Get Ready: Unhappy Years Ahead

Patrick Gossage • October 7, 2024

If you think the childish behavior of our politicians, lack of respect the world has for Canada, the huge gulf that yawns between progressives and right-wing believers, the polarizing hate and anger that infect political discourse here and the unheard-of disconnect between the national government and the people is a passing phenomenon, think again. Canada is in for a period of political and social disruption for the long haul.

First and foremost is the unbelievable spectacle of parliament, reduced to nonstop slogan shouting and personal mudslinging as never before. Facing an empty policy opposition determined to force an “Axe the Tax” election, and a dangerously unpopular Prime Minister fighting back for the runway to save his political life, our democracy has degenerated into a kindergarten of brawling kids that, as one observer pointed out, could only be tamed by a good kindergarten teacher. An anticipated early election would simply amplify this behavior. The deep antipathy the parties have for each other will make this the meanest election ever.


It is predictable that we will remain in an era of very deep divisions for some time to come. A recent Angus Reid Institute poll showed that ‘Extremism’ and ‘polarization’ have become common terms framing the discussion of Canada’s political scene. Many right-leaning Canadians see this as a fight between good and evil. As federal political parties take turns labelling the other as extremists, there is widespread belief that political options are abandoning the middle. The Angus Reid study found one-in-three (36%) Canadians believe “all the political parties are too extreme

in their views”. Approaching half (47%) of those who place themselves in the middle of the political spectrum say they “feel like a political orphan”, making them the most likely to hold this view.


Meanwhile, the government bravely tries to eke out modest policy solutions to help economically challenged Canadians, such as recently extending mortgage payback to 30 years. Its Ministers harp back to accomplishments such as the Canada Child benefit which has lifted 450,000 kids out of poverty and $10 a day childcare, and the more recent Canadian Dental Care Plan. These positive Liberal measures fall on deaf ears, as does the fact that 80% of Canadians make more in rebates than the national carbon pricing regime costs them. The PM puts on a good face while he and his party slip below the NDP in voter intention in English Canada, and the Bloc threatens the Liberals in Quebec. We have never seen the level of vitriol directed at our unpopular PM with trucks bearing the f____ Trudeau often seen and shouting crowds dogging his appearances, to the extent his public plans are kept secret until the last moment. This is unprecedented.


Now, with regular Conservative non-confidence motions being proposed, it seems only a matter of time before we have an earlier election than expected, when the NDP had an agreement not to defeat the government. Captain Trudeau will then sink with the Liberal ship, which has hit a rock and is going down, unwilling to make the big changes which alone might revive their fortunes. Also there will unlikely be time for him to gracefully bow out and for the Liberals to elect a new leader. In any case, as one former speechwriter of his said, he could hear him saying “we’re not

changing course at the 11 th hour just because of some really bad polls.”


So, one likely result is that Trudeau resigns only after a defeat at the polls, and a subsequent convention produces a new leader who does not wear the defeat. This is probably more desirable for rebuilding the Liberal brand than having a new leader coming out of a bad electoral defeat. But what kind of a political situation under Poliviere with a weakened Liberal opposition can we expect? The major issues that beset Canada are unlikely to go away. If, as the conservatives constantly claim, all Canada’s woes land at the door of Trudeau, will getting rid of him miraculously turn things

around? Come on.


“Axe the carbon tax” is the rallying cry for an election, with it being claimed that its further imposition will cause an economic “nuclear winter”. Getting rid of it will not solve anything but will make Canada look like a climate-change chump in the eyes on many of our allies. “Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring it home” are the “common sense” slogans he will operate on. Closer to an election – which could be a few weeks away – we are promised some meat on these bare bones. Nothing yet.


We remain an embarrassment to NATO in staying so far from our commitments at a time when the war in Ukraine’s stalemate haunts us all. We have no clear idea whether a Conservative government would invest more in defense beyond his office saying they would “work toward” meeting the NATO commitment. So, the damage to our international reputation will continue for many years.


As will our inability to meet the huge increase in demand for housing. CHMC estimates that nearly 3.5 million homes need to be added between 2021 and and 2031. Dream on.  Desjardins’ economists concluded in a recent paper that the “fire hose” of Liberal government measures to boost home-building will not really have a major impact on the supply of homes – and therefore home prices – for three or four years. “What Canadians

want are policies that will increase incomes or make it easier to buy a home”, Greg Lyle president of Innovative Research Group recently told the CBC. “None of those things get solved in four months or maybe even four years.” A CIBC report released last spring found 76 per cent of Canadians who aren’t homeowners feel entry into the housing market is out of reach. A grim outlook, for young people especially. Poliviere announced his plan to increase housing last fall by making cities responsible for increasing the number of homes built by 15 per cent each year — a rate that he said might alleviate the housing crunch. Local governments that failed to meet that target would see their federal grants withheld. The plan

was immediately slammed by Canada’s mayors.


Meanwhile new housing starts have slowed despite new government funding. In spite of Canada's growing population, the CMHC confirmed that housing starts decreased by 9 per cent in June, 2024. On top of this, when compared to June of 2023, housing starts last month had decreased by 13 percent. Lower supply for higher demand. Not good. As for affordable housing the 2023 budget failed to address a crisis that is leading to more homelessness than Canadian communities have ever experienced.


There is little good news when we look at Canada’s overall economic prospects. Our low productivity has been called an “emergency” by the Bank of Canada. According to the latest data available from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada ranks 29 th among 38 OECD countries in labor productivity. despite being one of the best countries in the world to live in. Canada's workforce is among the most educated in the world but quarterly data published by StatsCan in June 2024 confirms Canadian workers are continuing to underperform compared to our neighbors to the south. "If we don't address productivity and start doing it very quickly ...our living standards — in relative terms to some of the more successful countries in the world — will continue to decline," Derek Holt, vice president and head of capital markets

economics at Scotiabank told CBC recently. Lower productivity also diminishes Canada's competitiveness and makes it more difficult to bring inflation under control, "because essentially workers are getting paid more for producing less," he said. So far no federal party has seen fit to address this basic issue facing the Canadian economy.


A polarized disputatious country with little ability to solve our most serious economic issues in the medium term. Unhappy days ahead indeed.


Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

By Patrick Gossage April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.
By Patrick Gossage March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts