Like The Hub?
Join our community.
Join

Where the parties stand on rural broadband

News

Welcome to The Hub’s Federal Election 2021 Policy Pulse, where we’ll be tracking all the policy announcements from the major parties, with instant analysis from our crew of experts.

With the election scheduled for Sept. 20, we’ll be monitoring 36 days worth of policy ideas, so watch out each morning for the day’s live blog where we’ll be tracking every announcement as it happens.

3:30 p.m. — Where the parties stand on rural broadband

By L. Graeme Smith, The Hub’s content editor

Canada is an extraordinarily urbanized country, with more than 80 percent of Canadians making their homes in urban areas. It is no surprise then that this campaign has primarily focused on issues affecting urban Canadians the most, from the housing market in our major metropolitan areas, to green infrastructure and transit projects that primarily benefit those living in cities.

So far, the federal leaders have spent the majority of their time campaigning and making announcements in urban areas.

But while rural Canadians may seem like an insignificant minority for federal politicians to focus on when the biggest and most important ridings to win are those in the cities, it is a mistake to ignore this constituency purely for the sake of electoral considerations. For a country that is struggling to find sustained economic growth, leaving one-fifth of its population behind is more than just unfair, it is counterproductive.

One particular concern in this regard for both rural Canadians and remote Indigenous communities is the issue of digital connectivity and lack of access to broadband services — concerns felt all the more acutely in our pandemic era where our work, social connections, and even medical services are increasingly being partially mediated or conducted entirely online.

A recent report from the Public Policy Forum, Canada’s Digital Connectivity Infrastructure in the Age of COVID-19, highlights that 99 percent of urban households have access to reliable and affordable internet access, while only 46 percent of rural households do, and a mere thirty-five percent of First Nations reserves do. The median download speed in cities is 51.54 mbps versus 5.62 mbps in rural areas.

This is a major problem when reliable internet access is a prerequisite for both competing in an increasingly digital and remote work economy and for spurring the innovation necessary to kickstart and sustain economic growth.

As to what is on offer from the major parties, Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has promised to connect every part of the country to high speed internet in the next four years in order to “eliminate the digital divide and ensure every Canadian can participate in the digital economy.”

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are promising that their government will apply “use it or lose it” provisions to ensure that spectrum is actually developed in rural areas between now and 2025.

The Liberal platform pledges that if their broadband access milestones are not met (milestones which remain undefined in the document), they will mandate the resale of spectrum rights and reallocate that capacity from the national carriers to smaller, regional providers.

The NDP have committed to declaring high-speed internet an essential service, and have also pledged to ensure access to affordable, reliable high-speed broadband within four years.

Any sustained attention on their needs is welcome news for rural Canadians. But if Canada is to eliminate its digital divide and maximize its potential in an online world, these platform promises must be more than rhetorical.

2:00 p.m. — An unexpected foreign policy segment in last night’s debate saw the leaders divided on Afghanistan and China

By Amal Attar-Guzman, The Hub’s associate editor

Although foreign policy was not one of the main topics scheduled to be discussed during last night’s English-language debate, viewers were treated to a quick segment about global events during the “leadership and accountability” section.

China and Afghanistan, two issues that have been driving the news agenda recently, were at the forefront.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan dominated the discussion thanks to the efforts of moderator Shachi Kurl. The issue was pressing after 43 Canadians left Kabul airport yesterday on a Qatar flight and arrived in Doha, as confirmed by Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response to the crisis, claiming “Canada should have never left people behind who are at risk because they helped us.” NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh also had his own criticisms on the government’s response, highlighting the dire circumstances women and girls are facing under Taliban rule.

Trudeau said criticism from party leaders discredited the work done by the CAF and diplomats who helped evacuate 3,700 people out of Kabul. More flights are set to leave Kabul in the upcoming days.

China

Moderator Shachi Kurl opened the discussion about China by noting that Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been imprisoned in China for more than 1,000 days. Kurl also mentioned the tense China-Canada relations in terms of telecommunications security and foreign investment.

Singh opened debate saying that Canada has to work effectively with allies and put pressure on China to get the two Michaels home. Trudeau defended the government’s position on China, saying that Canada is working with the international community to hold China in account.

