The Jordan Peterson Interview of Pierre Poilievre

It has been seen by over 30 million as the world-wide conservative movement looks to see Pierre Poilievre become prime minister of Canada. Even Poilievre is trying to lower expectations because they are so high right now and that some are hoping he wins every single seat in Canada and that change is instantaneous. This can be a dangerous time since he will possibly have the majority to push through whatever he wants quickly but will the results be just as quick?

I have already written here that I believe that Poilievre will win the election and within his first year, I believe he will cut the carbon tax, pull out of international agreements on climate and cut federal environment engagement in favour of the provinces. I don't believe there will be controversy on lowering the gas tax. NDP governments including in Manitoba have lowered the tax to great popularity. With Trump as president in the U.S., there is likely not going to be any free passes.

Defense policy out of Poilievre's camp seems under developed. This should be of no surprise because the Harper government which Poilievre was part of only spent 0.8 of GDP on defence. That is 47% lower than todays Trudeau government. This is increasingly not being accepted by NATO and especially by Trump. There has has been extreme pressure on Trudeau. It will be no less on Poilievre. Will he support NORAD or NATO? Will he have an answer for Trump when penalties for poor defence spending? As much as Poilievre might want to blame Trudeau, he will have to have some coherent policy here. If the policy is isolation, expect Canada to withdraw in some fashion from alliances. There are certainly some isolationists in the party that want to pull out of the U.N. and other groups. What does it all mean? It means they will have to choose a direction that someone in the party won't like. The Liberals have been doing the same thing for the last several years.

Poilievre mentioned a few potential cabinet ministers. It is fairly weak tea. But then it doesn't matter. All that matters is the Prime Minister's Office. If his party is as weak as the Liberals they won't say a thing as long as he has the polls. Unlike other Commonwealth countries, it is impossible to remove the leaders of parties here. It is how we have set it up. It is a leader-centric party and will cause issues for the Conservatives just as it has with the Liberals. Just as it has for every party with all an all powerful leader and weak cabinet and caucus.

A tough on crime stance was made but no real indication of how that happens. There is no policy, timetable or budget listed for it. Is it more police, change in the parole act, build more prisons or what? Is there a budget for it? Timetable?

The problem with just a long interview with Jordan Peterson is that he is not a journalist. This is a campaign ad. However, given the deep misgivings towards the Liberals, it is possible that the Conservatives don't have to engage any media for the entire election. It has been often said that elections are no places to talk about policy. Perhaps the Conservatives win a massive majority with few details. The danger of this is that is not necessarily an affirmation for that all the party wants to do. Massive majorities in Canada often come from 39% of the vote. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. It is a reason why the Liberals have seen support fall in every year since 2017.

The large majorities Mulroney and Harper got had a far greater amount of policy that was thought out that what we have seen here. Given that Trump is not likely to give the Canadian government a lot of time to develop a coherent plan, expect chaos. And while the Conservatives will blame the Liberals, it is going to be hard to say that over and over again for four years if the country truly suffers. Given the lack of a plan so far, we could be in trouble no matter who wins.

Those hoping for the NDP to breakthrough will find they still don't have strength in Quebec and don't really have a defence policy. The agreement they had with Liberals means they are weaker, not stronger. Those that are in opposition to the Liberals just lump the NDP in there with them. If any party gains strength it is the BQ who look to have another referendum on separation in 2026. It is curious what the Conservative response to that might be. So far there is none.

While the Conservatives under Poilievre seem destined to win in the new year, they don't seem the least temperate in their disposition. We can expect a lot of ripping stuff up like the CBC. However, we can likely see unexpected outcomes as a result. For example, while Conservatives like hockey, their moves on broadcasting might make fewer Canadians have access to it. Unintended consequences.

The mistake in believing your own publicity is that if it is not based on solid policies. And to stay in power, it requires a frequent refreshing of people and idea. This is something the Liberals and the Conservatives don't seem to learn. We have been leaning on cult of personality too long and it is hurting the country.

Quiet January 1st in Winnipeg

The First of January is generally one of the quietest days of the year. It isn't a religious holiday per se. It isn't one where a family dinner or gifts are required. Over the decades in Winnipeg it has entailed going out for dinner and dancing but this has greatly been reduced by the falling amount of bars, cabarets and lounges. This is a change long is coming with young people's relationship with alcohol. It also has to do with tobacco.

The late night opening of some stores and restaurants is a story about liquor and cigarettes. No need for a 24 hour Shopper's if people are not coming in at all hours to buy tobacco. Likewise, no need for a 4 AM closing at a restaurant if booze is not sold in sufficient quantities. The aging population means that people don't roll into a restaurant at midnight and spend a few hours there.

