It’s time to create a single unifying vision for Canada

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/03/2025 (217 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Mark Carney did the right thing by calling an election quickly after becoming Liberal leader and prime minister. For one, it spares us the incessant yipping of the Conservative bench about having an unelected prime minister.

But it also spares the Conservatives from continuing (and having to justify) the juvenile filibuster that paralyzed the last minority Parliament. Most importantly, the Conservatives won’t have to answer more questions about why only their leader won’t (or can’t) get the required security clearance to learn about foreign political interference.

Pierre Poilievre’s excuses for dodging look even more idiotic in the light of U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent hostile behaviour.

How can we trust the judgment of a leader who doesn’t know what is really going on? Or who won’t let our security agencies check his background? If he is hiding something, just how bad is it?

So, while we have been spared a continued Parliamentary circus, mostly to the relief of the Conservatives, we have been flung instead into a federal election campaign. The last thing we need right now, however, amid other global instabilities, is a squabble over who should be driving the bus.

But this squabble has been playing out for more than a decade, because we can’t seem to find (or get behind) a coherent vision for Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump’s musings about Canada becoming the 51^st state have focused our attention on who we are, and what we should be as a country, more than I would have believed possible.

Not since the Quebec sovereignty referendum in 1995 has there been such general concern for the identity of our country. During the NHL 4 Nations Face-Off, it was amazing to watch the sea of red and white sing the national anthem in Montréal – in French and English, together.

That scene should be a sobering reminder to les séparatistes that “la belle province” will have better fortune and more consideration within a united Canada than outside of it, especially now. In Québec, therefore, this federal election will be a choice between Liberals or Bloc Québécois. I don’t think the Conservatives or NDP will win a single seat.

Elsewhere, the story is less clear, as the situation unfolds. According to recent polls, the Liberals are now running even with the Conservatives across the rest of the country. Two main things will determine the outcome:

First, voter turnout. For all the predicted damage that an out-of-control president would cause (and has), more American voters stayed home than those who voted for either Harris or Trump — 36 per cent, or 90 million people. Had even half of them voted for either candidate, it would have been the largest landslide in American history. But they stayed home instead, shaping their future and the future of their country (possibly the world) by their inaction.

In a Canada hoping to continue, that kind of lazy is unacceptable. Nor can we allow apathy about a political system that is tilted toward inaction and oldsters to discourage younger people from voting. We need to ensure everyone votes, everywhere, to shift our future in a more positive direction.

Second, we need a national vision.

There is far too much pandering to special interests, favourite groups, and regional concerns, depending on whose vote any party is trying to win that particular day.

We cannot afford another splintered, minority parliament, unable to address the major problems we face as Canadians and as global citizens, too. We can’t keep wandering aimlessly and unprepared into the dangerous future that certainly lies ahead.

So, we need to push our national parties for concrete details about what they will actually do, and soon, about building resilience into our infrastructure, as the planet heats. We need to know they will act to protect our national interests, what makes Canada a good place to live, and not dither, stumble or retreat.

The prospects for a thoughtful campaign this time are not promising, however. Trudeau’s government gushed green, but then built pipelines and subsidized fossil fuel companies. (Should we hope Carney’s Liberals will be different?) As expected, Poilievre’s Conservatives have no climate plan beyond shilling for the Alberta oil industry and playing second tin whistle in Donald Trump’s anti-ecological band.

And the others? Apart from single issues like federal pharmacare (and dental care), the NDP has discarded its social democratic perspective and so offers no real alternative in government. While Elizabeth May kept the brand alive by reclaiming her leadership, despite integrity and good ideas, it still means “Green: Party of One” whenever there is an open electoral table.

We need a single driver for the Canadian bus this time — not several. So, we have to choose between a shrill career politician who has never had a real job; and a ponderous banker who has never been a politician — and hope the party we want runs a good candidate in our riding.

Whatever else, as we watch chaos continue in America, we know that staying home instead of voting will only make things worse.

Peter Denton writes from his home in rural Manitoba.