O’Toole immediately criticized Trudeau on the two Michaels, Huawei, Hong Kong, and the government’s position regarding the Uyghur genocide. After some debate, O’Toole said that “Canada is needed back on the world stage,” that despite being smaller than China, “Canada is a giant when it comes to [its] commitments to human rights, to dignity and the rule of law.”

Two “Aha” foreign policy moments

Two major “aha” moments in last night’s debate came from unlikely sources in Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-François Blanchet and Green Party leader Annamie Paul.

Blanchet highlighted the downside of Canada’s position on the global stage and the lack of proactive engagement in recent years. In his view, the main problem Canada is facing is the lack of strong partnerships with its allies and other countries in order to have a strong front when facing crises like Afghanistan. He reiterated the importance of global partnerships, saying that “by itself…Canada is not a world power.”

Paul highlighted the importance of Canada’s word on the global stage. In light of the redrawing of geopolitical lines, she claimed that what “Canada will have going forward in terms of currency is its word.”

12:00 p.m. — The leaders debate was a two-hour demonstration of our diminished expectations

By Sean Speer, The Hub’s editor-at-large

If you had arrived from outer space to watch last night’s leaders debate, you would be forgiven for assuming that we’ve solved for scarcity. The moderators and leaders spent most of the night debating how to allocate the spoils of a growing economy with virtually no discussion about how to ensure that it actually stays growing.

The underlying assumption seemed to be some combination of “growth doesn’t matter” or “growth is self-generating” or “modest rates of growth are sufficient.” Either way, there was a kind of fatalism to the whole thing that amounted to the inverse of the Liberal Party’s 2015 tag line, “better is always possible.” The essential message from last night’s debate was much more circumscribed: “this is the best we can expect.” 

These diminished expectations are reflected in the faux controversy in recent days from economists, journalists and pundits about the Conservative Party platform’s aspiration to raise the country’s growth rate to 3 percent per year. 

The idea that an aspiring government would prioritize higher rates of economic growth has been characterized as unrealistic and outside of our control. It’s been mostly dismissed as a communications gimmick. 

This is the kind of fatalistic thinking that leads to a two-hour debate about everything but the foundational question of how we continue to grow our economy, boost productivity, and ultimately raise living standards. 

It represents one of the peculiarities of modern Canadian politics: the media and pundit classes seem to have absolute confidence in our policymakers’ ability to manage global climate patterns to a precise degree over long time cycles but no confidence in their ability to influence economic growth within our borders even on the margins. 

So instead of competing visions for how to boost growth or even how to balance growth ambitions with other priorities, last night’s debate gave us various exchanges about important yet mostly second-order questions with economic growth being conspicuously absent. 

What does a debate without growth sound like it?

The words “invest,” “investing,” and “investment” were frequently used throughout the night. In most cases, though, the leaders didn’t mean “invest” in any conventional sense (including trade-offs, cost/benefit analysis and eventual returns on investment) but instead as a positive spin to competing promises of deficit-financed spending on current consumption.

Things probably hit a low point when, in the name of “affordability,” the party leaders fought over which one would provide larger cheques to seniors who now represent the wealthiest generation in Canadian history.

Canada faces a series of big challenges in the coming years. Aging demographics, a rising U.S.-China Cold War, and the ongoing exclusion of marginalized groups (including Indigenous people and disabled Canadians) are three major ones that come to mind. In each case, a faster-growing economy and higher rates of productivity are crucial ingredients to overcoming them. But you wouldn’t have known it last night.

To borrow from George Will, higher rates of growth don’t just make us better off; they make us better by shifting our politics from a zero-sum contest of power and will to a positive-sum world of aspiration and possibilities.

Better is indeed always possible. If only the media and our politicians believed that anymore.

10:00 a.m. — Last night’s debate will be overshadowed by the next-day spin

By Antonia Maioni, a political science professor at McGill University

Given that last night, more Canadians were probably riveted by the U.S. Open semi-final win by Leylah Fernandez, or the NFL season opener, than listening in the English-language leaders’ debate, the spin will likely be as important as the content for Canadian voters.

In that regard, it was Erin O’Toole’s night, with positive reviews from both English and French commentators. And, boy, did he look happy at the after-party press conference. The Conservative leader survived the French language trials by staying calm and on message, but it was in the English debate that he gave his best performance as a potential prime minister.  

