A Clear Winner

If there was any question about who is best informed about the concerns of Canadians, it was answered last night at the nationally televised Leaders Debate. Poilivre defeated the globalist decisively.

Report from a Citizen Journalist

I watched the entire Leaders Debate last night. Here is my assessment.

Pierre Poilivre presented himself as a confident, knowledgeable and polished statesman who understands the Canadian people and what he can do to reverse the trend of Canada’s steady economic decline under Liberal, NDP and ‘green’ policies. His Canada First campaign theme echoes the MAGA message that Trump promoted successfully in the US election in November.

Pierre also knows Parliament better than his competitors and possesses decades of experience learning about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of our national government institutions. This is valuable knowledge base that will be instrumental in bringing about needed tax and regulatory changes needed. The challenges will be great to unravel the blocks established by the previous administration to prevent Canada from developing real solutions to serious problems related to affordable housing, reliable energy and the development of our natural resources.

Poilivre will not let globalist treaties like the Paris Climate Accord handcuff our national prosperity any longer. He will not let the World Health Organization exert its unelected authority over our health care systems which are already struggling under too much administrative oversight.

Pierre offers Canadians a long overdue return to greater individual freedom of choice, personal responsibility, respect and fairness under unbiased laws.

Mark Carney is probably more effective in a board room than on a nationally televised political stage where he is clearly a “fish out of water”. He is obviously intelligent, but not in ways that matter to average Canadians who struggle daily with the rising cost of living. Carney wants to distance himself from Trudeau’s unpopular legacy but can’t escape the fact that he is still surrounded by the same Liberal caucus that elected Trudeau three years ago.

Consider Carney’s background. In a board room meeting, Mark need only convince a majority of a 12-person board on the merits of his business proposals, but getting a majority of voters in a nation of 40,000,000 citizens to approve his out-of-touch Liberal policies is a very different game. His inexperience was very evident on last night’s stage.

Perhaps Mark Carney might be helpful as one of many economic advisors to the next Conservative Minister of Finance, but he doesn’t remotely compare to Poilievre as the best choice to become the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Jagmeet Singh is the poster child of “Communism with Canadian characteristics” in the same way that Xi Jinping describes China as practicing “communism with Chinese characteristics”. Every Singh proposal Singh involved further expansion of government size, cost and scope of authority.

While Singh’s labour union partners were likely very pleased with his debate performance, business investors were likely discussing plans to invest anywhere but Canada if the NDP has any influence on future economic policies. Like me, those investors were likely appalled that an aspiring national leader like Jagmeet Singh could be so blatantly opposed to business investments in Canada.

Yves-François Blanchet earned my respect last night. He presented Quebec masterfully and with evident confidence in his knowledge concerning how Ottawa has steadfastly ignored the interests and priorities of the Quebec people - its language, culture, businesses and sovereignty.

I am pleased to see that both Quebec and Alberta are considering separation from Canada because federalism is proving to be a poor governance model for a country as large and diverse as Canada. A decentralization of decision-making combined with a reduction in political and administrative powers within all four levels of government is the best recipe for a more prosperous and cooperative Canada.

If Mark Carney had even a smidgeon of respect for average Canadians on display last night by Blanchet and Poilievre, he might be considered a reasonable candidate in this election. Otherwise, he comes across as an elite globetrotting expat with international ambitions who seems more interested in a vague, secretive agenda that excludes average Canadians from the discussion of what they want.

Maxime Bernier was not invited last night. Instead, I listened to a podcast interview between Max and Tucker Carlson. Max portrayed himself as the only “populist” option for Canadian voters. He cynically described the Conservatives and Liberals as the “uni-party ” claiming there is little difference between them.

The PPC leader made statements that were not true and portrayed unrealistic prospects of a strong PPC showing in spite of clear censorship by Canada’s election authorities and Canada’s biased legacy media.

For a man who formed the PPC seven years ago to “do politics differently”, I am disappointed how his style of “opposition bashing”, political pugilism and blatant misinformation have become his primary way to “do politics differently”. He lacks the positive statesmanship of Poilievre which is a shame.

Generally, I like the Maxime’s policies and characterize them as “Conservative-Libertarian” in nature. However, I know from personal experience that they will be swept away by the extreme winds of competing political propaganda just as Libertarian political messaging has experienced over the past fifty years.

Dishonesty in politics.

Is it really necessary for politicians to lie and deceive in order to win an election in a modern democracy?

Would “recall legislation” effectively deter them from making deceptive and unrealistic election promises? Or will this just put a bandaid on a gaping and long-festering wound?

Some voters want electoral reform.

Proportional representation(PR) is touted as a better electoral system than the ‘first-past-the-post’. PR is widely practiced in European Union elections. I am certainly not seeing any advantages for Canada from the European experience.

Real change is needed

Canada needs to allow and enable every Canadian to “captain their own ship” to the best of their ability.

This can be accomplished by greatly reducing the incentives to rely on government support and to restore the “safety net” as an option of last choice after that was promised to my parents in the 1960s. They had both lived through the Great Depression and WW2 years and the safety net was a godsend which they had no intention of abusing.

Unfortunately, that “safety net” was the first step in a long slide towards today’s national dependency on governments for everything. Government overreach is endemic in our culture and the expectations of the majority.

Business and government enterprises are very different.

Top down decision-making for operational control may be an effective ways to manage large enterprises provided that a competent Board of Directors are empowered to make sound decisions. Those judgements depend on “boots on the ground” intelligence combined with well-designed information systems, AI included. In governments, however, comparable effective and reliable information sources are rare.

Personal perspectives matter.

Every would-be Prime Minister views the job through a unique life lens.

Mark Carney, a self admitted “elite” and a climate crisis believer, has not resided in Canada for ages. He lacks the “boots on the ground” perspective of, and empathy for, the average Canadian who has lived through the Trudeau Liberal era.

Jagmeet Singh relies entirely on “boots on the ground” stories, but they are heavily biased. He waxes sympathetically about victims of inequality, then he casts government-employed union workers in heroic roles.

BQ candidate Yves-François Blanchet is only concerned about Quebec. Some argue that he does not belong in a national leadership debate - I agree because the BQ does not appear on my election ballot and cannot use it to approve or disprove of his policies which definitely impact be as a Canadian. He is, however, an effective populist leader who to takes every opportunity to leverage that province’s special status as a distinct society.

Blanchet is a clever politician. He shrewdly lays guilt trips on Ottawa’s federal administration in order to leverage evermore privileges for his people at the expense of the rest of Canada. If Quebec was to separate from Canada, however, I wonder how that decision would pan out for the new Quebec nation. After all, Quebec probably has the best deal of a province or territory in Canada and I doubt that many Québécois would give up its many advantages and privileges.

Pierre Poilievre is doing his best to represent every corner of Canada and is attracting large crowds to his political rallies as Trump did in America. In my view, he was the best of the four leaders last night because he displayed the ideal mix of the “board room big picture” perspective on Canada as well as the necessary “boots on the ground” lived experience that this country needs at this time.

My spidy sense of Poilievre is that he favours “Libertarian-Conservative” policies that may lead to less government.

In a choice between Mark and Pierre, Mark represents Trudeau 2.0 and Pierre represents Harper 2.0.

For context, Stephen Harper was my favourite Prime Minister of all time.

The other candidates were in the national stage solely for the political theatre which provides prime time viewing for Canadians who, in declining numbers, like that kind of superficial, partisan entertainment🙄