Last night was the first time (this election season) that the Canadian public got a sense of what awaits them in the upcoming election. As much as this may not have technically been the first debate, it certainly felt like the first debate in light of what the previous debate represented.

Previously, the Munk School of Global Affairs had hosted a Federal leaders debate of which 3 of the 6 (from last night) leaders had attended. Where Trudeau declined to show up, Maxime Bernier, head of the People’s Party of Canada, did not receive an invitation. In addition to Bernier, Yves-François Blanchet of the Bloc Quebecois was also excluded from the debate. During the debate last night, on the other hand, there were a wide range of views and a wide range of dynamics at play.

Perhaps nothing summarized the climate of the debate better than Bernier accusing Singh of “being in favour of diversity yet not supporting a diversity of opinions”. Bernier’s accusation came out of the fact that Jagmeet believed Bernier’s views were too radical and hateful to deserve a public platform. On one hand, this had to do with Bernier’s tweets about state-sponsored multiculturalism and mass-immigration, on the other hand, this had to do with Bernier’s tweets about Greta Thunberg having mental disabilities.

First of all, it is worth noting that, in Bernier’s defence, when he mentioned Thunberg and her disabilities in his tweet, it does not seem like he wasn’t doing so with the intention to be insulting. In fact, Bernier specifically indicates that he is coming from a place of “concern”. But, above all else, this is a distraction from a lot of real social and political issues that are affecting the world around us. Thunberg and her U.N. backed personality-cult/doomsday-cult are largely an implicit way to attack “capitalist” Western institutions that are associated with the “straight, white male” while trying to turn the public eye away from issues of trade, war, corruption, etc. In many ways, this represents a tactic whereby “climate change” creates a “common enemy” that the people of the world can rally together against.

But ask yourself, if people did start to consider the political situation above and beyond climate change, what would they find? Above all else, one might be inclined to notice the hypocrisy of so many major corporations promoting these “green” agendas, but that should hardly be given consideration if one looks above and beyond the “green agenda” and onto things like trade, war, and corruption. In trade, do you think people would find Canada is constantly benefiting from a trade surplus? In fiscal policy, do you think people would find Canada is constantly benefiting from a budget surplus? In terms of economic equity, do you think people would find Canada has a low GINI coefficient? In terms of GDP growth, do you think that this is going up or down? What about inflation, employment, crime?

What you might be shocked to find is that Canada has experienced a lot of negative changes after the 1960s. Canada has seen increasing economic inequality, stagnation when it comes to real wage growth, decreased GDP growth, increased unemployment, increased crime, and inflation when it comes to basic costs of living. Even more, this decline has been synonymous with a demographic decline of the European-descended ethnic-majority.

And this is where the situation really comes to light… Not only does the domestic situation reveal the demographically-rooted nature of this problem, but so does the situation when it comes to thing on a global level. We see that Canada is influenced by Wahhabist and Zionist nations like Saudi Arabia and Israel when it comes to the military situation; and we see that Canada is completely dominated by Chinese, American, and other economic interests when it comes to our standing in the global market. In many ways, the truth of the situation that underlies the whole “climate change” narrative is explicitly related to the other contentious point that Bernier was accused of raising in his tweets, namely: mass-immigration and state-sponsored multiculturalism. More specifically though, the climate change narrative overshadows (and yet subtly alludes to) the tendency for White, Western nations to seek to destroy themselves.

While Singh explicitly condemned Bernier for his condemnation of the aforementioned topics, he had nothing to say in condemnation of Blanchet’s defence of Bill 21, a bill recently passed by Quebec’s nationalist provincial government, which prohibited the wearing of religious wear (like burkas and kippahs) while trying to make an exception for the cross on the grounds of cultural significance rather than religious grounds. Unfortunately, the bill was not able to make the exception that it had intended to, however, this bill has become explicitly controversial for its exclusionary nature towards Muslims and Jewish peoples. While Trudeau was fully prepared to condemn such a bill, Singh was rather reluctant, possibly signifying that he could be considering courting the BQ for some kind of political alliance of sorts. Meanwhile, Bernier and Blanchet appeared to be completely on the same boat when it came to Bill 21, signifying another potential political alliance before this upcoming election.

What the attitude the BQ and the PPC represents, when it comes to culture and demographics, is what has been suppressed for quite some time leading up to the election. With many mayoral candidates being denied their rights (according to CRTC rules and regulations), with the CNP being attacked by a NGO through government institutions, and with Antifa assaulting NCA members and trying to sabotage PPC events––Canada has seen the suppression of any views which represent the majority outlook on immigration. To quote Wikipedia:

“An October 2016 study of Canadian values by pollster Angus Reid[75] gave a conflicting picture that about 68% of those polled said they wanted minorities to do more to fit into the mainstream, the same number also said they were nonetheless happy with how the immigrants were integrating themselves into the community. Further, 79% of Canadians believe immigration policy should be based on the country’s economic and labour needs, rather than on the needs of foreigners to escape crises in their home countries…

A 2017 Poll found 32% of Canadians said too many refugees were coming to Canada, up from 30% in 2016. The 2017 poll also asked respondents about their comfort levels with surface diversity, like around people of different races and religions, a question that was also asked in 2005–06. This year, 89% said they were comfortable around people of a different race, down from 94% in 2005–06

In 2018, an Angus Reid Institute poll, found that two-thirds of Canadians—67 per cent—agreed that the situation of Illegal immigration to Canada constitutes a “crisis” and that Canada’s “ability to handle the situation is at a limit”. Fifty-six per cent of respondents who voted Liberal in the 2015 election and 55 per cent of NDP supporters agreed that the matter had reached a crisis level, while 87 per cent of respondents who voted for the Conservatives in the last election called it a crisis. Six-in-ten respondents also told the firm that Canada is “too generous” toward would-be refugees, a spike of five percentage points since the question was asked last year.

In a 2019 poll, by EKOS Research Associates, found about 40 per cent of Canadians feel there are too many non-white immigrants coming to the country.”
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#Recent_Canadian_attitudes_towards_immigration)

With Voter Turnout reaching all time lows, with around 30% of the population abstaining from previously voting, and with attitudes towards immigration as they are, it is not hard to expect that we might see the continued beginnings of a Populist-Conservative, if not a “National-Populist Revolution” in this country.

* If you would like to access premium content and videos here at The Red Ensign, consider becoming a subscriber: www.redensign.ca/subscribe. Only monthly subscribers get media access to interviews and behind-the-scenes engagements of the Canadian Nationalist Party.

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are those of the author exclusively. They do not represent the positions of the Canadian Nationalist Party, their employees or of other organizations with which they are or have been affiliated. This site is provided for informational purposes only. Links to third party websites are provided for the convenience of users, and do not constitute an endorsement of their contents or a representation as to their accuracy.

Author

Maurice Porter

Located in Ontario, Canada, Maurice Porter is a journalist who focuses on history and current through a Nationalist lens. Having attended university in Waterloo, Porter studied history, politics, and philosophy from a Occidentalist approach. Maurice manages the MacDonald Institute and wrote the MacDonald Mandate, which is currently being used by the Canadian Nationalist Party.