Where are the Politicians Who Put the Public Interest first?

December 14, 2022

We are clearly entering an era where our confidence in the integrity and ethics our leaders at every level is being severely shaken. 


Whether it is the stupid use of the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause by Ontario Premier Doug Ford to deny collective bargaining to CUPE workers and legislate them back to work, or his blatant promise breaking to open up thousands of acres of protected land for his home building buddies, or the ganging up of the Premiers demanding huge new health care funding with no indication of how it would be spent, or  the constitutional recklessness of the Ottawa hating sovereigntist Alberta Premier Daniel Smith, or the embracing of the anti-democratic strong mayor powers by Toronto mayor John Tory, we are clearly entering an era where our confidence in the integrity and ethics our leaders at every level is being severely shaken. 


A well-functioning democracy is built on the trust of the public that politicians will act ethically in the public interest. And in Canada that means not just keeping promises but respecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. The infamous notwithstanding clause 33, sometimes rereferred to as the nuclear option, was put in by Premiers as a condition to signing off on Pierre Trudeau’s full package. It shields politicians from legal challenges to legislation that strips Canadians of certain rights, by blithely overriding key sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was there when a very reluctant PM Trudeau the had to agree to this weakening of his life’s work. It is now being used more often than was ever dreamt of.


It's unchallenged use by Quebec to in fact rewrite parts of the constitution to declare itself a nation with only one language and Bill 21 to stop religious minorities wearing distinguishing garb to work in public jobs, or Bill 96’s extraordinary prohibitions of the use of the English language and its strict, intrusive enforcement which goes directly against the Constitution. All these bills to allegedly protect Quebec’s unique language and culture would likely not survive a court challenge as unconstitutional. But so far, the federal government has been mute. No less a commentator than Andrew Coyne in the Globe has written,  “Doing nothing, saying nothing in the face of this multi province campaign to turn the constitution to mush is the (federal government’s) preferred course.” My former boss, Pierre Trudeau who like Jean Chretien favoured a strong and active central government, one that was certainly in evidence during the Covid pandemic, once mused after Joe Clark had proposed that Canada should be a “community of Communities” that he was never going to be the “head waiter to the provinces”. 


But this is precisely what Alberta Premier Danielle Smith would prefer the federal PM to be. Her Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act according to her statement, “ “will be used as a constitutional shield to protect Albertans from federal overreach that is costing Alberta’s economy billions of dollars each year in lost investment, and is costing Alberta families untold jobs and opportunities.” This from the richest province in the country that still has no sales tax and enjoys a huge budgetary surplus. And she has stated clearly that she wants Alberta to be treated like Quebec which has routinely opted out of federal programs. But she would go further not permitting public entities like the police to enforce federal laws – a federal gun control law would be a test. How closely power-hungry other premiers like Doug Ford and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe must be following this power crab. Scapegoating Trudeau and the federal government, even blaming him for “Justinflation” as Conservative leader Pierre Poliviere has done is hardly advancing public discourse or the public interest. 


Perhaps happily much of the non-rural Alberta public while perhaps thinking Trudeau hates them doesn’t like Smith’s nation threatening solution. A recent Leger-Postmedia poll found that fewer than one-third of Albertans see the sovereignty act as “necessary to stand up for Alberta against the federal government.”


Doug Ford threatened to use the notwithstanding clause in 2018 to unnecessarily chop the number of councilors in Toronto. It is a weapon he obviously likes deploying to get his way even if it threatens rights using it again in 2021 — for the first time in the province's history — to restore parts of the Election Finances Act that had previously been declared unconstitutional, enforcing a rule that third parties could only spend $600,000 on advertising in the 12 months before and election. 


Then more recently he used it to force CUPE education workers back to work denying them the right to collective bargaining. The support of other unions threatening a general strike forced him to back down. But be sure when he needs it he will unholster it again.