And, it allowed him the best zingers of the night, from foreign affairs to finances. Mr. O’Toole tried to make the entire debate a reflection on leadership, more specifically Justin Trudeau’s lack thereof. And once again, he hammered home on what he characterized as the irresponsible decision to call an election as Canada continues to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.  

Unfortunately, the voting public — in both official languages — still don’t have a clear answer from the prime minister on that question. The Liberal leader was compelling in many of the topics at hand in this final debate, but his answers seemed uninspiring. Although he was physically in the centre of the stage last night, he failed to star in the show, lacking even the passion he displayed in the French-language debate when goaded by the Bloc Québécois leader on the question of the Quebec nation.  

Pity poor Yves-François Blanchet, though. He may have been able to rationalize Quebec Premier François Legault’s less-than-subtle endorsement of a Conservative minority government earlier in the day, but seemed caught off by the opening question in last night’s debate, as the moderator took him to task on the “discriminatory” laws with regard to anglos and allophones in Quebec. This is the kind of attack that will surely be regarded as “Quebec-bashing” by some francophone Quebecers, and the Bloc leader’s quick comeback may score some points there. Still, for the rest of the debate his Quebec-only message seemed often out of tune and out of touch. 

Another absentee performer was Jagmeet Singh. The English-language format may have been more comfortable for him but it some sense it was too comfortable, encouraging the NDP leader to stray from crucial policy details to heartwarming anecdotes that may sound great on the campaign trail but don’t have the same effect in a formal setting.  

He was upstaged by Green Party leader Annamie Paul on more than one occasion, including discussions of reconciliation and climate change, two issues at the heart of both of these left-leaning parties’ platforms.  

So now, with the leaders’ debates out of the way, all of that careful attention to the fine grain of policy details and to costing and comparing policy commitments will likely be overshadowed as the parties scramble to secure votes by any means necessary.

Within minutes of the end of the debate last night, the attack ads had already started. Get ready for more of the same — much more — as this electoral campaign, necessary or not, winds down to September 20th. 

8:00 a.m. — If that’s what passes for a debate, voters are on their own for this election

By Rudyard Griffiths, The Hub’s executive director

Having organized and moderated a federal leaders debate in 2015 on Canada’s foreign policy I know just how hard it is to create a compelling conversation between a group of hyper-partisan individuals who are engaged in the political fight of their lives. Everything is at stake during 90 minutes plus of parry and thrust that makes up a leaders debate. You can cut the tension with a knife as the debaters try to catch your attention to jump in with an attack line or counter point. In short, it is no easy feat to pull off a leaders debate that gives voters a useful assessment of the ideas, demeanor and character-under-pressure of the people who would profess to lead the country on our behalf.

Alas, last night’s debate came up short of this basic litmus test. For the second federal election running, our state-sponsored “debates commission” managed to make a series of predictable mistakes by trying once again to be all things to all people. The result of having multiple formats, questioners, technologies — a massive overproduction fueled no doubt by the commission’s multimillion-dollar public subsidy — ensured the debate was neither edifying nor entertaining. Just like in the 2019 election, the “official” English language debate degenerated into to a retread of question period in the House of Commons and all the misery for the viewing audience that this entails. And this is odd choice in terms of a debate style and tone for both for the commission and the leaders. Neither comes away looking particularly competent, informed or really that interested in public and their concerns. Instead, the country is treated to a very Ottawa-centric performance consisting of sound bite answers (timed almost to a tee to the House’s 35-second speaking rule), rehearsed attack lines and a schizophrenic smorgasbord of policy issues that were blown through at the speed of a Preakness Stakes winner.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In very typical Canadian fashion we took one of the last unregulated parts of the election, leaders debates, gave them to a government commission appointed by the sitting prime minister, then gave the commission millions of public dollars to hire the broadcasters (now also funded directly and indirectly by government) to produce, on voters behalf, last night’s meagre gruel.

No do overs. No second English language debate. No debates focused on a specific policy area like the economy or foreign policy. No debates with, say, the three parties who are actually likely to form government. Nope, folks, that is it. You are own your own with Twitter, Facebook and occasional news report as your guides to figure out these leaders, what they think about the big issues, and where they want to take the country. Shameless plug warning: Or you can let The Hub do it all for you with our daily election Policy Pulse blog.

