Some readers are asking why my guest didn't deliver a comprehensive condemnation of everything Liberals did in power. It's an odd question. She's a Liberal. Why didn't I *make* her admit the Liberals are no good? Also an odd question. This is something like the 80th episode of my podcast. Before that there were four years of interviews at Maclean's. In which interview have I ever cornered the guest and broken them in the witness stand like Perry Mason? I'll spare you the trouble of going through the archive. I've never done that. It's not my style. Reliably since I started doing feature-length public interviews, the people who like them least are the ones who wish I would fight their fights.
Interesting note: Today is easily the biggest day for podcast downloads since I started anchoring the pod on my Substack in fall 2023. Part of it is that this Marci Surkes interview is unusually popular — in a day it's had more downloads than 20 other episodes have in the entire time since they were posted — but also because the entire archive is drawing more listeners. So today's healthy numbers are the sum of the Surkes episode, plus downloads from the pod's accumulated archive as listeners catch up.
As a lifelong western Canadian, (and a fairly new senior), I hate to say this, but it is only too clear that this country is too big and vast to be ruled by the Ottawa bubble. I enjoyed the interview Paul, but Justin Trudeau has left this country more divided than ever, his seeming willingness and glee to divide and conquer, is what will be his legacy. (In my opinion)
This upcoming election will be pivitol for Canada, because the DEI/settler/colonial narrative that Canadians have been inundated with for the last 9 years has made being a proud Canadian very challenging. Not sure some days if I’m aCanadian first or an Albertan first.
How did the Liberals get here? By worshiping at a shrine that should not have been worshipped.
A lot of Atlantic Canada feels much the same... it has been very hard to be proud of Canada under Trudeau's constant grievance scolding, wedging, and endless (for Canada) stream of scandals. That the Liberals are blind to how weary Canadians are of this speaks volumes.
Never will I forget, Craig Oliver being asked about a long ago election, his response - the Liberals will win, and they did, the Conservatives will be the opposition - they were not, and the Reform Party will be a couple backbenchers. NDP can't remember.
Reform Party formed the opposition, under the banner 'We want in'.
Eastern journalist/politicans/others - just do not get the west, and we living in the west are reminded of it constantly.
I agree with Douglas, for me - and I can truthfully state - my friends, it is the Alberta first.
I visited Quebec City as a Torontonian a few months ago for the first time since my youth. From my Toronto bubble, all of the language law controversies I read about seemed silly. But being there, I was really struck by the sense that a shared culture has been intentionally, protectively nurtured. And it made me so sad that nobody has been doing that cultural caretaking here in the place where my children are growing up. I grew up with folk tales that made me feel like I was part of an unfolding story. But Laura Secord is just a chocolate shop now, and the land acknowledgements (which I was initially game for) increasingly feel like anti-Canada propaganda.
And, I, Doug, as an "experienced" senior am quite certain that I have been forced by the federal government [please note: not MY federal government!] to choose to be an Albertan first and a Canadian only by accident of birth.
Definitely an interesting interview in that Marci as a loyal Liberal tried to be objective in her assessment of the Liberal government's running of Canada since 2015, and how the political party is faring today.
Some comments:
Marci Surkes says that at the time of the 2015 election she felt people were supporting Trudeau and wanting him to succeed. Some people for sure, but only 39.5% of those who voted. First past the post gives the governing party a false sense of support for its policies.
Marci Surkes acknowledges that the early election of 2021 was in essence called because the Trudeau Liberals felt it was an opportune time to go the polls and receive their anticipated reward of a majority government for their handling of the COVID pandemic. Instead their vote count decreased, again. What the Liberals failed to realize is that many Canadians were fed-up with the mandates, and Justin Trudeau's daily news conference on the steps of Rideau Cottage was viewed by many as too paternalistic.
