One week into the longest federal election campaign in our time and what do we know about the politicians who seek the highest office in the country? Honestly, not a lot we didn’t know about them before, but that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been the Harper we’ve all come to know, mostly promising to stay the course on the economy with low taxes and to get even tougher on terrorism. He began the campaign with a vow to bring an additional 10,000 refugees to Canada from Iraq and Syria, and considering the overwhelming humanitarian crises in the region, this is something any potential leader should carry through with. He also promises to make travel to areas controlled by terrorists a criminal offence for Canadians. Aid workers and journalists will be exempt, if they get government permission. What will they do if that permission is denied? Who knows? Who judges?
Then there was the great Maclean’s Magazine debate in which the four party leaders did their best to sound intelligent and look good before TV cameras. Again, Harper stuck to being Harper – no surprises there. Strangely uncharismatic NDP leader Thomas Mulcair seemed thrilled that he somehow tricked the prime minister into admitting Canada is in a recession. We can only guess that he hoped most Canadians don’t read the national business pages, which reported that fact more than a week earlier.
The surprise of the debate, if you can call it that, came from Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, the youngest contender with the best hair and lowest expectations whom many pundits predicted would fail miserably. Instead, some of those same pundits have since corrected their earlier appraisals, reporting that he held his own on points regarding the economy. He also showed no fear of taking on the others as he went after Mulcair on the Clarity Act. True, Canadian unity is not exactly on the agenda in this election, but the exchange showed indications that the young Trudeau may have inherited a little similarity to his father – a point that will definitely sit better with some voters than others.
On the natural resources front, some politicians continue to deliver platitudes rather than engage voters with meaningful dialogue. Following the Linda McQuaig flap over the weekend, Mulcair tried to defend his star candidate by going on the offensive and bashing Harper’s environmental record. “We’re in favour of creating markets for our natural resources, we’re in favour of developing them. But that has to be done sustainably, and sustainable development is not a slogan, it’s something that has to become very real.” Everyone, of course, is in favour of sustainable development; it’s a motherhood and apple pie phrase. But what exactly does that mean? Platitudes mean different things to different people – exactly the reaction many politicians relish because it allows them to skate around the issue without ever revealing their true intentions. On this issue Alberta Premier Rachel Notley must be unequivocal. She must define for Albertans exactly what she means by a “sustainable” energy industry. Asking her spokesperson to tell us, “We’ve always been committed to the sustainability of the energy industry, which provides good, mortgage-paying jobs, and nothing has changed,” is not good enough. Albertans deserve more.