Last night’s debate confirms we need to chalk up the government run and sponsored debates commission (which is in itself a rather alarming intrusion of the state into the writ period) as an initially well-intentioned but ultimately failed experiment. We instead need to look more closely at why the 2015 election had more debates, on more topics, with multiple formats, than any election before. In short, we need to break the current monopoly official Ottawa — its media, its bureaucracy, its political class — have on the leaders debates. They are too important to this $500 million exercise that is a federal election. We need to democratize, energize and truly put the leaders debates into the service of Canadian voters.

7:00 a.m. — Where the leaders are today

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau will be in Hamilton to make an announcement at 10:30 a.m.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole will be in Mississauga to make an announcement at 12:30 p.m.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh will be in Ottawa to make an announcement at 8 a.m.

Better Debate Questions: A policy-focused lightning round from The Hub’s contributors

News

Welcome to The Hub’s Federal Election 2021 Policy Pulse, where we’ll be tracking all the policy announcements from the major parties, with instant analysis from our crew of experts.

With the election scheduled for Sept. 20, we’ll be monitoring 36 days worth of policy ideas, so watch out each morning for the day’s live blog where we’ll be tracking every announcement as it happens.

4:30 p.m. — Better Debate Questions: A policy-focused lightning round from The Hub’s contributors

This afternoon we’re running a series of debate questions that we wish the moderators would ask the party leaders at tonight’s English-language debate. Whether it’s to shine a light on an under-explored issue or dig a little deeper on something the leaders have only discussed superficially, we hope to expand our national debate just a little bit.

And, if you happen to be one of the many moderators at the debate tonight, please feel free to steal our work.

By Howard Anglin

Name a Supreme Court of Canada decision you disagree with. The courts are human institutions that, in Canada, are empowered to review and strike down laws, often based on judges’ ideological, moral or political intuitions on issues where there is strong disagreement among Canadians and even among members of the SCC. Which decision(s) do you think they’ve got wrong, and what would you do about it?

By Vass Bednar

If elected, will you commit to a comprehensive review of the Competition Act?

By Matt Spoke

If elected, how would you address the so-called brain drain of so many of our STEM graduates moving to the U.S. for opportunities?

By Livio Di Matteo

Canada’s trade policy is closely linked to the United States which takes 75 percent of our exports .  Yet, the United States has become more protectionist and this has been aggravated by COVID-19 and border complications. Meanwhile, what was once seen as an alternative for future growth – China – has become problematic due to our relations with their government. So, given that we are increasingly finding our trade relationships fraught with difficulty with respect to the two largest economies in the world, what is our path forward when it comes to growing our trade?

By J.D.M. Stewart

The history of Canada and how we commemorate it has been front and centre for many months now. Much of the discussion has been contentious and a number of acts of vandalism have occurred.  Where do you stand on the tearing down of statues, the re-naming of streets and the general discussion about history in this country today? 

By Patrick Luciani

At the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, Canada and China undertook a joint venture to find a vaccine. The agreement fell apart when China effectively scuttled the project. Why did Canada chose to partner with China in the first place, and why don’t we know more of the circumstances of that failure?

By Ken Boessenkool

If you had to go for a coffee with one of the other leaders on stage, who would it be and why?

4:00 p.m. — Better Debate Questions: Think Tank Edition

This afternoon we’re running a series of debate questions that we wish the moderators would ask the party leaders at tonight’s English-language debate. Whether it’s to shine a light on an under-explored issue or dig a little deeper on something the leaders have only discussed superficially, we hope to expand our national debate just a little bit.

And, if you happen to be one of the many moderators at the debate tonight, please feel free to steal our work.

For this update, we asked our friends at Canadian public policy think tanks what was on their minds.

By Katie Davey, the editor of Public Policy Forum Media

  • Technology is changing the nature of work — this was only amplified and accelerated during the pandemic. Is this a good thing or bad thing and what policies does your party think are needed to address such a change?
  • Climate change remains a top issue for Canadians. In a net zero emissions world, is Canada trying to decarbonize its fossil fuels industry to maintain its jobs, revenues and exports or is it looking to hasten its phaseout? How do we get to your party’s preferred outcome?
  • The pandemic has demonstrated clearly how harmful dis- and misinformation is to the foundation of our democracy and a healthy society. At the same time, local journalism continues to be at risk across the country. How would your party address the growing information gap in Canada?