Ford has severely shaken the public’s trust in another area. He is selling 7,400 acres or protected Greenbelt land to developer friends in order to open it for 50,000 new homes. It is well to remember what this incursion represents a dangerous precedent for this 7300 km band of rural and agricultural land created to restrict urban sprawl in 2008. This Greenbelt surrounds the Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula, and parts of the Bruce Peninsula. Much of the land is in the Oak Ridges Moraine, an environmentally sensitive area, the major aquifer for the region, and the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. 


Private interests have trumped the public interest here. And Ontarians love their Greenbelt, its woods and trails. York region had a plan to turn some of the Greenbelt lands into recreational areas. Now overtaken by Ford’s grab. This weekend Ford announced his ambitious housing plans that allegedly need Greenbelt land; he blamed Trudeau’s immigration policies for creating huge new demand. At least 20 protests against opening the Greenbelt were held across the province, with hundreds of Ontarians turning out to demand the government reconsider. 


There is one glimmer of hope since one of the development parcels is adjacent to the Rouge National Urban Park, which borders a portion of the Greenbelt in Pickering, Ont., called the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. The preserve is among the areas set to be removed from the Greenbelt. Parks Canada wrote a strong letter to the province demanding consultation and saying: “there is a probable risk of irreversible harm to wildlife, natural ecosystems and agricultural landscapes within (the park).” An environmental assessment could follow.


Moving to the Premiers’ incessant demands for greater healthcare funding which climaxed recently with a joint news conference demanding a face-to-face meeting with the PM. Trudeau has said Ottawa will come forward with more funding, but it must be accompanied by “results.” Throwing money into a “broken system” isn’t the answer, Trudeau told reporters last month, but rather provinces need to embrace changes to improve the health services available to Canadians. Other than asking for money, the provinces have provided no plans to tackle what is obviously a system under terrible strain. This is politicians playing high stakes poker while children and adults wait endlessly in emergency departments.


One wonders what goes on in the offices of our leaders who increasingly play their power games with our lives and livelihoods. Governments at all levels are often accused of being out of touch with the real concerns of real people. This seems to be a cancer affecting politicians everywhere. They threaten our rights, refuse to protect the environments we value, are mute while other politicians attack the very structure of our nation. Chretien once said he liked being PM because he could do good. And my old boss often asked as provinces tried to get more money and power, “who speaks for Canada?” Who indeed, and who speaks for us? Who puts our interests first? 

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

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?"

