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

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