By Ken Coates, a Munk Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the director of MLI’s Indigenous Policy Program

  • Many Indigenous communities and a solid majority of Indigenous people favour carefully managed resource development that provides appropriate returns to Indigenous communities.  But they feel that current government policy is anti-development and does not give sufficient weight to their concerns and aspirations.  If you formed government, how would you ensure proper Indigenous engagement in resource development?
  • Indigenous peoples have made it clear that autonomy is much preferred over dependency on government and continued paternalism.  How would your government support Indigenous self-government and greater respect for Indigenous rights? 

By Jonathan Berkshire Miller, the senior fellow with the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) and director and senior fellow of the Indo-Pacific Program at MLI

  • Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been hostages of China for over 1000 days. What strategy would you employ to get them home? 
  • In addition to the detention of Canadians, China is presenting a sustained, complex and evolving challenge to Canadian interests and that of our friends and allies around the world. How would you as leader meet this challenge?
  • We know that the Taliban’s overthrow of the elected government of Afghanistan was only possible due to the dedicated support of Pakistan. Do you believe Pakistan should be sanctioned for its role in supporting this terrorist organization’s coup against the Afghan government and people? 
  • Defence procurement in Canada has been a mess for many years. One major issue is politicization, which sets back the process and undermines the ability of National Defence to actually get the equipment that our men and women in uniform need. Can you commit that a government led by you would de-politicize military procurement, and how would you ensure that this is done?

By Aaron Wudrick, the director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s domestic policy program

  • As prime minister, how will you strike the right balance between protecting the principle of free speech and expression while addressing concerns about threats posed by the spread of hate and misinformation?
  • Politicians often talk about how to redistribute wealth, but far too little attention is paid to how to grow wealth for all Canadians. What is your plan to increase GDP? 
  • The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated many weaknesses in Canada’s healthcare system, most especially a stunning lack of capacity compared to OECD countries. How would you fix the structural issues with our healthcare system? 
  • Canada has the lowest ratio of houses per capita in the G7, and every year this relationship is worsening. This is precipitating our housing crisis. How would you work with the provinces and municipalities to get supply built quickly? 

By Krystle Wittevrongel, public policy analyst at the MEI

  • With debt servicing costs, also known as public debt charges, projected to reach $22.1 billion in 2021-2022 (gobbling up 6 percent of total federal revenue), a concrete plan is needed. As we continue spending record amounts in order to merely pay the interest on the federal credit card, it will become increasingly difficulty to meet the legitimate needs of Canadians in the future. What is your plan for debt repayment?
  • We have also recently seen inflation rates at their highest levels in over a decade. Given the role played by public spending in our rising cost of living, the government must accept responsibility for the consequences of its actions. Once and for all, the federal parties need to commit to seriously reviewing program spending growth and measures that are fuelling inflation. How do you plan to control inflation?

By Daniel Proussalidis, the director of communications at Cardus

  • Why do all the major party leaders view childcare as an economic issue, instead of thinking about it the way parents do – as a means of caring for their children? Childcare is the care of a child, no matter who does it, which is why Canadian families depend on a diverse array of childcare options, including the 40 percent of kids under age six in parental care only. So, how would you respect and enhance the options that are available to families instead of funding one form of care, which drowns out all the others?
  • Parliament missed the opportunity last year to help revive charitable giving in Canada through a donation-matching incentive in the midst of the pandemic. Given that the pandemic is still far from over and we need the charitable sector more than ever, how would you revive Canadian’s charitable giving and help strengthen charities, especially small and community-focused ones, for our post-pandemic future?
  • Few of you have broached the issue of freedom of conscience, but there is a great need for clarity on the issue as Canadian law changes around MAiD and other issues. When a person betrays her conscience, she violates her integrity, identity, and human dignity. So, what steps will you take to ensure that governments and regulatory bodies don’t prevent individual Canadians from living in alignment with their moral convictions?
  • And the supreme institution where Canada’s debates should take place is Parliament, but it was largely sidelined during the early part of the COVID pandemic. It took weeks to recall Parliament for online meetings while formal budgets and regular debates were suspended for whole seasons. How well has the institution of Parliament survived COVID and how would you preserve democratic and parliamentary procedures in any future crisis?”