Lastly, Marci Surkes, like all Trudeau Liberals, ignores the fact that the $10/day Day care, Dental and Pharma care programs would not have come about except for pressure from the NDP. Not initiated by the Trudeau Liberal government. Only implemented to keep the Trudeau government in power. As Chrystia Freeland described, political gimmicks.
Some really good points in here, Catharina - I particularly agree with your first two "comments". Justin was never as popular as he thought he was.
I don't know that I agree with the last point. Every government, everywhere, takes in feedback from others - if anything, the complaint about Trudeau is that he's done too little of that, not too much of that - and then implements things they think will be popular, so as to stay in power. That's just politics. And at the end of the day, prime ministers implement programs; leaders of fourth parties don't. It's true that when my family members get dental care now that they couldn't get five years ago, Justin won't be performing the procedures himself. They won't have been his idea. But the people will still have gotten the help. That counts for something in my book.
Not one mention of what I think is the biggest messes he made, which were the firing of JWR, and the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Morneau. In my mind those were pivotal moments, and along with the complete lack of movement on fixing housing and infrastructure issues on reserves, times when his credibility took a nosedive.
That's not even getting into the first warning, when he pulled back on electoral reform. I bet he's regretting that one now!
It's entirely fair to want that covered in some sort of definitive account of Trudeau's time in office, but having spent the last year talking myself very near unto death about my BOOK on the topic, I thought today I'd talk to this other person about some other stuff.
Yea, I get that there are a lot of rabbit holes wide open you could have jumped down, but in my mind those were more pivotal than any others in his inevitable demise.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to have these conversations, and to make them accessible for those of us who prefer reading them.
Electoral reform and the SNC Lavalin scandal were definitely the biggest burns against expectations that Trudeau pulled off. But Trudeau may have dug his grave even sooner than either of those incidents when he diminished the institutional strength of the Liberal Party with the 2016 constitutional amendments that he pushed for: https://www.readtheline.ca/p/stefan-klietsch-how-justin-trudeau
As a westerner (Manitoban) the disconnect of the LPC from anything west of Sault Ste Marie is breathtaking! I'm old enough to remember PET and having his son come in to run the GoC was not welcomed at all from Canadians in the hinterlands.
Did Ms. Surkes and her cohorts ever step foot out of the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle? Listening to this interview I suspect not very often.
The Marci Sturkes interview is an exhibit the self-congratulatory, self-centred, holier-than-thou liberal tendencies. While I found the interview deeply disturbing, it is timely to have this reminder of how the Laurentian elite landed (and abandoned) us in the current mess.
Thanks for this…its always good to have the context from someone on the inside who doesn’t also think that everything was always rosy. I particularly appreciated her take on JT as an individual. There will be lots of time for post mortems but this was a good recap of the past few years , the Limo anecdote was a good one and a cautionary tale for whoever is next
Hate to cast shade on this excellent interview...but Marci, not every Canadian thought that Justin Trudeau was an emperor in waiting or even knew who he was. Sheesh, get out of your bubble.
That said, it's a great idea to listen and truly hear the thoughts of a Liberal stalwart.
You had me at "not every Canadian thought Justin Trudeau was an emperor in waiting" - with voter turnout where it was and Liberal vote share where it was, it was more like "one in five Canadians thought Justin Trudeau might be an improvement over Stephen Harper, while four in five did not think that, or did not feel strongly enough about thinking that to vote for him." But I'm not sure about "or even knew who he was" - do you know a lot of people who don't know who Justin Trudeau is? He's got to be as close to 100% name recognition, at least in Canada, as any human can be.
I have huge respect for Marci Surkes. That said, it was disappointing to hear so much about Justin Trudeau and so little about the Liberals. How did it happen that the Liberal Party became Justin Trudeau? The influence of American style democracy has been a negative one not only on our politics but on those of other liberal democracies, and was evident in Canada long before the arrival of Justin; nor is it confined to the Liberals. But how did we get from Ignatieff calling on the wisdom of Peter Donolo to Justin Trudeau jettisoning historic Liberal hands and essentially obliterating the party? The historical context was great as far as it went, but I wanted more Liberals, less Trudeau. I would love to hear Marci's take - for example - on who the disaffected Liberals are and why they have had little or no influence on the PM and the government.
