors that our canvassing data management app, Liberalist, says should be historically Liberal come with a wrinkle: the “man of the house” is very grumpy about Trudeau. The rest of the family is still Liberal, but the male of the species is going to shut the door or not-so-politely shoo you off his lawn.

There’s always been a gender gap, but this time it seems pronounced beyond anything I’ve previously experienced.

How will the Liberals look to correct their standing amongst men? Is it about fiscal probity? Is it about something that helps pocketbooks? I’m stereotyping here, because the policy solution seems less effective than just the fact that there is something about this PM and his government that men of a certain age… resent.

As a senior Tory friend said, the one thing the Liberals have going for them is that it’s not clear that these men are inclined to vote for O’Toole just yet. Moreover, O’Toole – notwithstanding his strange Mr Clean slash Men’s Health slash Bouncer at a Gay Bar (to quote Jenni Bryne) platform cover photo – is not working to shore up his support with women. Again, a stereotype, but he is deliberately poking many women in the eye with his vow to “pull a Harper” and cancel childcare.

The final observation:

The Conservative ad is an image of a boxer punching Canadians with red gloves, hitting us with debt and high house prices. But then the solution this image demands is B-roll of some guy who I know to be O’Toole but not everyone does, and then “vote Conservative”. It’s an interesting opening, then followed by not a lot of anything.

The Liberal ad, on the contrary, is all about how Canadians worked together with the Liberals in their corner to get through the pandemic, narrated by a smiling, familiar Trudeau.

Obviously, both messages can’t be true. But at least the Liberal one features the leader.

Click here for more

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole released his full election platform – minus costing – on Monday, trying to present himself as a credible alternative to the governing Liberals, and insisting that he has a real plan for the economy. I mean, it says so right in his platform. “It’s a plan. A very detailed plan,” it reads at the very top. Should we take his word for it?

To start off with, the document is presented in magazine format, with O’Toole in a t-shirt attempting a Men’s Health pose (minus the homoeroticism), while the lettering mimics a Maclean’s cover, right down to the maple leaf in place of an apostrophe. In contrast with the NDP’s platform, O’Toole’s is 165 pages of mostly text. Lots, and lots of text, because it’s a “very detailed plan.” As with most things from the Conservatives over the past few years, it opens with mischaracterizing much of the current economic situation in the country, and spends the rest of the document flitting between revisionist history of the party’s own record from when they were in government, and a lot of wishful thinking and Green Lantern Theory – a bit like the NDP platform in that regard. Like the NDP platform, this one also gets more repetitive the longer it goes, but hey, they needed to pad it to look as comprehensive as possible.

There’s also a lot of logical inconsistency with many of their proposals – things like pledging to overhaul the tax system to simplify it, while proposing all kinds of new tax credits. Yes, in true Conservative fashion, there is no problem that new tax credits can’t fix. Things like more tax credits for job creation, or replacing subsidies for innovation with tax credits instead. Other contradictions include increasing “Free Trade with Free Nations,” while at the same time ring-fencing all kinds of places for protectionism (that’s not how free trade works, guys); claiming to care about the environment while promising to repeal environmental protections in order to incentivize more resource extraction; and advancing reconciliation with First Nations by pushing them to resource extraction industries, while at the same time making it illegal for them to protest by blockading railroads.

The biggest internal contradiction is the pledge around childcare. “The COVID crisis has exposed how precarious the position of women is in the Canadian economy,” the document reads. “Long-term prosperity depends on women having the support they need to be full participants in Canada’s economy.” Sounds great. So what’s the plan? Cancelling the $10/day child care agreements with the provinces (which were signed as five-year agreements) in favour of refundable tax credits for child care. That won’t get women into the economy, because child care is a supply-side problem. Tax credits are a demand-side solution, and the last time the Conservatives were in power, their tax credits for new child care spaces created approximately zero of them. This is guaranteed not to get more women into the workforce.

Their other pledges with respect to women are also pretty tone deaf. For example, it talks about tax credits for hiring apprentices in the skilled trades who are women, but makes zero mention about doing anything about the sexism in those environments which keeps many – if not most – women out of those professions. The platform also acknowledges that the burden of caregiving for aging parents disproportionately falls on women and keeps them out of the workforce, but then offers them $200/month to help these seniors stay at home longer. No, seriously. That’s their plan.

