The election debate we’re not having

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/04/2025 (274 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Prosaic is one way to describe the early days of the federal election campaign.

Touted as the most important election in recent history, it has so far been a boilerplate contest. The competing claims revolve around tax cuts, increased purchases of ships and planes that won’t arrive for a decade, and a contest over who has the sharpest elbows to deal with an unhinged U.S. president.

Not exactly a showcase for defining a vision for a nation that has just had its governing DNA ripped apart. For decades, Canada’s economic and political assumptions were built on the premise that the United States was willing to share the continent with its northern neighbour — that trade, security, culture, and diplomacy would be synchronized and harmonized. Now, that foundation has crumbled.

I can still hear the vainglorious claims from the 1988 free trade election: integration with the U.S. was the gateway to prosperity and stability. If only we had seen what was in store when American voters put into office a throwback to the America of “Manifest Destiny.”

So where’s the blueprint for altering our trade and development pathways to reduce the ways in which American owners and corporate bosses exploit our patents, direct our resources to their refineries, consolidate research and innovation in their home offices, and — under Trump — deliberately plot an exclusivity of investment within their borders?

Do any of our political leaders have succinct proposals for strengthening our democracy? What happened to electoral reform — the most popular idea among young voters in the 2015 Liberal platform? Should we not counter social media disinformation by eliminating tax breaks for advertisers on digital platforms controlled by unaccountable oligarchs who worship at U.S. President Donald Trump’s altar?

And how do we wean our military brass off their deep entanglement with Pentagon-dictated strategies and practices? Why are we buying military equipment where the digital codes are controlled by the Americans? What happens if a Trump-directed military challenges our sovereignty?

The campaign has been eerily silent on how Canada should navigate a world now dominated by an imperialist regime in Washington.

The accelerating collapse of rules, treaties, and institutions designed to reduce violence, conflict, and power bullying — while promoting humanitarian cooperation — has been decades in the making. We are now teetering on the brink of a Hobbesian world where authoritarian regimes wield unrestrained power. Canadian foreign policy has long been rooted in the premise that liberal international governance is in our national interest. What now? Are we prepared to counter the big powers that seek to divide the world into spheres of influence ruled by intimidation and force?

I’ve been struck by Trump’s barely disguised effort to annex Greenland. The people of Greenland and the Danish government are crying out against this blatant power grab. Nordic countries have expressed solidarity, but NATO officials remain silent, preferring a cosseting approach to Trump.

And where is Canada’s voice on this? Preoccupied with Trump’s latest threats against us, we seem blind to how a Greenland takeover would have major implications for our security and well-being.

Such an expansionist move would set a dangerous precedent. The Arctic would become a battleground for competing superpowers — Russia, China, and now the U.S. The rush for vital natural resources would accelerate, disrupting Arctic communities and exacerbating climate change in ways that would reverberate worldwide. Under the dictates of “drill, baby, drill,” the consequences would be catastrophic.

For the last four decades, Canada has championed an alternative vision for the Arctic, beginning with the creation of the Arctic Council in Ottawa in 1996. This high-level intergovernmental forum was designed to enhance co-operation among Arctic states, with direct participation from Indigenous Peoples. The council has led efforts to document climate change in the region and its global repercussions while supporting extensive science-based research.

How long would that last under a Greenland controlled by climate deniers?

Prime Minister Mark Carney missed an opportunity to show that Canada’s response to Trump should not be limited to retaliatory tariffs, but should include a broader strategy to contain his excesses. A stop in Nuuk, Greenland, on his way back from Europe would have sent a powerful signal.

Instead, the silence is deafening.

It’s not too late. Elections are a stage for bold ideas and decisive action. In the weeks ahead, our political leaders still have the chance to prove that Canada can play a role in a broad, strategic response to Donald Trump’s disruptive agenda.

Lloyd Axworthy is a former foreign minister and current chair of the World Refugee and Migration Council. He recently authored his memoir: Lloyd Axworthy: My Life in Politics.