Fascinating interview with Marci Surkes - thank you, Paul. I'm sure a more detailed version will be coming as a book, which I'd definitely read. She's had an interesting view of the world inside the Liberal bubble. She was certainly inside it for a long time, and checks a lot of the boxes to rise up and stay within that bubble - from Montreal, Quebec (check), attended McGill (check), background and experience in law and the media (check).
I'm not intending that as criticism against Ms. Surkes, as I respect her insight and talents, which are in great evidence in this and other interviews. She would be an asset to any government, and in fact, the Conservatives would do well to have her work for them, assuming they do form the next government. She'd certainly be able to call out their more boneheaded instincts. These Liberals should have had one of the Harper government's former aides in their War Room to do the same. It could become a necessary feature of governments in the future - the I Call Bullshit Advisor.
I guess it should be unsurprising that these Liberals seem incapable of grasping that their vision of Canada - their values, their policies, their priorities - are not shared by the majority of this country, and never were shared by scarcely more than just over a third of them.
That myopia, coupled with a barely concealed indifference or disdain for anyone that did not share their background, their world view, is why this government is so undeeply unpopular, and why any government in Canada eventually becomes so, as our history suggests.
Canada is much bigger, much more diverse in culture and outlook, than any political party can possibly conceive or contain. I suspect the Conservatives will find this out sooner or (likely) sometime within the next decade.
Not sure where that leaves us, honestly. The world is, as Paul and Marci point out, becoming a hotter, much more dangerous place again. The world climate is indeed heating up, and I don't mean in terms of our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions (unless we are including political rhetoric). Our tribal natures are reasserting themselves, with a vengence.
I wish we were (much) better prepared than we are.
I was ready to argue your third and fourth paragraphs until I got to your fifth and further, and now I think we may broadly agree here.
We've got a government that was elected with thirty-some percent of the vote. Our next government is likely to be elected with forty-some percent of the vote. Yet there's a new-ish skein running through our politics which I absolutely hate, and it's not unique to one side or the other - "Anyone who disagrees with me isn't just *wrong*, but fundamentally *illegitimate*. They're 'wacko'. They're 'fake news'. They're Russian propaganda." And don't get me wrong---I'm all for spirited disagreement. I'm all for thinking the other guy's ideas are bad - I'm all for thinking the other guy is a bad guy, even. That's not where I draw the line. I draw the line at thinking the other guy doesn't meaningfully exist.
I don't know how someone can run a country when:
1. they completely delegitimize those who don't share their views;
Marci's recollection of time in Sparks Street 3rd party offices still rings clarion true 30 years later. Much appreciated her clear-eyed view of the task ahead for next LPC leader, perhaps affecting view of possible contenders.
Before we give Bob Rae too much credit, lets not forget that he was the socialist leader of the NDP in the 90's and a premier who contributed to the debt spiral of Ontario that now has them as the unenviable most indebted sub-sovereign state in the world.
The fact that Justin Trudeau was studying and writing about immigration policy in his early days as an MP, and then completely botched the file as Prime Minister shows how little he understood the subject and reinforces what an intellectual lightweight he is.
It seemed that the whole discussion and the whole focus of the Liberal Party is "what do we need to say to get votes and stay in power." They don't seem to be the slightest bit interested in doing what is best for Canadians, yes they say the words, but their policies and actions indicate otherwise. They are really good at spending other peoples money (unwisely), but that's about it.