The incoherence only gets more acute from there. While acknowledging that housing prices are a supply-side issue, they pledge to build a million new homes over three years, but ignore that the current funds aren’t getting spent because of bottlenecks in the municipal processes – not to mention that there’s not exactly a lot of slack in the construction labour market (which will drive prices higher). They want to have a Minister of Red Tape Reduction, but their precious tax credits are the very red tape that they decry because of how much the complicate the Tax Code. Their promise to give everyone making $20,000/year a $1/hour raise would incentivize employers to reduce pay by an equivalent amount.

As with the NDP, there are impossible promises, like somehow forcing Health Canada to accelerate their approval processes, which should alarm everyone. They would lower cellphone and internet bills by magic, apparently, doubly so with food costs. They claim that they will create “more competition” in a country of oligopolies, but because they are promising protectionism in the market, you can’t introduce foreign competition. Their section on tax fairness could have been lifted from the NDP, particularly in the rhetoric about going after “wealthy tax cheats” and making multinationals pay, as though governments haven’t been trying. They will also somehow convince the Americans to close the “loophole” in the Safe Third Country Agreement, and good luck to them for believing that. And then there’s the Green Lantern Theory of federalism, where they can apparently break down those interprovincial trade barriers that have plagued every government since 1867, and force provinces to recognize foreign credentials in a universal fashion.

One of the most galling instances of revisionist history is what it says about health transfers to the provinces, patting themselves on the back for the six percent escalator under the Harper years (that Paul Martin negotiated), and then blaming the Liberals for the escalator being reduced in 2017 when it was Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper who set that rate (with good reason, as provincial healthcare costs were rising below three percent and they were spending that money on other things) – and then claiming that this “put lives at risk.” The absolute gall of trying that particular lie. And again, they claim to want to “partner” with provinces to put those increased transfers to mental health, while also pledging more provincial autonomy over transfer payments.

There is so much more, some of which they’ve already covered, like adding more rules and penalties to conflict of interest rules, no matter how useless a gesture that will be. “Tough on crime” measures that create more offences with more mandatory minimums that have been proven not to have a measurable impact on crime. Their same useless plan for carbon pricing that doesn’t actually make sense. Unconstitutional plans to appoint senators that have been “elected” by provincial processes.

It may be long and dense, but the platform is a hot mess. It’s a high-spending bro-covery plan whose claims for getting to three percent GDP growth are betrayed by the very fact that it won’t get more women into the workforce, and which looks at issues in a 1970s lens that pays mere lip service to inclusion without being substantive about it. More than anything, it confirms that the party has abandoned fiscal conservatism, and is flailing about to find things that sound popular without having much principle behind them – which seems to fit O’Toole quite well, given that he’s become a chameleon, constantly changing his colours to suit his environment. It’s hard to take seriously for someone who wants to led the country.

Click here for more

Recently I saw a political TV attack ad which left me feeling a bit ambivalent.

One the one hand, I thought it was a well-produced, well-written and persuasive ad; on the other hand, it brought to my mind some serious moral and ethical issues.

The spot I’m referring to is an ad aimed against the Conservative Party of Canada, which was produced by the private sector union, Unifor.

If you haven’t seen it, the ad mimics TV truck commercials, cleverly using a beat-up pickup truck to serve as a visual metaphor for Erin O’Toole’s Conservative Party.

As viewers watch the truck gradually fall apart on the screen, the narrator declares: “The next model of Conservative is here. Meet the 2021 O’Toole, ready to steer Canada in the wrong direction.”

It’s a good ad. (My only major quibble is it makes some mighty serious charges – i.e., O’Toole is planning on cutting “health care” and the “public service” – without any backup or sourcing.)

So, you ask what are my moral qualms?

Well, let me first say, I’m not troubled by the fact that Unifor is a so-called “Third Party” group embroiling itself in the world of political partisanship. In my view, all organizations and individuals should have the freedom to express political opinions.

I know this might put me in the minority, since many in the media and in politics seem to believe that only political parties should have the right to air political ads.

Indeed, we even have a “gag law” on the books which makes it illegal for independent groups like Unifor to effectively spend money on political advertising now that the election is officially underway.

I think that’s wrong; l believe the gag law infringes on election speech which is a core democratic freedom.