A New Canada to Fight for Our Survival

By Patrick Gossage • December 29, 2025
There has been nothing like the mobilization of our country since we went to war against Hitler “for King and Country.” Now we are mobilizing in a new war against Trump’s depredations with renewed patriotic fervour. Our building a resilient sovereignty against the word’s most irrational and powerful regime - who believe we have no right to exist - will require an enormous dedicated and concentrated effort to redefine our nation. . Make no mistake. We are not seen as important in Washington, a lesson I learned as the Minister of Information at our embassy in the Reagan years. Like Trump’s disparaging attitude to Justin Trudeau, Reagan had little use for his crusading father, Pierre Ytudeau. The difference is that with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney r Reagan actually became a key figure in establishing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), signed in 1988. Ironically, it is precisely the success of this pact that led to 75% of our trade going to the US, a dangerous dependence which is now under extreme threat. The future of the successor to the FTA is at dtake. The US Canada Mexico Agreement (USMCA) is about to be renegotiated and is by no means secure. Bilateral trade discussions on the sectorial tariffs that are destroying our steel, automobile, aluminum and lumber industries were going well but were cancelled on October 23 after Trump, in a fit of pique was annoyed by Ontario TV ads using a Reagan clip to decry tariffs. Prime Minister Carney clings to the hope that these issues will be addressed in the context of the USMCA talks. They are supposed to begin in January. We live in hope. Make no mistake. Trump recently suggested that USMCA’s future was not certain. His strong belief that Canada would be better as a US state _ “and there would be no tariffs” – seems unshakeable. Perhaps the most striking evidence of what low repute Canada is held in the White House comes from Vice President Vance. He has publicly criticized Canada's our generous immigration policies, blaming them for the country's "stagnating" living standards and referring to our approach as "immigration insanity". Vance pointed to a chart from IceCap Asset Management showing that Canada's GDP per capita growth has fallen behind that of the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years. He argues this stagnation is a direct result of Canada's approach to immigration and not U.S. trade policies. He specifically targeted Canada's multiculturalism model, contrasting it with the U.S. "melting pot". Vance claimed that "no nation has leaned more into 'diversity is our strength’... immigration insanity “ than Canada". The White House recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) which also note how immigrants can destroy our democracies. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist signaled this: “It cites activities by our sister European democracies that “undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence. “‘Should present trends continue,” it goes on, “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” These views are totally inimical to Canadian values.  As is this, Trump’s most outrageous recent anti- immigrant outburst as reported by NBC : “For a second day in a row, President Donald Trump launched into a hate-filled rant against Somalia and Somali immigrants living in the US, saying they’ve “destroyed Minnesota” and “our country.” Minnesota, Trump said, is “a hellhole” right now. “The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country.“ The NSC also can affect Canada in its focus on the Western hemisphere. an area to be dominated by US interests. The US will secure critical supply chains in its own interests; and insists on the right of the US to have access to “strategically important locations.” The US National Security Council is to identify strategic points and resources in the Western hemisphere with a view to their protection and joint development with regional partners. Obviously, Canada as a source of critical minerals, will be under US scrutiny. Some observers fear that Trump wants Canada to become a “vassal state”. A December Toronto Star editorial states coldly that “Thanks to Donald Trump, we know that nothing about our country is guaranteed anymore, not our sovereignty, our democracy, our prosperity.” We now know the Canadian policies standing in the way of a new USMCA agreement. US Trade representative Jamieson Greer said our online Streaming Act, which will make profitable US streaming services support Canadian programming is a major irritant as is our sacrosanct supply management regime for dairy and poultry products. These both are very difficult bargaining chips for Canada to play. Trump’s love affair with tariffs is unlikely to subside so Canadian products may continue to be frozen out of the US. Prime Minister Carney’s ambitious strategy of finding alternate markets for these may work. And his new policy framework for rebuilding a successful economy, major infrastructure projects and attracting important foreign investment is a significant redefinition of our national political priorities. He enjoys wide public support for his strategy which also receives good business and media support. There is already some optimism about the economy in 2026 - take Bank of Montreal’s recent outlook paper: “We’re looking for a stronger economy in 2026 than 2025. Consumer spending has helped prop up the economy. The “Buy Canadian” campaign has helped, and more people are travelling closer to home. Also, there’s no question that federal government spending has also supported economic growth. As we move into the latter part of the year—boosted by firmer economic growth and lower population growth—we expect the unemployment rate to fall in the second half. “Canada’s position in the trade dispute isn’t as bad as it appeared earlier in the year. The average Us tariff rate on imports of Canadian goods is between 6% and 7%, compared to the 17% rate the U.S. charges the rest of the world on average. (these rates are goods under the existing CUSMA) Sectorial tariffs are heavily focused on certain targeted industries, such as steel and aluminum, lumber, and auto imports and non-USMCA auto parts. These are important sectors, but they represent a relatively narrow slice of the economy. “ In addition there is good news on the overall trade front. Canada’s trade swung to a surplus of C$0.15 billion in September 2025 from a C$6.3 billion deficit the month before and well above expectations for a C$4.5 billion deficit, Exports rose 6.3 C$ 64.231 billion, the largest monthly increase since February. Nine of 11 product sections posted gains. Metal and non-metallic mineral product exports jumped 22.7% driven by a 30.2% surge in unwrought gold; aircraft and other transportation equipment rose 23.4% and crude oil exports climbed 5.8%. We just may have a more resilient economy than we thought. Nevertheless, we cannot count on Trump agreeing to a new trade regime that is as good as the original NAFTA – and the cost of reducing tariffs on key sectors may be too high, Trump’s love for tariffs and distain for us won’t change. We can only hope that a smart, well connected and determined Prime Minister can rebuild an economy that will be immune to the vagaries of our neighbour.
More Posts