I can tell you that most partisans sincerely believe that their own side getting votes and staying in power *is* what's best for Canadians - and that's not unique to my guys. There simply aren't secret meetings going on where Liberals say, "Well, obviously we know we're objectively terrible and that Poilievre is right about everything, but I want to keep being driven around in a limo, so I'm going to do bad, wrong things that will appeal to voters!" They think they're doing good, right things. You might disagree. But they're generally convinced of their own moral righteousness - and that's not exclusive to Liberals. I feel that in times where this prime minister *didn't* follow his own professed values, it was a matter of weakness, not of cynicism.
I do disagree and think the recent gimmicks of a two month GST holiday and $250 cheques for all, illustrate that you are wrong. Not even going to get into the NDP coalition and the cost of those policies. And now the Liberals are busy twiddling their thumbs while Canadians brace for the Trump tariffs, as they are too busy worrying about the survival of the Liberal party than is what is best for Canada. When Trump was elected Trudeau should have immediately called an election so that a government with a strong mandate was in place. Instead Trudeau criticized Americans for not supporting the DEI candidate, took way to long to "reflect" on his future and seems to be surprised by the Trump threats.
The Liberal Party of Canada ... "a fringe minority with unacceptably views."
You've got a couple of good points in here; I don't disagree that the GST holiday and the $250 cheques were bad policy, or that a prime minister shouldn't need to get to the point of five-sixths of his caucus opposing him to step down, or that criticizing Americans for how they voted wasn't a smart move. My point was just that Liberals tend to be more sincere than you give them credit for. Are we wrong about stuff sometimes? Yes. But we tend to believe we're doing the right thing, and we tend to believe that our moral righteousness outweighs other concerns.
They weren't just bad policy, they were outright, blatant vote buying schemes.
And while I don't want to submerge myself into the morass of "moral righteousness" I wonder about the socialist views and policies of Liberals and the expectation that through taxation they can use my money to fund their schemes. Why not leave the money in my pocket and let me spend it how I want?
I read an article recently, I think in the National Post, about how Liberals continuously clamp down on various Christian religions, while they champion their Liberal values, which as it turns out are almost exactly the same as the Christians they are denouncing. They need to reset their moral compass and drop the "holier than thou" attitude.
Yeah, we just have extremely different political views, which is fine. I think Canada's better for having some people who think like you and some who think like me and we can tussle it out.
My dad's a senior who has no dental coverage since he retired. Good guy - a step to my right - much more cheerful and reasonable than me - you'd like him. I guess the reason Liberals want to use tax dollars to pay for my dad's dental care and not just leave them in your pocket is that you would be unlikely to spend that money on dental care for my dad. :)
Seriously, though - to some degree, taxation to spend on beneficial services is what all governments do. It's just that some governments spend more than others and different governments think different things are beneficial. But, absolutely, Stephen Harper's government took tax dollars out of my pocket and spent it on stuff that didn't benefit me. Every government uses taxation to take money out of your pocket and fund "schemes". That's what governments do. If you want to argue that Trudeau has engaged in *more* or *worse* redistribution of wealth than other prime ministers - that he's been *quantitatively* worse - you've got a case. But if you're arguing that what you're describing is qualitatively different from what every government does, sorry, I don't get it.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph either. You're arguing that Liberal values are exactly the same as Christian values? I don't hear that every day! I'm not a Christian myself, but I know very many Christians whose values I respect and admire. I know other people who say and do things I find abhorrent in the name of Christianity. I absolutely don't think we should "clamp down on various Christian religions". On the other hand, I think I should be free to disagree with somebody (and that they should be free to disagree with me).
Marci Surkes makes a strong point about how JT is a good listener, a good person to be briefing. That strengthens my conviction that his continuing deceit about electoral reform -- that ranked ballots is the right and only way to proceed -- is based solely on partisan considerations. It is impossible to believe that his advisors would not have told him that ranked ballots would be good for the Liberal Party.