So, if Unifor wants to spend money to speak out against O’Toole during an election that should be its right, just as conservative advocacy groups should have the right to speak out against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

At any rate, by now, you’re probably dying to know why I have a problem with Unifor’s ad.

Well, it’s just this: Unifor has the legal right to pay for that ad using union dues, which unionized employees are compelled by law to pay.

In other words, it’s quite possible unionized employees who support the Conservative Party are being forced to finance an anti-Conservative ad, through their Unifor dues.

To me, that’s undemocratic, it violates every Canadian citizen’s right to free association.

Just as we should all have the right to associate with any group, so should we also have the right not to associate.

Unfortunately, however, our court system doesn’t see it that way.

I know all about this, because about 30 years ago (yes, I’m old) I was with a group called the National Citizens Coalition, which launched a constitutional court challenge to defend the rights of unionized employees.

More specifically, we supported the challenge of an Ontario school teacher named Merv Lavigne, a Liberal, who objected to how unions were using his compelled dues to support the NDP.

Lavigne argued such spending violated his constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free speech and free association.

Alas, in 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada sided with the unions and against Lavigne.

So, as it stands now, Unifor can keep spending dues to promote its political propaganda without ever worrying about the conscience of its individual members.

That in a nutshell is what troubles me about Unifor’s ad. It’s a question of principle.

As Thomas Jefferson once put it, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Click here for more Canada

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more Canada

After months of speculation, it is now pretty much confirmed that we are headed into a federal election. A pandemic federal election, at that. Unless Justin Trudeau changes his mind over the weekend or if, unexpectedly, Governor General Mary Simon decides to ignore the advice of the man who just put her on the viceregal throne and chooses instead to listen to NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who provided her with a rationale to refuse Trudeau’s request.

Both scenarios are on the outskirts of political fiction, so Canadians will likely have to cast their ballot by September 20th. Opposition parties, along with pundits and columnists, have been saying for weeks that we shouldn’t have an election during this pandemic, especially considering the Trudeau Liberals have won every confidence vote they faced in the House of Commons, giving them the ability to push their political agenda forward despite being in a minority situation.

However, while opposition parties pontificate about the needless election that is coming in the midst of the pandemic`s 4th wave and complain loudly about Trudeau’s power-grab motives, they are wasting valuable time trying to frame the electoral narrative that is before us.

Truth be told, we’ve seen similar attempts made by opposition parties in provincial contexts. While these political pressures perhaps helped Premier Moe to decide to back away from calling a snap election in the Spring of 2020, it was not an issue for Premier Horgan in British Columbia or Premier Higgs in New Brunswick. It doesn’t seem to be an issue for Nova Scotia Premier Iain Rankin either.

While a pandemic election is a gamble, most voters actually were not deeply offended by those who decided it was time to choose another government. Polls always indicate that voters never want an election anyway, so for political operatives making such a call, voters’ wishes about election timing are usually not a consideration.

However, things can still turn sour for Trudeau. It did for Premier Furey in Newfoundland and Labrador, after he too called a pandemic election. Cases were low on The Rock, and considering how elections unfolded in other provinces, the NL Liberals were pretty confident they were going to surf it too. Unfortunately for Furey, COVID-19 blew up in Newfoundland during the campaign. Candidates had to self-isolate after being exposed and in some cases contracting the disease. Things got so bad that in-person voting was cancelled and the deadline for mail-in ballots was extended numerous times. Andrew Furey saw his Liberals drop almost 20 points during the campaign, from a high of 65% before the election was called to 48% on Election Day.

That’s the cautionary tale for Justin Trudeau: unlike Furey, he doesn’t have the luxury to lose 20 points during a 4th wave campaign – and still win. Which probably explains why Liberal Ministers have been targeting Premiers, mostly Jason Kenney and Doug Ford, to pre-emptively set the blame stage for the 4th wave, in case things take a turn for the worse during the campaign. Surely, the feds can’t be blamed for a 4th wave spreading through schools, since that is a provincial jurisdiction!

Examples of a backlash for calling a snap election are few and far between. David Peterson in Ontario and Pauline Marois in Quebec come to mind. They prove that governments calling an election early without a valid reason can sometimes pay a heavy price.

