Canada’s Hobson’s Choice

Canadians will go to the polls before October of next year, and as of now, the choice looks bleak.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party is polling 20 points below Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s Party, and I don’t expect things will change in the interim. Indeed, the party stands to lose up to 100 seats in Parliament – a drubbing that could have been mitigated had Trudeau retired in time for his party to elect a more centrist leader capable of building a strong political base in the lead up to the election.

He leads a government that has done some good things for Canadians, but also other things that have contributed to a very high budget deficit with no tangible results, massive increases in food, home prices and rents, and a major rise in the cost of living making life unaffordable for many.

While some of these issues are not under the complete control of the Trudeau government, the opposition Conservatives (the party that governs many of the provincial governments responsible for managing these issues) have convinced many voters that Trudeau is solely responsible.

In politics, perception is everything.

His government has been marked by a number of major corruption scandals since he came to office in 2015. Trudeau has neither apologized nor allowed proper investigations to take place. This and other issues have created major Trudeau fatigue on the part of voters.

Moreover, he has had to cozy up to the left wing of his party and create a coalition with the far left New Democratic Party in order to remain in power.

As with leaders elsewhere, he has chosen power over principles and what is best for the country. His overly woke policies are evident as he caters to extremists who demand legislation and regulations on issues that simply don’t make sense to most Canadians.

Indeed, one of his government’s actions to appease a certain sector of the LGBTQ community has been to place female sanitary products in every men’s room in every federal government building in Canada and abroad. This has left most Canadians aghast at the misuse of their hard-earned tax dollars.

Another major issue that goes against Trudeau is his appallingly tepid, cowardly response to the exponential increase in antisemitic violence across Canada accompanied by the massive occupation of universities, highways and roadways, and attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions by Hamas supporters and supporters of the Ayatollahs in Teheran. He and his ministers regularly seek to equate Israel’s lawful right to self defense with Hamas’ terrorism.

This has led to significant concern by many Canadians about hate speech, antisemitism and the application of laws to protect against such hateful acts. As if that wasn’t enough, his government now wants to take in tens of thousands Gazan refugees: 80% of which support Hamas.

All this has many questioning Canada’s lax immigration laws, the reluctance of the government to deport those foreign agitators who participate in hate acts, and Trudeau’s refusal to label groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as terrorists.

The IRGC has agents in Canada who troll Iranian immigrants who don’t support the regime in Teheran with little or no opposition from the Canadian authorities. As well, police across Canada have been slow or reluctant to dislodge occupants of universities, creating the impression that they fear militant Islamists and are giving them free reign to perpetrate their hatred.

Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre doesn’t appear to have much to offer, in my opinion. Thus far, as all opposition leaders do, he has only offered criticism and personal attacks on Trudeau and the Liberals claim that he will dismantle many of the unaffordable programs that currently benefit Canadians. His policies cater to the extreme wing of his right-wing party much as Trudeau’s caters to the extreme wing of his and his NDP coalition partners.

Poilievre has countered Trudeau’s soft stance on terrorism and Hamas with a strong position in support of Israel, a serious commitment to control immigration, and careful vetting of immigrants to ensure their commitment to adhere to Canadian values and not import the prejudices and conflicts of their native lands.

These are ideas I can agree with, although I cannot in good conscience vote for Poilievre.

In my view, Poilievre could likely override the constitution on any aspect of the Charter of Rights that is contrary to his legislative objectives. He would eliminate a woman’s right to control her body by reversing their right to decide on abortion, remove the subsidies that allow for a $10 per day daycare for children so that parents can work, and reduce old-age pensions.

Thus, I feel that I am left with a Hobson’s choice.

Neither leader offers me, the voter, much of the centrist policies I would expect from a Canadian political party.

My options are to vote for the radical right or the radical left. No option at the center which is where the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives (the Conservative’s predecessors) used to be. No party offering common sense on key issues and governing for the majority instead of special interests or small but vocal minorities.

Today, both parties appear to be run for the benefit of their extremes — a case of the tails wagging the dogs.

I feel that this also leaves many Canadians lost in a political void.

This is a situation that Mr. Hobson could have used to effectively underscore the validity of his words.