LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Justin Trudeau has been Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister since 2015. Contrary to popular belief that’s been widely propagated by Liberal supporters and spin doctors, he’s accomplished almost nothing in office.

Until Monday evening, that is. Trudeau earned an unusual political distinction that no other Canadian PM has ever achieved. He found a way to shift the most left-leaning government in our country’s history even further to the left.

How did he do this? By signing a three-year agreement with Jagmeet Singh and the NDP.

Delivering for Canadians Now, A Supply and Confidence Agreement details the working arrangement between the two parties that will run from March 22, 2022 until Parliament rises in June 2025. It’s not an official coalition, which means no New Democrat will have a seat at the cabinet table. Rather, the NDP “agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters – notably on budgetary policy, budget implementation bills, estimates and supply” and the Liberals commit “to govern for the duration of the agreement.” Moreover, the NDP has agreed to “not move a vote of non-confidence, nor vote for a non-confidence motion during the term of the arrangement.”

As the agreement states in part, “The parties have identified key policy areas where there is a desire for a similar medium-term outcome. We have agreed to work together during the course of this Parliament to put the needs of Canadians first.”

Some of these key policy areas include: introducing a dental care plan for low-income Canadians, passing the Canada Pharmacare Act in late 2023, new affordable housing measures, initiating massive emissions reductions by 2030, introducing Just Transition legislation to help workers, unions and other communities, ensuring ten days of paid sick leave is in place this year, additional investments for Indigenous housing, a fairer tax system, and removing barriers to voting and participation.

Dental care and Pharmacare, which are part of the current NDP playbook, have been rooted in socialist thinking for decades. They’ve been previously rejected by most Canadian voters, and not just right-leaning ones, due to the enormous costs and inefficiencies these state-run plans will undoubtedly incur. With the Liberal-NDP agreement in place, a proper debate in Parliament won’t happen and these policies will easily pass in a minority Parliament operating like a majority government is in charge.

Canada will also witness massive increases to the size of government, rate of taxation and role of the nanny-state. Any hope for a return to small government, low taxes and more individual rights and freedoms by voting out the minority Liberals has fizzled out in one fell swoop. If you thought things were bad under Trudeau for nearly seven years – and it’s been bloody awful – you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The Liberals and NDP are both declaring victory with the signing of this agreement. That’s predictable, but here’s the thing. Only one of them has the right to do so, and it’s not the junior partner in this arrangement.

Singh naively believes Canadians will give his party full credit for bringing in programs like public dental care and Pharmacare, if they’re successful. Not a chance. Most people barely remember what they had for breakfast a couple of days ago, let alone the specific party that proposed certain policies. If these social programs (and others) achieve what Trudeau hopes they’ll ultimately achieve, he’ll take all the credit – and the voters will reward his Liberals for introducing these policies.

Here’s a historical example to prove my point.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation exists in Canada due to the efforts of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett and the Progressive Conservatives. They launched the state-owned Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the CBC’s predecessor, in 1932. Without it, our public broadcaster may never have come to fruition – or could have ended up looking very different than it does today.

How many Canadians know this? Other than a smattering of historians and political junkies, the numbers are relatively small. Most Canadians would likely (and incorrectly) assume the Liberals and NDP had something to do with it, since they vigorously defend the CBC. Today’s Conservatives largely believe in either reducing funding for the public broadcaster, or defunding them altogether. So, their historical role has either been forgotten, ignored or usurped by parties that had nothing to do with the CBC’s creation.

That’s what will happen to Singh and the NDP.

Without any representation at the cabinet table, the NDP’s initiatives will be lost in the political wilderness. Singh’s memorable opposition to Trudeau’s three instances of blackface will become a tiny footnote in history. His party has seemingly accepted the fact that they’re irrelevant, can’t win federal elections on their own, and are more undeserving of representation in the House of Commons than ever before.

The NDP will be remembered for a couple of things. Protecting Trudeau, a weak, ineffective Prime Minister who has repeatedly embarrassed his country on the domestic and international stage. Propping up a Liberal Party that’s won the last two federal elections with minority governments and finished second in the popular vote both times, and giving them a safe political ride for the next three years.

Oh, and signing on to a misguided agreement that is, in the words of interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen, “little more than backdoor socialism.” Singh and Trudeau are probably both fine with this, truth be told.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

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.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


In his July 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of the Russians and Ukrainians”’ Vladimir Putin asked “Why … can’t relations between Russia and Ukraine be like the United States and Canada, or Germany and Austria?”

The British journalist James Meek has suggested: “One answer might be that the United States and Germany don’t question their neighbour’s existence.” Some Canadians, however, might at least somewhat question Mr. Meek’s answer.

In the second volume of his Jean Chrétien biography Lawrence Martin reports on a 1980s meeting between Brian Mulroney’s disarmament ambassador, Douglas Roche, and Ronald Reagan’s Republican secretary of state, George Shultz.

Shultz advised Roche: “Look, let’s get one thing straight. The land that you people occupy up there, north of the forty-ninth parallel, geographically speaking, is part of the northern United States.”

Much more recently Lauren Boebert, Republican member for the third congressional district of Colorado, has told Fox News: “I pray for Ukraine, I wish them the best … but we have neighbours to the north who need freedom and need to be liberated.”

US conservative talk show host Candace Owens has also tweeted: “STOP talking about Russia. Send American troops to Canada to deal with the tyrannical reign of Justin Trudeau Castro.”

Even in the midst of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine none of this may be judged altogether serious. The War of 1812 was the last time the USA actually tried to invade Canada.