3:30 p.m. — Better Debate Questions: Four questions about life after the COVID-19 pandemic

This afternoon we’re running a series of debate questions that we wish the moderators would ask the party leaders at tonight’s English-language debate. Whether it’s to shine a light on an under-explored issue or dig a little deeper on something the leaders have only discussed superficially, we hope to expand our national debate just a little bit.

And, if you happen to be one of the many moderators at the debate tonight, please feel free to steal our work.

By Samuel Duncan, contributor at The Hub

Question: Given the importance economically, socially and culturally of the special relationship Canada and the United States share, how would you as prime minister work to ensure the safe re-opening of Canadians ability to cross the land border into Canada?

Why it matters: The inability of Canadians to be able to cross into the United States and the lack of a coherent plan or path to re-open threatens to fundamentally alter the state of the relationship between Canada and the United States. Not everyone is able to afford to travel by air, which is making crossing into the United States a luxury good, further shining a light on the growing inequality within Canada.

Question: The pandemic has necessitated the restriction on many of our rights and freedoms, however, as time continues it appears as though we may be ushering a more permanent shift in the role public health plays in determining the ways we interact within our society. What are the metrics you would use, objectives that need to be reached, and measures and steps that you would take as prime minister to ensure that there is a transparent process to understand what the role public health will play in Canadians’ lives post-pandemic? Will it be politicians or public health officials that will be in charge of our social and economic lives?

Why it matters: Crisis and black swan events often signal a shift in the role that the state plays in our lives and given that this is seemingly an endemic virus, politicians should explain how important public health officials will be in determining what our society looks like post-pandemic.

Question: What role do you believe Canada should play in determining the origins of COVID-19?

Why it matters: COVID-19 ‘s origin should be a top concern for western nations as we have the capacity and resources to determine how COVID-19 originated to help ensure it never happens again.

Question: How would you as prime minister improve the way the bureaucracy responds to crisis like COVID-19 and manages the new challenges of the 21st century which a hierarchical top-down government bureaucracy may not be best suited to deal with?

Why it matters: While Canada ought to be mostly proud of the way we have handled the pandemic, our record on swiftly securing our border, implementing mass testing, slow regulatory approvals for innovative approaches in fighting the virus or conducting an effective contact tracing regime is one of a risk adverse and slow to act government bureaucracy. Many of us have lost trust in the ability of our public institutions and we need to reinvigorate them if we are to help Canada succeed in an increasingly atomized and polarized world.

2:30 p.m. — Better Debate Questions: Three tough questions on Indigenous issues

This afternoon we’re running a series of debate questions that we wish the moderators would ask the party leaders at tonight’s English-language debate. Whether it’s to shine a light on an under-explored issue or dig a little deeper on something the leaders have only discussed superficially, we hope to expand our national debate just a little bit.

And, if you happen to be one of the many moderators at the debate tonight, please feel free to steal our work.

By Karen Restoule, contributor at The Hub

Question 1: In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to deliver clean drinking water to all Indigenous communities within 5 years. Today, the federal government website lists 50 long-term drinking water advisories and 47 short-term advisories. How do the parties intend to address this international embarrassment and advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?

Question 2: This past summer, Canadians watched in horror the rediscovery of remains of thousands of Indigenous children who had been forcibly removed from their families and placed in one of the 140 Indian residential schools. Currently, across the country, Indigenous communities are undertaking the work to identify bodies and return remains of the children back to their homes. Despite this, leaders have been oddly quiet throughout the campaign on this point and on Indigenous policy generally. How do the parties intend to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while honouring the darker shades of our shared history?

Question 3: The RCMP have spent $20 million policing Wet’suwet’en territory for what is clearly a question of Indigenous rights and title that would best be resolved by a federal negotiation table. This is one example of many that involve unresolved issues related to the Indigenous-Crown relationship, which are ultimately preventing Canada from achieving its true potential. How do the parties intend to advance reconciliation with Indigenous communities on these issues of governance?

1:45 p.m. — Better Debate Questions: Does Canada need stricter border controls with the U.S.?

This afternoon we’re running a series of debate questions that we wish the moderators would ask the party leaders at tonight’s English-language debate. Whether it’s to shine a light on an under-explored issue or dig a little deeper on something the leaders have only discussed superficially, we hope to expand our national debate just a little bit.