Opposition leaders can keep trying to demonstrate the foolishness of a snap election, but chances are it won’t work. O’Toole, Singh and Blanchet have taken turns over the past week. Erin O’Toole has been attacking Trudeau by saying that the planned election is a Trudeau vanity project. Thus far, these personal attacks have failed to land. Jagmeet Singh has openly offered to support the government through the pandemic, stripping the credibility of Trudeau’s argument that Parliament is dysfunctional. Blanchet keeps repeating that Trudeau is the only one who wants this “hasty, unnecessary and dangerous election.”

A major flaw in their rhetoric, of course, is that these 3 leaders are making these arguments while being on the campaign trail, actively nominating candidates, announcing policies and even, in the case of the NDP, dropping its entire electoral platform. None of them want a pandemic election, yet they are all out there campaigning. Meanwhile Trudeau has been vacationing away from scrutiny and pesky questions about election timing. He is in effect the only leader currently not campaigning or even talking about the election. When he does, voters will forget about all the noise related to election timing and move on to making up their mind about who should lead the country in the post-pandemic recovery. The sooner the opposition leaders move on as well, the harder it will be for Trudeau to remain above the fray.

Click here for more Canada

The ballot question.

That’s the name political hacks and flaks give to what is otherwise known as “what the election is all about.”

What is at stake? What is being decided? What are the choices?

For Ronald Reagan in 1980, it was: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” He won big. For Bill Clinton in 1992, it was: “Change versus more of the same.” He won big, too.

Ditto Joe Biden in 2020, who said the election was “a battle for the soul of the nation.” It may have been a bit of hyperbole, but it worked. Biden – who, full disclosure, this writer worked for – won more votes than any presidential candidate in American history.

Up here in Canada, too, the biggest victories have happened when the ballot question is clear and understood.

Brian Mulroney’s massive 1984 victory was the direct result of his televised debate with Liberal leader John Turner. Turner had approved a raft of patronage appointments, which Mulroney called horrible. He demanded Turner apologize to the nation. Turner responded: “I had no option.”

Mulroney immediately, and brilliantly, framed the choice: “You had an option, sir – you could have said no.” Voters shortly thereafter said “no” to Turner, and in record numbers, too.

Jean Chretien’s 1993 winning ballot question, ironically, was cooked up by Kim Campbell’s Conservatives themselves. They broadcast a TV attack ad that mocked Chretien’s looks (the then-Liberal leader, who I then worked for, had a partial facial paralysis). “Is this a Prime Minister?” the Tory ad asked, over an unflattering photo of Chretien.

Canadians overwhelmingly answered: “yes.” It was the face of a Prime Minister. And they made Chretien PM in a landslide, and reduced Campbell’s party to two seats in the House of Commons.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives flipped the table in 2011, and reduced the Liberal Party to third place with a two-pronged ballot question. Their “here for you” was bland and boring.

But when coupled with their relentless barrage of “just visiting” attack ads against Grit leader Michael Ignatieff – who had lived outside Canada for decades – the Conservative triumphed.

Justin Trudeau, hate him or not, is a genius at reducing complex political choices to simple, understandable words and phrases.

In 2015, he partially plagiarized the Clinton 1992 approach, and said the choice was about “real change – now.” He – like Mulroney, Chretien and Harper – won a majority.

He lost it in 2019, however, when his ballot question was poorly executed, and widely misunderstood. In that campaign, the Grit slogan was again about choice – “choose forward.” But his wearing of racist blackface, and his obstruction of justice in the LavScam scandal, didn’t seem very “forward” to many Canadians. He lost his Parliamentary majority.

This time around – with the Delta variant surging everywhere, and vast swaths of Canada on fire – what is the ballot question?

If Trudeau calls an election this weekend, as expected, he will stride up to the media microphones at Rideau Hall and declare what he wants it to be. It will likely be a (false) claim that he managed the pandemic well, and a (false) claim that he offers stability in uncertain times.

But for most of us, it’s hard to think of a ballot question that in any way justifies a $500-million Seinfeldian election about nothing.

And, if the ballot question becomes something like this – “Have the Trudeau Liberals become tired, and arrogant, and out of touch, and need to be taught a lesson?” – the answer will be clear.

The answer to that ballot question will be “yes.”

[Kinsella was Jean Chrétien’s Special Assistant, and ran the Liberal Party’s war rooms in 1993 and 2000.]