Some readers are asking why my guest didn't deliver a comprehensive condemnation of everything Liberals did in power. It's an odd question. She's a Liberal. Why didn't I *make* her admit the Liberals are no good? Also an odd question. This is something like the 80th episode of my podcast. Before that there were four years of interviews at Maclean's. In which interview have I ever cornered the guest and broken them in the witness stand like Perry Mason? I'll spare you the trouble of going through the archive. I've never done that. It's not my style. Reliably since I started doing feature-length public interviews, the people who like them least are the ones who wish I would fight their fights.
Interesting note: Today is easily the biggest day for podcast downloads since I started anchoring the pod on my Substack in fall 2023. Part of it is that this Marci Surkes interview is unusually popular — in a day it's had more downloads than 20 other episodes have in the entire time since they were posted — but also because the entire archive is drawing more listeners. So today's healthy numbers are the sum of the Surkes episode, plus downloads from the pod's accumulated archive as listeners catch up.
As a lifelong western Canadian, (and a fairly new senior), I hate to say this, but it is only too clear that this country is too big and vast to be ruled by the Ottawa bubble. I enjoyed the interview Paul, but Justin Trudeau has left this country more divided than ever, his seeming willingness and glee to divide and conquer, is what will be his legacy. (In my opinion)
This upcoming election will be pivitol for Canada, because the DEI/settler/colonial narrative that Canadians have been inundated with for the last 9 years has made being a proud Canadian very challenging. Not sure some days if I’m aCanadian first or an Albertan first.
How did the Liberals get here? By worshiping at a shrine that should not have been worshipped.
A lot of Atlantic Canada feels much the same... it has been very hard to be proud of Canada under Trudeau's constant grievance scolding, wedging, and endless (for Canada) stream of scandals. That the Liberals are blind to how weary Canadians are of this speaks volumes.
Never will I forget, Craig Oliver being asked about a long ago election, his response - the Liberals will win, and they did, the Conservatives will be the opposition - they were not, and the Reform Party will be a couple backbenchers. NDP can't remember.
Reform Party formed the opposition, under the banner 'We want in'.
Eastern journalist/politicans/others - just do not get the west, and we living in the west are reminded of it constantly.
I agree with Douglas, for me - and I can truthfully state - my friends, it is the Alberta first.
I visited Quebec City as a Torontonian a few months ago for the first time since my youth. From my Toronto bubble, all of the language law controversies I read about seemed silly. But being there, I was really struck by the sense that a shared culture has been intentionally, protectively nurtured. And it made me so sad that nobody has been doing that cultural caretaking here in the place where my children are growing up. I grew up with folk tales that made me feel like I was part of an unfolding story. But Laura Secord is just a chocolate shop now, and the land acknowledgements (which I was initially game for) increasingly feel like anti-Canada propaganda.
And, I, Doug, as an "experienced" senior am quite certain that I have been forced by the federal government [please note: not MY federal government!] to choose to be an Albertan first and a Canadian only by accident of birth.
Definitely an interesting interview in that Marci as a loyal Liberal tried to be objective in her assessment of the Liberal government's running of Canada since 2015, and how the political party is faring today.
Some comments:
Marci Surkes says that at the time of the 2015 election she felt people were supporting Trudeau and wanting him to succeed. Some people for sure, but only 39.5% of those who voted. First past the post gives the governing party a false sense of support for its policies.
Marci Surkes acknowledges that the early election of 2021 was in essence called because the Trudeau Liberals felt it was an opportune time to go the polls and receive their anticipated reward of a majority government for their handling of the COVID pandemic. Instead their vote count decreased, again. What the Liberals failed to realize is that many Canadians were fed-up with the mandates, and Justin Trudeau's daily news conference on the steps of Rideau Cottage was viewed by many as too paternalistic.
Lastly, Marci Surkes, like all Trudeau Liberals, ignores the fact that the $10/day Day care, Dental and Pharma care programs would not have come about except for pressure from the NDP. Not initiated by the Trudeau Liberal government. Only implemented to keep the Trudeau government in power. As Chrystia Freeland described, political gimmicks.
