海角社区官网

Liberal Leader Mark Carney described Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in his stump speech as someone not typically onside with the other leaders. He said Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was someone who 鈥渄raws his inspiration from Donald Trump鈥� and 鈥渨hose first instinct when our nation was attacked was to call Canada stupid.鈥� Poilievre did call Canadians 鈥渟tupid,鈥� but it was in early January well before Trump鈥檚 threats.

While Carney鈥檚 attacks against Poilievre are personal: 鈥淗e has a reflex to cut, destroy, and divide.鈥� Poilievre attacks the wider group. 鈥淎 Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal,鈥� he often repeats.

This entire campaign, he has spent demonizing the Grits and striking fear in the minds of voters about the dark dystopian future that awaits them should the Liberals be re-elected. In his launch speech on March 23, for example, Poilievre said: 鈥淥ur nation is more divided than ever before because the Liberal, radical, post-national, borderless and globalist ideology has weakened our nation.鈥�

Not only are the Liberals to blame, according to Poilievre, for high food and housing costs, criminals on our streets, and overdose deaths, but he suggested this week that Carney doesn鈥檛 want Canadians to own their own home, that the Liberal leader wants us live in homes we rent from the government, homes without driveways.

Friday morning, Poilievre went further suggesting everything is at stake in this election. 鈥淭his Liberal path not only means more poverty and hunger, and more helplessness and homelessness, but it also means more divisions in our country.鈥�

It鈥檚 quite the claim, from a man who sowed division for years, pitting groups of Canadians against each other with slogans such as 鈥渂oots not suits,鈥� supporting law breaking 鈥渃onvoy鈥� participants while vilifying the Indigenous protesters who blocked rail lines, and mischaracterizing government policies for his own partisan gain 鈥� going so far as to claim prime minister Justin Trudeau was so egotistical that he put a picture of himself swimming in the Canadian passport. (He didn鈥檛; it鈥檚 a nondescript computer drawing of a boy jumping into a body of water).

But Poilievre is not wrong about the division. His rhetoric 鈥� conspiracy theories he gives credence to about the World Economic Forum, his desire to cut foreign aid and lean into policies with a nativist tinge, for example 鈥� reflect the kind of commentary heard and seen on right-wing media channels. The Conservatives have learned from our southern neighbour that the best way to influence policy is to influence the people.

If Carney wins on Monday 鈥� even if he forms a majority government, he may not win over a substantial majority of all voters. Polling suggests Poilievre still holds sway with nearly 40 per cent of Canadians. Carney will need to build trust with many of those voters. Voters like Saskatchewan transplant to 海角社区官网Lisa Marie (she declined to give her last name) who during a recent meeting of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said she聽believes Carney and the Liberals literally 鈥渨ant to ruin Canada.鈥�

鈥淭hey want to bankrupt Canada because they’re globalists,鈥� she told The Star. 鈥淭hey want us to be a post-national country and be a globalist and not patriotic Canadians. That’s their agenda from the World Economic Forum and all those global elites.鈥�

Reaching out to voters like Lisa Marie, might mean communicating more effectively on the topics that matter to her: what the government is doing on immigration, on resource development, on government spending.

On the prairies, there is a lot of anger over the belief that once again central Canadians will out vote western Canadians. There is growing talk of separation, fuelled in part by influential voices, such as former Reform Party leader Preston Manning who told journalists earlier this month that: 鈥淎 vote for Carney could be a vote that triggers Western secession.鈥�

If Poilievre wins on election night, many westerners may be happy but many easterners, notably Quebecers who also face the prospect of a sovereignty referendum in a few years, will not.

Poilievre and the country would be best served if he stuck to the plan he鈥檚 outlined this election 鈥� even with its divisive promises such as invoking the notwithstanding clause, and enacting a law to ensure any tax increases are adopted through referenda. For the country鈥檚 sake, Poilievre should resist enacting measures that he has not campaigned on. The Conservative have a slew of pet of issues, such as a desire to eliminate the cap on spending during election campaigns (which is designed to level the playing field for all parties), or reversing the changes the Liberals鈥� reversal of former Stephen-Harper era laws such as eliminating the long-form census and banning Elections Canada from encouraging electors to vote (Poilievre when he was the minister in charge of the file argued encouraging people to vote should solely be the job of political parties). These issues have not been discussed during this election campaign because the Conservatives decided to severely limit questions to Poilievre and self-selected those who ask the Conservative leader any question during his press conferences.

The irony of all this divisive rhetoric is that there are actually many similarities in the Conservative and Liberal platforms, and much room for alignment and co-operation should both parties want to work together in the House of Commons. Both Carney and Poilievre have pitched a tax cut to the lowest income bracket, while Poilievre鈥檚 is more generous three years from now, more Canadians will see a deeper cut faster through Carney鈥檚 plan. Both leaders have pitched similar ways to encourage municipalities and private developers to build more housing, they have called for important increases to defence spending, more investments in the trades, and they both plan to spend a lot of money, when you compare apples to apples, Carney is running deficits worth $130 billion over four years while Poilievre is running $160 billion worth of deficits.

If the polls are correct, and NDP voters lend the Liberals their vote Monday, possibly halving their own support, one tragedy may be for parties to conclude that it is not in their self interest to work with each other. The NDP lent their support to the Liberals for nearly three years, through a supply and confidence agreement, and may end up losing official party status. But were it not for Leader Jagmeet Singh鈥檚 actions, millions of Canadians would not be eligible for a subsidized dental care program 鈥� one that is so popular Poilievre pledged not to take anyone鈥檚 current benefits away.

Yet another factor showing Canadians are more united than the political leaders would have them believe. The sad part is that our system encourages political parties to engage in divisive rhetoric to gain eyeballs on social media, and earn fundraising dollars.

After this campaign, whoever becomes prime minister will have quite the task uniting Canadians around their vision 鈥� unity that could be crucial in the face of Trump, of Western separation, of Quebec separation, and economic collapse.

Opposition leaders 鈥� and party members 鈥� too will have big decisions to make about the kind of political parties they want to be. Do they want to lean into more polarizing policy stances that cater to the beliefs many of their supporters already share, or do they want to be larger-tent parties that seek to win elections not by splitting their opponent鈥檚 votes but by winning the support of a majority of the country.

There are many lessons to be learned from the experience south of our border. This may be the most important one.