And so it goes for a day like January 1st. The evening event on the Eve in places like The Forks and Assiniboine Park end early. There are no fireworks. Skating and restaurants are still open although close before midnight in the parks. City parks are largely empty after 10 pm. There really has been a turn against fireworks in the city of Winnipeg.

Fireworks have largely been left to the community clubs and few of them do it on Canada Day or January 1st. I suspect a bylaw at some point to ban them in Winnipeg including sports events. The opposition to them has grown so determined that it will probably be something that could preclude fireworks for Grey Cup. Much of the resistance to fireworks has centered on the noise that affects animals. However, we have come to see public parks largely abandon evening events on New Year's Eve entirely.

The night lights program over winter at the zoo and Assiniboia Downs are good but the days of a New Year's celebration in the evening are largely gone. If New Year's Day is not that important or overrated as a holiday in Manitoba, it strikes me that more stores and services should be open. If city, provincial and federal governments think the day should be devoid of real celebration, open it up and remove it as a statutory day. Have people return to work that day if it is a normal day of the week. Or at the very least, let's grocery stores and malls open.

Federal holidays should be re-evaluated after consultations with the public. It is likely July 1st Canada Day and Christmas remain statutory days. However, does Victoria Day mean anything? Truth and Reconciliation is new and likely to stay but I expect it evolves over the years. Thanksgiving is unlikely to change as is Remembrance Day (although I can see it becoming a Monday at some point). However, Good Friday and Easter Monday are probably not needed. 

It is clear that many public places would rather not do much on New Year's Eve so what is really special about it? Perhaps it should be just like any other holiday like Halloween or Valentine's Day: Just a regular work day.

 

Canada, the 51st State?

Canada isn't the only place where Donald Trump has expressed American Manifest Destiny. He has set his aim at Panama and Greenland as well. The Panamanian and Danish leaders have rebuffed the overtures. It isn't entirely sure whether it is to get concessions or to actually lay claim to other parts of the world. The thing is that when a president asks his intelligence services or military to do something, they just might actually do it.

There are constitutional mechanisms in both the U.S. and Canada for major changes such as this. Hawaii and Alaska became states in 1959. Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico have been waiting statehood for decades. The U.S. continues to have territories all over the planet but there has not been a big push to add more states or even sub-divide the big states like California.

One major consideration for America is balance of power. Republican party members might only be interested if they felt new states would not automatically be Democratic. This, in part, has held up Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico from statehood. For D.C., there many be grounds based on intent of founding fathers but for Puerto Rico, the reluctance could be the balance of power argument. It is a possible fear that the state would lean to the Democratic party. In other words, Republicans would want another state added that would lean the other way.

This is possibly the biggest argument from the American side about that would prevent Canada from becoming a state. It is the fear that it would be a possible shift in American electoral balance with both senators and a passel of representatives being Democrat. Some senators last week suggested Canada be broken up into two as if western Canada or just Alberta alone would be a sure bet Republican.

No province can separate from Canada. The Clarity Act makes it clear what needs to be done. To even vote on it requires a clear question and negotiation. It cannot be a unilateral decision despite what some separatist leaders have said. It also is worth noting that if Canada is divisible so are the provinces. Arguing that provincial territory is inviolable rings hollow for those looking to separate a province from Canada. 

Trump continues to say Canada should be part of the U.S. but never says how he goes about that. It could all been jibes and negotiating tactics. Canadian TV investor Kevin O'Leary says he wants to meet Trump to discuss economic union or even the 51st state. He says they will meet at Mar-a-Lago. Perhaps they think a new Conservative Conservative will embrace this in Canada.

The Parti Quebecois leads the polls in Quebec for 15 points. The provincial Liberals don't even have a leader. The next election is in 2026 but the CAQ leader will in his late 60s by then and might look quite old compared to the PQ. If there is a federal Conservative government, do they even care if Quebec separates? Does Trump play hardball and say the dairy marketing board end if they separate and ask for a trade deal? Does Alberta try to separate and join U.S. as a state?

The question of what Pierre Poilievre does to respond to Trump could be an huge election issue. It is likely why he is desperate to have the election now before Trump can act as President. It may be hard to explain how flaccid his response is if Trump starts calling him names and slapping tariffs on a government under his Conservatives. 

Would Poilievre stand up for Canada if provinces were trying to separate or would he facilitate it and the chaos that might result.  The level of disruption in the next year could be substantial and it is not really clear who stands up for Canada. Will Canadians do it if politicians don't? 

I do believe overall that Canada will do well into 2025 but it could all be overturned by world instability. And the country being threatened with separation or turning into a state is as fraught with uncertainty as you can get in our history.