And, if you happen to be one of the many moderators at the debate tonight, please feel free to steal our work.

By Blair Gibbs, contributor at The Hub

Question: With political extremism, social unrest, crime rates, gun violence, and uncontrolled mass migration all rising significantly in the United States, is it time for Canada to safeguard our way of life by investing in stricter border controls so we regulate more tightly the flow of people and goods with our southern neighbour in the future?

Why it’s important: Gun control has erupted as a campaign issue, however gang violence in Quebec and B.C. is enabled by illicit flows of handguns from organized crime groups operating across the U.S. border. Mass gun ownership in the U.S. is here to stay, and now violent crime rates are rebounding after decades of general decline, so illicit drugs, human traffickers, and smuggled weapons may pose a greater threat in the next decade. In addition, the mass migration at the Mexico border will eventually create additional refugee pressure for Canada, and the U.S. resources devoted to the northern border are one-tenth of what they devote to stopping illegal entry in the south. If Canada wants to continue to welcome migrants from across the world, it cannot afford to lose control of immigration. It should invest more in law enforcement and its own land border services so that those coming here arrive in a regulated way, via established visa channels.

12:30 p.m. — Better Debate Questions: How would you ensure Canadian government finances are sustainable?

This afternoon we’re running a series of debate questions that we wish the moderators would ask the party leaders at tonight’s English-language debate. Whether it’s to shine a light on an under-explored issue or dig a little deeper on something the leaders have only discussed superficially, we hope to expand our national debate just a little bit.

And, if you happen to be one of the many moderators at the debate tonight, please feel free to steal our work.

By Trevor Tombe, contributor at The Hub

Question: Canadian governments have rightly borrowed significant sums to support individuals and businesses during the pandemic. But looking forward, an aging population, potentially slower economic growth, and difficult economic transitions may put even larger pressure on government finances across Canada. How would you as prime minister work with provincial and territorial governments to ensure Canadian government finances, and not just federal finances, are sustainable in the face of these challenges?

Why it’s important: The issue of population aging has been important for many years, but pressure is mounting and few governments are prepared. The potential for rising healthcare costs and slowing rates of economic growth as more and more people exit the labour force will grow larger through the balance of the decade and well into the next. Current projections suggest that provincial and territorial governments in particular face a credible prospect of debt levels rising by more than we’ve seen during COVID. These pressures are slow moving, however, so rarely rise to the attention of politicians during a campaign or even to the agenda of a government operating on a four year (or less) cycle. Debates are the right time to press leaders on important issues whether they want to focus on them during a campaign or not.

11:15 a.m. — Over-promising and under-delivering with respect to China has been a multi-partisan endeavour

By Charles Burton, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute

One of the most important issues facing Canada is one which our political leaders have hardly spoken about: what to do about China’s increasing aggression and revisionism on the world stage.

The Liberal and NDP platforms provide next to no detail on how they would change Canada’s approach to the China challenge, so it is hard to assess whether either party would pursue the kind of serious China strategy that has been lacking for many years.

With sparse platforms of their own regarding China, some of our political leaders may be looking for ideas. Here are some that they could consider adopting:

  • In concert with allies, employ Magnitsky Sanctions against officials responsible for the tortuous detentions of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, as well as any officials responsible for acts of genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
  • Streamline a refugee process for Hong Kongers who are at risk of political imprisonment.
  • Implement new legislation to tackle foreign influence and interference, including when it comes to strategic infrastructure investment and Chinese state-owned enterprises.
  • Convene a whole-of-government approach to combat disinformation emanating from China.
  • Strengthen regional cooperation with organizations such as ASEAN or the Quad to help focus and coordinate engagement in the Indo-Pacific.
  • Ban Huawei from participation in Canada’s 5G network.
  • Develop closer economic, political, security, and people-to-people ties with Taiwan.
  • Withdraw from the China-led Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.
  • Diversify trade away from China, prioritizing likeminded countries as trade partners.
  • Boycott the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing.

Many of these ideas, or variations on these ideas, are included in the Conservative platform, which is in many ways refreshing to see. The Tory platform is detailed and serious with respect to China.