On the other hand, the US journal Foreign Policy has recently reported on “How Russia’s Future with NATO Will Impact the Arctic,” arguing that there are “critical ways the crisis in Ukraine will determine the region’s future.”

Since 1996 there have been “coordinated efforts … among the Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the US)” to deal with emerging issues in the region.

And thinking about the Canadian Arctic in 2022 may remind us that the pride we sometimes take in how little Canada spends on the Canadian Armed Forces is increasingly misplaced.

Canada is not now spending at all enough on national defence to seriously defend its claims to sovereignty in its far north. And these claims are often enough questioned by US observers.

Ottawa has been increasing defence spending lately. But in a review of the 2021 federal budget the Canadian International Council noted that: “Despite this additional funding, Canada will not meet the two per cent of GDP target for defence spending set by NATO.”

According to World Bank numbers, military expenditure in Canada accounted for 1.4% of GDP in 2020.  This was the same as Germany — but lower than France (2.1%), or Australia (2.1%), the United Kingdom (2.2%), India (2.9%), the United States (3.7%), or Russia (4.3%).

Early in March 2022 Prime Minister Trudeau, in the careful words of The Canadian Press, at least “opened the door … to spending more on Canada’s military.”

Focusing on the prospect that Russia’s current anti-NATO mood could spillover into the Arctic may add urgency to Canada’s military spending calculations.

Some might see the most impressive military presence in the three northern territories right now as the “2000 Canadian Rangers in 61 patrols and more than 1,400 Junior Canadian Rangers (JCRs) in 44 patrols located in 65 communities across the north.”

As officially explained : “The Canadian Rangers are a part of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Reserves working in remote, isolated and coastal regions of Canada. They provide lightly-equipped, self-sufficient mobile forces to support CAF national security and public safety operations.” (Note as well: many Rangers are Indigenous Canadians.)

Canada has been trying to strengthen its northern military presence since the late 20th century. But progress has been slow. The Canadian Rangers and the broader Canadian Armed Forces in the north could be much more impressive if they had much more money.

Growing Russian scepticism about NATO could similarly bring new national security pressures to the Canadian Arctic. If Canada won’t spend more to meet these pressures, the United States could decide to meet them itself, on grounds the late George Schultz would understand..

Already, the Department of National Defence in Ottawa has told us: “In February and March 2022, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is participating in several recurring joint Arctic exercises alongside the United States (US) military in Alaska and other locations across North America.”

Here as elsewhere there are growing arguments for a sovereign and independent Canada to start spending significantly more public money on national defence.

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

If this column is ever read by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or by one of his CBC minions, it’s possible my bank account might get frozen.

After all, I plan to express an opinion that many in the Liberal Party and in the mainstream media might find offensive or even dangerous.

Yet, I’m taking the risk because I’m concerned about how the principle of political anonymity is coming under attack in this country.

Yes, let me be clear, I think it’s OK for a citizen to keep his or her political views confidential.

To me, it’s a key principle for any free and democratic society; it’s why we have a secret ballot.

Political anonymity also has a long tradition. The Federalist Papers, for instance, were penned anonymously.

Yet, in the past few weeks some people have gotten their knickers in a knot because many of the online donations to support the “Freedom Convoy” were anonymous.

To them, such political anonymity is both worrisome and frightening.

Indeed, a panicked CBC even suggested that one of those anonymous donors to the trucker protest was none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin!

Consequently, I’m sure it won’t be long before demands will arise to ban anonymous donations for private causes in the name of “transparency.” (We already have such a ban in place, by the way. for people donating to political causes during federal elections.)

I think that’d be a really bad idea.

Why?

Well, the way I see it, making anonymous donations illegal is a direct attack on free speech.

And yes, making a financial donation to a cause you believe in is a form of free expression.

I know all about this issue because once I worked for a conservative advocacy organization called the National Citizens Coalition, which kept the names of its donors confidential.

Some in the media criticized us for such a policy, calling it “secretive,” but we knew the NCC had a lot of powerful enemies, enemies who could certainly make life extremely difficult for anyone they found supporting us.

As a matter of fact, after the NCC became involved in supporting a unionized teacher who was legally challenging the right of unions to use his forced dues to finance the NDP and other left-wing causes, an Ontario labour leader threatened to tear up the union card of any unionized employee found donating money to the NCC.

Anyone losing their union card, would also lose their job.

Of course, you don’t have to go back in time to see why confidentiality is important when it comes to political donations.

Just consider what’s happening to those unfortunate people who donated to the “Freedom Convoy” and then had their names made public after a cyberattack on a crowdfunding site leaked the names of donors.

To take one example, a woman who made a $250 donation to the truckers had to close her business after someone threatened to throw a brick through her window.

Please note, the media has also been gleefully tracking down anyone on the leaked donor list.

All of this is too much even for left-wing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar who tweeted, “I fail to see why any journalist felt the need to report on a shop owner making such an insignificant donation rather than to get them harassed. It’s unconscionable and journalists need to do better.”

Let’s hope nobody gets hurt or faces financial ruin because of a donation.

Mind you, there are those who’ll argue that anyone who supports the truckers deserves to be threatened and persecuted.

As Gerald Butts, Trudeau’s former principal secretary, tweeted, “These guys think you should be able to donate to an insurrection anonymously. Give me a break?”

I’d only respond to that by saying, I seriously doubt anyone who donated to the “Freedom Convoy” did so thinking it would topple the Trudeau regime. I, for one, can’t remember any insurrection in history that featured bouncy castles and hot tubs.

At any rate, I fully realize I’m probably fighting for a lost cause here.

It’s depressing to ponder, but our democratic rights are easily sacrificed on the altar of unfounded fears.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to check my bank account.

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.