Some really good points in here, Catharina - I particularly agree with your first two "comments". Justin was never as popular as he thought he was.
I don't know that I agree with the last point. Every government, everywhere, takes in feedback from others - if anything, the complaint about Trudeau is that he's done too little of that, not too much of that - and then implements things they think will be popular, so as to stay in power. That's just politics. And at the end of the day, prime ministers implement programs; leaders of fourth parties don't. It's true that when my family members get dental care now that they couldn't get five years ago, Justin won't be performing the procedures himself. They won't have been his idea. But the people will still have gotten the help. That counts for something in my book.
The false majority will also most likely be true of the next CPC government.
Deciding to break that electoral promise (election reform) was by far the biggest disappointment for me.
Not one mention of what I think is the biggest messes he made, which were the firing of JWR, and the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Morneau. In my mind those were pivotal moments, and along with the complete lack of movement on fixing housing and infrastructure issues on reserves, times when his credibility took a nosedive.
That's not even getting into the first warning, when he pulled back on electoral reform. I bet he's regretting that one now!
It's entirely fair to want that covered in some sort of definitive account of Trudeau's time in office, but having spent the last year talking myself very near unto death about my BOOK on the topic, I thought today I'd talk to this other person about some other stuff.
Yea, I get that there are a lot of rabbit holes wide open you could have jumped down, but in my mind those were more pivotal than any others in his inevitable demise.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to have these conversations, and to make them accessible for those of us who prefer reading them.
Electoral reform and the SNC Lavalin scandal were definitely the biggest burns against expectations that Trudeau pulled off. But Trudeau may have dug his grave even sooner than either of those incidents when he diminished the institutional strength of the Liberal Party with the 2016 constitutional amendments that he pushed for: https://www.readtheline.ca/p/stefan-klietsch-how-justin-trudeau
As a westerner (Manitoban) the disconnect of the LPC from anything west of Sault Ste Marie is breathtaking! I'm old enough to remember PET and having his son come in to run the GoC was not welcomed at all from Canadians in the hinterlands.
Did Ms. Surkes and her cohorts ever step foot out of the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle? Listening to this interview I suspect not very often.
The Marci Sturkes interview is an exhibit the self-congratulatory, self-centred, holier-than-thou liberal tendencies. While I found the interview deeply disturbing, it is timely to have this reminder of how the Laurentian elite landed (and abandoned) us in the current mess.
Solid interview with a very articulate guest. Context always helps - and this is what you get with this discussion.
I agree with you 100%. The reason I subscribe Mr. Wells's Substack is because of the context. Keep it up.
Thanks for this…its always good to have the context from someone on the inside who doesn’t also think that everything was always rosy. I particularly appreciated her take on JT as an individual. There will be lots of time for post mortems but this was a good recap of the past few years , the Limo anecdote was a good one and a cautionary tale for whoever is next
Hate to cast shade on this excellent interview...but Marci, not every Canadian thought that Justin Trudeau was an emperor in waiting or even knew who he was. Sheesh, get out of your bubble.
That said, it's a great idea to listen and truly hear the thoughts of a Liberal stalwart.
You had me at "not every Canadian thought Justin Trudeau was an emperor in waiting" - with voter turnout where it was and Liberal vote share where it was, it was more like "one in five Canadians thought Justin Trudeau might be an improvement over Stephen Harper, while four in five did not think that, or did not feel strongly enough about thinking that to vote for him." But I'm not sure about "or even knew who he was" - do you know a lot of people who don't know who Justin Trudeau is? He's got to be as close to 100% name recognition, at least in Canada, as any human can be.
Great interview and insight. Thank you.