Click here for more

The NDP decided to take the opposite tactic that parties have established in recent election cycles, and put out their entire platform before Parliament has even been dissolved. After campaigning for a full week before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has even headed to Rideau Hall to request a dissolution, Jagmeet Singh released “Ready for Better: New Democrats’ commitment to you” (emphasis theirs) to minimal fanfare from his stop in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador on Thursday. For a leader who likes to criticize Trudeau as only speaking pretty words and taking no action, Singh has demonstrated that he has only the same to offer.

The document is 115 pages of pretty words. Lots and lots of them, interspersed with photos of Singh around the country, but it’s a document that is hard to take seriously once you actually read it. A lot of it are platitudes, and some back-patting for things they are taking credit for that they didn’t actually do. Because most of their promises are simply reheated versions of their 2019 platform, they didn’t even bother to update it to reflect the fact that the Liberals have either already accomplished or have been actively pursuing and are at various stages of completion many of the things they describe. Well, one generously assumes that they simply neglected to update the pledges, lest it be said that they’re lying about the state of accomplishments in order to create a sense of disillusionment to drive votes, and the NDP would certainly never do that, now would they? (That was sarcasm – it’s one of their most common tactics).

Of course, they padded out the document by repeating many of the pledges over, and over, and over again in each different section, so it looks like they’re really being comprehensive. But more than anything, it’s a lot of what we’ve come to expect from Singh and the NDP, which is a complete inability to distinguish what falls under areas of provincial jurisdiction, and where they do acknowledge that they need to negotiate or “work with” the provinces, the expectation in the text is that the premiers will sign right up to everything that they have on offer – pharmacare, dental care, guaranteed liveable income, changes to labour codes, changes to building codes, free public transit, binding carbon budgets, you name it. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the federal government has been working for over two years to implement the Hoskins’ Report on creating national universal pharmacare, and in that time, the only province they’ve managed to convince has been Prince Edward Island, and it’s only to implement the very first steps of the program, which is to cut some of their existing costs. Early learning and child care has progressed more rapidly because of the amount of money the federal government put on the table, but even then, there are still three provinces including Ontario which have thus far dug their heels in and refused to sign on. And no, just applying more willpower won’t change those facts – there is no Green Lantern Ring of federalism.

There is also a pervasive sense throughout the document that everything can happen at once – pledges upon pledges that can happen at the drop of a hat. Not only will negotiations with provinces resolve satisfactorily overnight, apparently there is also infinite capacity within government to accomplish these things, and the laws of physics don’t apply when it comes to solving pervasive problems like boil water advisories on First Nations reserves. There are also some literal impossible pledges sprinkled throughout as well, such as promising to expunge the criminal records of those convicted of cannabis possession – something the current government explored doing but realized that it could not be done because those records are too disparate and scattered for this to happen. Even the current commitment to expunge the records of gay men convicted of gross indecency has proven exceeding difficult to uphold.

There are also a number of promises that stretch the bounds of credulity, such as making social media companies stop the spread of disinformation (good luck with that), abolishing the Senate – and in the interim, “insisting” that they change their own rules to rubber stamp all bills rather than exercising their constitutional veto powers (not going to happen), and lowering the voting age to 16. They’re also promising to institute a form of mixed-member proportional representation that “works for Canada” – and farming out the design to an “independent citizens assembly” so that they are absolved of any accountability for the decisions that are made. Once again, good luck with that.

I will say that I was surprised that in an age of “defund/abolish the police” rhetoric and aping American Democrat talking points at every opportunity, the document was not calling for that in any regard. Not breaking up the RCMP, ending their contract policing services, or anything remotely like that. If anything, it called for the expansion of current police forces by providing them with even more resources for dealing with hate crimes, gun control, and by enforcing “zero tolerance” policies, you would basically need a steady influx of new police officers to replace the ones who are being drummed out. It’s certainly not what I would have expected from a party that bills itself on being the progressive voice in Canada – the branch plant to the Bernie Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez crowd – and my only guess was that this was their way of forestalling the “soft on crime” taunts rather than being bold in setting policy, especially considering that they don’t care about jurisdiction in any other regard.

All of this to say that this particular platform was an entirely predictable effort from Singh and company – a lot of blue-sky ideas, unachievable promises, disingenuous characterizations of the current situation, and the belief that simple willpower will make all of their dreams come true. Singh may accuse Trudeau of being a man of pretty words, but he should look in the mirror.

Click here for more Canada

The good news is the election speculation can finally end. The bad news, well the bad news is all around us.