However, without substantial focus on China over the course of the election, it is unclear whether this is a top priority for the Conservatives. Overpromising and underdelivering with respect to China has long been a multi-partisan issue; it remains to be seen if the Conservatives are committed to following through on their plan.

10:00 a.m. — Leave the debate planning to the parties. Last night’s dreary spectacle made our politics dumber

By Ken Boessenkool, contributor at The Hub

I didn’t watch the French language debate. But neither, I suspect, did you. Or if you started, you almost certainly didn’t finish.

I decided to follow the debate on Twitter. But even there, journalists who promised to live tweet the event, could hardly be bothered. And they were presumably getting paid to watch! Even very smart and well-followed pundits with a close relationship to the current prime minister were distracted from the debate long enough to fire sarcastic zingers at a nobody. As an aside, sarcastic @gmbutts is my favourite @gmbutts.

This was all drearily predictable. This debate was planned and prepared by an official government agency appointed by, well, I can’t even be bothered to check. Someone in the government I suppose. It includes a couple of political has-beens, but is mostly just a bunch of the Canadian Smart Set. (I actually don’t mean that as an insult. Being smart and being part of the Canadian set are both things I aspire to.) It is led by the former stellar Governor General of Canada, David Johnston, who one thinks has enough smarts and credibility to resign in protest at the poor job that’s been done here.

Planning debates is something political parties should do. In the good old days (2019 and prior), each party designated a senior representative to negotiate with other senior party representatives on debate format, timing and look. Taking this away from political parties and giving it to some independent commission makes, at worst, our politicians dumber and our politics stupider. At best, it makes both more boring.

Honestly, if this debate doesn’t make you more libertarian, I don’t know what will. Because if we design and run government programs the way we designed and ran this debate… which of course we do.

I didn’t finish watching the debate. I wrote this instead. Anyway, I’m sure I’ll find out soon enough if any leader said anything memorable. In the meantime, I’m making alternative plans for the evening of the English language debate.

8:30 a.m. — This election is a battle between a British-style campaign and an American-style campaign

by Brent H. Cameron, contributor to The Hub

One of the most interesting aspects of this election campaign is the disconnect between the two leading parties. Not the disconnect between the Liberals and Conservatives on policy. That is a given. The disconnect is much more basic.

For at least three decades elections have been fought on issues — and with strategies — inspired by the politics of our southern neighbour. Abortion, gun control and the like are staples of the American narrative, and while no major party in Canada is advocating policies on these issues that would seem dissimilar to American ears, it has been the practice to conflate the nuances into ideological chasms. Indeed, even the position of the Canadian equivalent of the NRA would not be acceptable to the actual NRA.

But these issues still have resonance. Even if they do not resemble the reality on the ground and on our streets, they dominate our popular culture — television, movies, and 24-hour news channels to name a few. It should not surprise anyone that many Canadians were just as emotionally engaged and vocal over last year’s presidential election as they are about this federal vote.

For the last few election cycles, the major parties have campaigned as though Canada has been a political adjunct of the United States. Liberals and Conservatives have not only adopted strategies and technologies from their counterparts, but the contest between the two since the 1980s has felt a little like a contest between watered-down versions of the Democrats and Republicans.

But as much as our popular culture is heavily Americanized, our history and institutions are not.

The fact that we are a constitutional monarchy, with a prime minister, a Westminster-style Parliament, and a more decentralized, officially bilingual and multicultural federation means that the way we govern our affairs is decidedly different.

They are more British than American. And that is why this election is very different.

The Liberal campaign has focused its attention by hitting on sensitive social issues such as abortion, gun control, and health care. The tone and tenor are virtually indistinguishable from the content one might see from a self-styled Liberal Democrat running for a congressional seat in New York City or a suburb of Baltimore or Los Angeles.

The Conservative campaign, in contrast, has real similarities to the “Blue Collar Conservative” approach taken by Boris Johnson — the approach that completed Brexit, broke the Labour Party’s hold on key constituencies in northern England — the so-called “Red Wall” and still maintains a healthy lead in the polls nearly two years on.

We might have American dreams and fantasies, but we lead somewhat British lives, making us quintessentially Canadian.

Given this dichotomy, should we be surprised that the British style campaign and the American style campaign are currently in a statistical tie for the lead?

7:00 a.m. — Where the leaders are today

All the leaders will be participating in the English debate tonight.