I have huge respect for Marci Surkes. That said, it was disappointing to hear so much about Justin Trudeau and so little about the Liberals. How did it happen that the Liberal Party became Justin Trudeau? The influence of American style democracy has been a negative one not only on our politics but on those of other liberal democracies, and was evident in Canada long before the arrival of Justin; nor is it confined to the Liberals. But how did we get from Ignatieff calling on the wisdom of Peter Donolo to Justin Trudeau jettisoning historic Liberal hands and essentially obliterating the party? The historical context was great as far as it went, but I wanted more Liberals, less Trudeau. I would love to hear Marci's take - for example - on who the disaffected Liberals are and why they have had little or no influence on the PM and the government.
Fascinating interview with Marci Surkes - thank you, Paul. I'm sure a more detailed version will be coming as a book, which I'd definitely read. She's had an interesting view of the world inside the Liberal bubble. She was certainly inside it for a long time, and checks a lot of the boxes to rise up and stay within that bubble - from Montreal, Quebec (check), attended McGill (check), background and experience in law and the media (check).
I'm not intending that as criticism against Ms. Surkes, as I respect her insight and talents, which are in great evidence in this and other interviews. She would be an asset to any government, and in fact, the Conservatives would do well to have her work for them, assuming they do form the next government. She'd certainly be able to call out their more boneheaded instincts. These Liberals should have had one of the Harper government's former aides in their War Room to do the same. It could become a necessary feature of governments in the future - the I Call Bullshit Advisor.
I guess it should be unsurprising that these Liberals seem incapable of grasping that their vision of Canada - their values, their policies, their priorities - are not shared by the majority of this country, and never were shared by scarcely more than just over a third of them.
That myopia, coupled with a barely concealed indifference or disdain for anyone that did not share their background, their world view, is why this government is so undeeply unpopular, and why any government in Canada eventually becomes so, as our history suggests.
https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html
Canada is much bigger, much more diverse in culture and outlook, than any political party can possibly conceive or contain. I suspect the Conservatives will find this out sooner or (likely) sometime within the next decade.
Not sure where that leaves us, honestly. The world is, as Paul and Marci point out, becoming a hotter, much more dangerous place again. The world climate is indeed heating up, and I don't mean in terms of our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions (unless we are including political rhetoric). Our tribal natures are reasserting themselves, with a vengence.
I wish we were (much) better prepared than we are.
I was ready to argue your third and fourth paragraphs until I got to your fifth and further, and now I think we may broadly agree here.
We've got a government that was elected with thirty-some percent of the vote. Our next government is likely to be elected with forty-some percent of the vote. Yet there's a new-ish skein running through our politics which I absolutely hate, and it's not unique to one side or the other - "Anyone who disagrees with me isn't just *wrong*, but fundamentally *illegitimate*. They're 'wacko'. They're 'fake news'. They're Russian propaganda." And don't get me wrong---I'm all for spirited disagreement. I'm all for thinking the other guy's ideas are bad - I'm all for thinking the other guy is a bad guy, even. That's not where I draw the line. I draw the line at thinking the other guy doesn't meaningfully exist.
I don't know how someone can run a country when:
1. they completely delegitimize those who don't share their views;
2. most of the country doesn't share their views.
It's a recipe for...well, nothing good.
Marci's recollection of time in Sparks Street 3rd party offices still rings clarion true 30 years later. Much appreciated her clear-eyed view of the task ahead for next LPC leader, perhaps affecting view of possible contenders.
Before we give Bob Rae too much credit, lets not forget that he was the socialist leader of the NDP in the 90's and a premier who contributed to the debt spiral of Ontario that now has them as the unenviable most indebted sub-sovereign state in the world.
The fact that Justin Trudeau was studying and writing about immigration policy in his early days as an MP, and then completely botched the file as Prime Minister shows how little he understood the subject and reinforces what an intellectual lightweight he is.
It seemed that the whole discussion and the whole focus of the Liberal Party is "what do we need to say to get votes and stay in power." They don't seem to be the slightest bit interested in doing what is best for Canadians, yes they say the words, but their policies and actions indicate otherwise. They are really good at spending other peoples money (unwisely), but that's about it.