Western North America is on fire, or if not on actual fire, suffering from severe drought. Greece is on fire. Catastrophic floods are occurring everywhere from Europe to China. There was a “heat dome” that settled over B.C. And elsewhere, when it has been hot this summer, it has been very hot indeed.

Just this week, the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body studying climate science, put out its latest report which confirmed what is increasingly obvious: climate change is already here.

So, in some ways, now is the perfect time for an election. The IPCC lays out a coherent, and pretty dire, case for where we’re at.

“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land,” the report says according to a Bloomberg report.

Bloomberg sums up the report succinctly:

The past decade was most likely hotter than any period in the last 125,000 years, when sea levels were as much as 10 metres higher. Combustion and deforestation have also raised carbon dioxide in the atmosphere higher than it’s been in two million years, according to the report, and agriculture and fossil fuels have contributed to methane and nitrous oxide concentration higher than any point in at least 800,000 years.

This is pretty grim stuff, but it is not sounding our ultimate doom. Not yet, at least. There is still time to put the brakes on some of the worst case scenarios. The earth’s temperature has, so far, only risen about 1.1°C from the 19th Century average. In the next 20 years, that will rise to 1.5°C without taking serious action.

And so far, none of the signatories of the Paris Accord have done enough to prevent warming from crossing the 2°C mark, beyond which the effects on the climate get much worse.

“This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels before they destroy our planet,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.

That’s certainly a dire statement, but it also means there is still time to make a difference.

So here we are at the start of a federal election — which reports suggest will kick off this Sunday — wherein we could perhaps maybe see some kind of solution proposed.

The current likeliest outcome is Justin Trudeau and the Liberals win again with a solid shot at a majority government. Which, if you listened just to their rhetoric particularly about climate change, you might think is a good thing. But it is probably worse that not good, but actively bad.

The trouble with the Liberal Party, this one especially, is how the way it talks about itself becomes all consuming, to the point they might actually believe their own bullshit.

Listen to your own voice enough talk about the serious and important work you’re doing to combat rising global temperatures — hey, there’s a carbon tax now! — and you start to really think that that’s enough. That good will and saying the right words is enough. This is a government, after all, where the prime minister and then-environment minister Catherine McKenna both marched in climate protests that were…protesting their own government.

(You can see a similar mindset at work when Trudeau took a knee at anti-police brutality protests, which again were protesting his own government, all the while he was surrounded by RCMP officers.)

Look no further than current environment minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, who was asked on CBC how that might change the government’s approach to doing things because of the seriousness of the IPCC’s findings. His answer leaves much to be desired.

“Canada needs to ensure that in the context of that transition, it’s extracting full value for its resources and using that money to push forward in terms of reducing emissions,” Wilkinson told CBC. “What we’re doing is saying it’s got to be part of the transition, but part of the transition is being able to raise the revenues that enable you to actually make the investments that are required to go there.”

So, you see, the federal government bought an pipeline, and is finishing its construction, to make sure that we’re able to suck as much oil — of higher-than-average carbon intensity! — out of the ground, so that we can make enough money to counter the cost climate change.

While it is a truly incredible answer, but it is quite honest. The government will never do what is necessary to actually reduce this country’s carbon emissions enough to meet the requirements of our own commitments. Never mind trying to exceed them.

There is far too much money to be made by oil companies for them to get in the way of that.

I would say something like, ‘This presents us with a stark choice in the coming weeks for election day.’ But I’d be full of shit.

There is little chance of a stark choice being offered, because we don’t have the sort of political culture that offers stark choices.

Instead we get variations on a theme. The best hope this election for a more serious climate policy might be the NDP under leader Jagmeet Singh. But pinning hopes on the modern NDP is a fool’s errand. Their party is not one that is looking for a radical departure from the status quo, but instead a party that is focused on wooing Liberal voters to pick up enough seats to wield slightly more influence in the House of Commons.

That sort of focus is not going to lead to the sort of boldness required.

The Conservatives are of no hope on the climate file, and the Greens simply have no hope of anything given the state they are in.

So, once more, we will fight an election on a bunch of piddling issues, with tiny solutions being sold as big promises.

All the while more carbon enters the atmosphere, and the globe grows ever hotter. At some point something will have to be done, but by the time this country is mobilized to truly do something serious, it will be too late.

We have our shot, but don’t worry, we won’t take it.