I can tell you that most partisans sincerely believe that their own side getting votes and staying in power *is* what's best for Canadians - and that's not unique to my guys. There simply aren't secret meetings going on where Liberals say, "Well, obviously we know we're objectively terrible and that Poilievre is right about everything, but I want to keep being driven around in a limo, so I'm going to do bad, wrong things that will appeal to voters!" They think they're doing good, right things. You might disagree. But they're generally convinced of their own moral righteousness - and that's not exclusive to Liberals. I feel that in times where this prime minister *didn't* follow his own professed values, it was a matter of weakness, not of cynicism.
I do disagree and think the recent gimmicks of a two month GST holiday and $250 cheques for all, illustrate that you are wrong. Not even going to get into the NDP coalition and the cost of those policies. And now the Liberals are busy twiddling their thumbs while Canadians brace for the Trump tariffs, as they are too busy worrying about the survival of the Liberal party than is what is best for Canada. When Trump was elected Trudeau should have immediately called an election so that a government with a strong mandate was in place. Instead Trudeau criticized Americans for not supporting the DEI candidate, took way to long to "reflect" on his future and seems to be surprised by the Trump threats.
The Liberal Party of Canada ... "a fringe minority with unacceptably views."
You've got a couple of good points in here; I don't disagree that the GST holiday and the $250 cheques were bad policy, or that a prime minister shouldn't need to get to the point of five-sixths of his caucus opposing him to step down, or that criticizing Americans for how they voted wasn't a smart move. My point was just that Liberals tend to be more sincere than you give them credit for. Are we wrong about stuff sometimes? Yes. But we tend to believe we're doing the right thing, and we tend to believe that our moral righteousness outweighs other concerns.
They weren't just bad policy, they were outright, blatant vote buying schemes.
And while I don't want to submerge myself into the morass of "moral righteousness" I wonder about the socialist views and policies of Liberals and the expectation that through taxation they can use my money to fund their schemes. Why not leave the money in my pocket and let me spend it how I want?
I read an article recently, I think in the National Post, about how Liberals continuously clamp down on various Christian religions, while they champion their Liberal values, which as it turns out are almost exactly the same as the Christians they are denouncing. They need to reset their moral compass and drop the "holier than thou" attitude.
Yeah, we just have extremely different political views, which is fine. I think Canada's better for having some people who think like you and some who think like me and we can tussle it out.
My dad's a senior who has no dental coverage since he retired. Good guy - a step to my right - much more cheerful and reasonable than me - you'd like him. I guess the reason Liberals want to use tax dollars to pay for my dad's dental care and not just leave them in your pocket is that you would be unlikely to spend that money on dental care for my dad. :)
Seriously, though - to some degree, taxation to spend on beneficial services is what all governments do. It's just that some governments spend more than others and different governments think different things are beneficial. But, absolutely, Stephen Harper's government took tax dollars out of my pocket and spent it on stuff that didn't benefit me. Every government uses taxation to take money out of your pocket and fund "schemes". That's what governments do. If you want to argue that Trudeau has engaged in *more* or *worse* redistribution of wealth than other prime ministers - that he's been *quantitatively* worse - you've got a case. But if you're arguing that what you're describing is qualitatively different from what every government does, sorry, I don't get it.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph either. You're arguing that Liberal values are exactly the same as Christian values? I don't hear that every day! I'm not a Christian myself, but I know very many Christians whose values I respect and admire. I know other people who say and do things I find abhorrent in the name of Christianity. I absolutely don't think we should "clamp down on various Christian religions". On the other hand, I think I should be free to disagree with somebody (and that they should be free to disagree with me).
Marci Surkes makes a strong point about how JT is a good listener, a good person to be briefing. That strengthens my conviction that his continuing deceit about electoral reform -- that ranked ballots is the right and only way to proceed -- is based solely on partisan considerations. It is impossible to believe that his advisors would not have told him that ranked ballots would be good for the Liberal Party.